511–520 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what happened to lehman bros, bear stearns...? The worst companies did fail. You would never see that in the government
Governments fail too - every four years (US), sometimes, or some multiple thereof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop trying to solve problems 100 years from now in other countries though. The US is an enormously attractive immigration target and can easily bring in enormous numbers of new workers if it wants to. It's so good at this that it actually has and those people pay taxes but don't get government benefits.
You make it sound like the US is a parasite that takes the young of other countries to endow itself, never mind what happens about other countries. Maybe it is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you help brainstorm ideas instead of being dismissive? There is no right answer right now. Clearly in order for society to move forward in a healthy way, single individuals cannot amass wealth/power that is a millennia ahead of everyone else. The goal isn't to say you can't be wealthy. The goal is wealth/power cannot be obscenely beyond everyone else. These few individuals have more power than governments.…
The OP just wants your hands off their money. They know it's a problem. It's not one they want solved. They probably also think they genuinely accumulated their wealth strictly from their own skillset with no external factors contributing to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also that this wealth is dependent on value. It's not like having cash. It's shares, whose value will go down if the company stops providing value.
Yes, in this theoretical world where stocks trend down over extended periods of time, I could see this being an issue. In the fairy farts world of the US stock markets, we don't often see mega corps trend down. That's why every American pension is piled into SP500... Which is really driven by the growth of like 10 companies, tops.
[0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy (I know, I know, rationalwiki)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, in this theoretical world where stocks trend down over extended periods of time, I could see this being an issue. In the fairy farts world of the US stock markets, we don't often see mega corps trend down. That's why every American pension is piled into SP500... Which is really driven by the growth of like 10 companies, tops.
But that's only if they keep generating value. Plenty of companies don't do that and we forget about them. Basing one's worldview only on peak performers is the apex fallacy[0]. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy (I know, I know, rationalwiki)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OP just wants your hands off their money. They know it's a problem. It's not one they want solved. They probably also think they genuinely accumulated their wealth strictly from their own skillset with no external factors contributing to it.
Do they think they're a 100-billionaire too? Life goals I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Governments fail too - every four years (US), sometimes, or some multiple thereof.
thats not the government failing, its a political party failing. The administrative state remains intact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tax wealth somehow, not just income. It's clear the accumulation has become a generational problem. Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do nothing and yours would never have a fraction of the wealth his have.
>Tax wealth somehow I don't unserstand how you can tax something that varies in value by double digit percentages every week. If Elon got taxed when TSLA was $450 per share, and six months later it's now $250 per share... How much should he be taxed? Should he be provided a tax refund?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im afraid you'd need to be pretty liberal with your definition of rich at this point to dig us out of this hole through taxes alone.
The top 11–12 richest individuals in the U.S. hold assets equivalent to the national budget deficit. Let’s not fool ourselves. The money is there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universities could pay for all of the research themselves theoretically considering they're the largest business in most states. Their portfolio income, the sports income, the donations, and the free real estate given to land grant universities that has been heavily monetized all add up. Of course I doubt they will allocate money to research, but they could if that was truely their purpose as an organization.
There’s could and then there’s should. Could they? I don’t know, I’d have to look at their finances individually, it’s not like all of them have Harvard level endowments or alabamas football income. Should they? We literally built a juggernaut with our incumbent model that is the envy of the entire world and has produced untold innovation and wealth creation, for pennies of our tax dollars. The only reason I can see…