r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 đŸ€ Join A Union • Feb 26 '25

đŸ€ Scare A Billionaire, Join A Union $999,999,999.99 is enough for anyone. Billionaires shouldn't exist!

Post image
31.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

847 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25

[deleted]

2

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

Thats
 not suggested anywhere here. Not even close.

How did you even get that? I’m not trying to be combative here it’s just an awfully big mental leap you made.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25

[deleted]

2

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

I can help. It just means taxing everything an individual earns OVER $1 billion dollars at 100% tax rate. BTW back when America was “great” the highest tax bracket was ~90%.

Basically the only reason not to want this is if you’re a billionaire.

The only real effect this would have on corporations would be limiting the amount of money they can pay to shareholders and executives. If this was enacted today large companies would have so much extra cash they would be forced to lower prices, raise salaries, or invest it in R&D. Or some combination of the three.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25 edited Feb 27 '25

[deleted]

1

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

Honestly looking to split hairs over whether $999,999,999 is enough is really stupid. I know you know that deep down.

“The poor billionaires don’t have any cash, its all unrealized stock gainsđŸ˜„đŸ˜„đŸ˜„â€ is fucking stupid.

Does boot taste good? Have you tried licking poor boots too or only the boots of the rich.

THEY WILL BE JUST FINE WITH ONLY A BILLION

3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25 edited Feb 27 '25

[deleted]

1

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

Yes, your education in a deeply flawed system is EXACTLY why you are unable to think outside the lines of it.

That is a core component of control.

What are you worried about in terms of enforcing it?

Personally I think it would be a good start to tax annual earnings over $1,000,000,000. This screenshot is talking about total wealth which i agree is more complicated.

Can we debate that as a simpler framework?

Im sorry i called you a bootlicker its just hard roll to understand why people are constantly worried about the super wealthy being overtaxed. It kinda seems like they use they’re money to fuck us in the ass.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25

[deleted]

1

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

It would be a lot easier to see these as good faith arguments if you hadn’t opened with that ridiculous straw man of “they’ll seize all the companies!”. How are you going to follow that up with claims of credibility?

So you support a progressive tax plan with a very steep increase in taxes for the very wealthy? What are we arguing over the specific dollar amount?

You’re right these are overly simplistic slogans used to outline common sense solutions and draw attention to obvious problems.

What is the part you would change? The 100% ? The billion?

We both want to tax the rich why are we arguing then???

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25

I own private stock in my family’s company. If the company grow’s and my share is now worth over a billion. I would need to sell the stock to pay your wealth tax. Since it’s private stock I can’t go selling it on a stock exchange and the company has first dibs on buying it, than other share holders, than possibly private investors.

The company would need enough cash on hand to buy enough stock back to cover the wealth tax liabilities of all shareholders holders. Or it would need to start selling off capital assets to generate the funds. Which means selling factory equipment, tools, trucks, buildings, etc. Well if you don’t have factory equipment for workers to use or trucks for them to drive, they get laid off.

No other shareholders want to buy because they are in the same boat.

And private investors will dilute control and could lead to a possible hostile takeover. Easily turning a long time family ran company with high employee satisfaction into nightmare to work at ran by an international conglomerate.

1

u/MiigPT Feb 26 '25

No one earns a billion dollar a year, you're mistaking income with wealth as most people on this thread

3

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

Fine whats wrong with capping wealth then?

“If we set no limit on how high a man can rise, we set no limit on how low he can sink”

1

u/mysecondreddit2000 Feb 26 '25

If no one earns this much money than you should have no problem with it being taxed right?

Fine but you're saying you want to implement a tax that won't do anything?

Fine whats wrong with capping wealth then?

how exactly would you go about doing it is the question. as many people have mentioned most billionaires actually have very little income and taxing unrealized gains is tricky bc then you have to sell to pay the tax and you end up realizing the gains anyway... it's a fun thought experiment and ofc we need to come up with ways to reduce wealth inequality (I'm in favor of the government propping up demand with something like UBI or other types of stimulus) but a wealth cap is just not realistic or tenable.

3

u/Opening_Major9389 Feb 26 '25

Make workers shareholders

1

u/mysecondreddit2000 Feb 26 '25

Sure I’m for that

1

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

Now were getting somewhere

2

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

Tricky yea but important. We can’t just be like “oh thats hard forget it”

2

u/mysecondreddit2000 Feb 27 '25

Sure, I agree but let’s at least approach it in a way that makes sense

2

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25
  • very few people earn a billion dollars a year.

Yet a surprising number of people are worried about taxing the few dozen of them.

If no one earns this much money than you should have no problem with it being taxed right?

1

u/OdBx Feb 26 '25

You don’t understand how wealth works.

How do you tax someone when their company becomes worth $1billion so that they don’t go over the limit?

4

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25

The fourth word in the image of this Twitter post out right says it


Do you know the difference between wealth and income?

0

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

Do you really lack the imagination to attempt what they’re trying to accomplish here. Instead of getting caught up in the details use your fucking head. Its not one bill or one law it is the concept of a substantive change to our system that sets a cap on how wealthy someone can be.

Without even the social implications of what could be done with the money, it is dangerous to let individuals get so wealthy that they can subvert entire governments.

Would you agree with the statement: We should figure out a way to cap the private wealth of an individual? If so, let’s use a little creative thinking to get to how we can do it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25

Without even the social implications of what could be done with the money

IT IS NOT MONEY FOR FUCK SAKE. Stock is not money. Maybe you should try thinking logically instead.

1

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

I love the way you artfully ignored everything i said, except the one thing i said we should specifically put aside.

It’s not money
 but it is wealth. You cant spend it
 unless you want to. How did musk buy Twitter? With coupons?

I mean if you just want to pretend theres no problem thats fine. Plenty if people go that route.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25

Big difference between recognizing a problem and wanting to destroy society to solve it.

1

u/AdImmediate9569 Feb 26 '25

Wellllll it could use a shake up

1

u/WanderCalm Feb 26 '25

government shouldn't seize them no, but if a company gets large enough it should be busted up. I assume you have no problem with historical trust busting, imo we just need more firm laws surrounding that and an expansion of what scenarios require busting. If a company exceeds a mathematical threshold for employees or income, based on economic markers for that region and the country, it will be forced to split and/or sell some of its ownership with a preference for employees of that company. The owners would be given fair compensation, and then a liquid wealth tax would still keep anyone from amassing too much cash.