There are no ethical billionaires. I said it.

[Coventina]

I stand by it.

They should not be allowed to exist.

They are a threat to the planet.

Every day convinces me more and more of this truth.

[Tim S]

1. Amen to that! Obscene Wealth is a symptom of Sociopathic Wealth Hoarding

That kind of wealth means they are not paying their employees enough and/or disproportionately ripping off their customers and have no problems sleeping at night.

I think it’s a mental illness.

[OhioBlue]

2. I agree - plus as the Epstein files show us it gives them a sense of invulnerability

They can do whatever they want and they will be protected by their money.

They plot with each other on how to control our lives and how to squeeze more and more wealth from us. They are parasites.

[multigraincracker]

3. American was greatest when the highest

tax rate was 90% with few deductions.

[misanthrope]

5. Not if you were Black, or a woman, or LGBTQ

Our economy might have superficially appeared more robust, but a closer look showed a more problematic reality.

[multigraincracker]

7. At what time was it greater?

[yellowdogintexas]

70. The Eisenhower presidency up into JFK

Corporate tax % was 90.
That is what I keep reading.

Business was booming, many families did not need two incomes

JFK lowered it to 51%, I believe.

Many things were not better for minorities, especially blacks - for example equal pay for equal work was non existent except if you had a Union job. Farmworkers were paid a pittance.

[Jose Garcia]

108. White men didn't have to compete against women or African-Americans for higher-paying jobs

[Callie1979]

64. There were MANY deductions. No one paid 90%.

I think the effective rate was more like low 40s
Which IS still better than today's rates.

[multigraincracker]

65. That's why we need a wealth tax for the top 10%.

[Callie1979]

67. Ugh. We're just never gong to learn.

[Soul_of_Wit]

110. Federal income tax rates are marginal tax rates

You only pay the top marginal rate on income over a certain amount. For example, the top current rate of 37% is only paid on income in excess of $640K (and an even higher cutoff for married filing jointly.) This marginal tax rate literally only applies to the top 1% (approximately) of earners -- and only to their income beyond that $640K cutoff. The hidden reality is that a large chunk of that top 1% produces income only or mostly from capital gains (decidedly not taxed at 37%.)

[efhmc]

4. Couple it with citizens united and away goes democracy.

[OC375]

6. If it keeps on raining...

?si=eeOc1e2X6hx2RDH0

[Grim Chieftain]

8. George Soros?

I thought he was on our side.

[lastlib]

22. Well, he's not meeting his payroll obligations.......

I have never gotten a cent from him......

[Grim Chieftain]

27. Sorry, I'm unaware of this

Could you fill me in? Thanks

[MadameButterfly]

30. A joke, I think?

[yellowdogintexas]

71. Neither have I. What was it $20 an hour we were all supposed to be getting

for all our demonstrations and so forth?

I am definitely in the hole

[ck4829]

92. Right?

[MadameButterfly]

29. I was going to say the same. But I looked him up to make sure there wasn't some obvious

crooked reason for his wealth.

While there is some controversy over his shorting of currencies, especially the British pound, his resume is rather impressive. Starting with a dad who was a hero saving Jews from Nazis, including his own family, and raising his son to speak Esperanto. He went to London School of Economics and ironically, didn't have good enough grades to stay on for studies to become a professor.
His money and influence helped fuel the fall of communism in Eastern European countries, and has been important is the new republics after the fall of the USSR. He began contributing to US politics to help defeat Bush (W).
Soros has given away most of his fortune to philanthropic causes.

I'm not suggesting billionares as a rule are good, but I'm glad we have this one on our side.
Mostly I just wish we'd set some boundaries to protect democracy and the economy--campaign finance reform, get rid of Citizens United, trust-busting, limiting hedge funds buying housing, etc. So the rich don't just keep getting more and more of the pie and more and more control.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

112. My county's District Attorney was helped by Soros group

[Escape]

9. Greed is a serious sickness..

...and a sickness that is applauded, respected and admired in our society.

[GiqueCee]

21. Robert Mercer once said...

... "Money is how we keep score!" THAT is how fucked up most of them are.

[AllyCat]

10. I would agree. No one should have that much money and wealth.

No. One. Not even Pritzker.

[Dr. T]

11. If I had a million dollars, I could live quite comfortably

for the rest of my life. At some point, it's just a number to them. Billionaires probably couldn't spend it all in their lifetime and yet they want more.

[patphil]

12. Nothing is more pathetic, and dangerous than a person who is worth billions wanting more.

801 US billionaires are worth over 6.2 trillion dollars. That's over 20% of the Gross Domestic Product in the hands of 801 people.
And they all want more.

[Bev54]

13. I only know of one

MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos's ex-wife who has been donating her billions, unlike his new wife who is spending his money as fast as possible, on herself, of course.

[TNNurse]

15. She is the exception to the statement.

She is generous, and wise and caring.

Also Melinda Gates.

[mountain grammy]

19. number one giver?

Michael Bloomberg.. I heard that somewhere. that's all I know.

[MadameButterfly]

32. yeah but watch out

He was a Republican for a long time. Kept the Senate red under Obama. There have been world repercussions for that.
He bought the mayorship in NYC in part because so many charities owed him. We would have had Mark Greene. History would have been different.

I'm glad to have his money now on our side instead of theirs. But he helped create the situation we are in.

[mountain grammy]

46. Oh I agree

I don’t even know if it’s true just heard it said by someone who is usually reliable.

[Polybius]

72. Yet he was our best Mayor since at least Fiorello LaGuardia

His first term was beyond elite. His second term was excellent, and his third was weak because he went Nanny state with that big soda ban.

[MadameButterfly]

77. That's a sweeping and vague comment that some will disagree with

i recall stop and frisk and the sale and development of some long time community gardens.

The "Nanny State" wan't just big sugary drinks, it was smoking bans in public places and trans fat bans, calorie listings for fast food...that part I supported. "Nanny" was derogatory for not letting big corporations make a profit off of poisoning people.

[Tree Lady]

38. Melinda Gates and Jobs widow they are giving

A lot of their wealth.

It really says something how greedy their husbands were compared to them.

[Amaryllis]

107. Abigail Disney

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. Well, maybe not all

Melinda Gates and Mackenzie Scott (Bezos ex) come to mind.

[lastlib]

24. Warren Buffet is probably on the good list.

Bill Gates might make it, except for his Epstein issue.

[MadameButterfly]

33. i understand Epstein is why Melinda got out

[summer_in_TX]

73. That and his affairs.

[hatrack]

37. Buffett denies climate science i.e. is a liar for money . . .

So was his late right-hand man, Charlie Munger.

EDIT

Buffett summed up his rejection of climate proposals succinctly at the 2014 Berkshire annual meeting: “I don’t think in making an investment decision on Berkshire Hathaway, or most companies — virtually all of the companies I can think of — that climate change should be a factor in the decision-making process.”

Berkshire vice chairman Charlie Munger has been less subtle, taking a tone on climate that once led Buffett to respond to his comments in front of shareholders by saying, “We don’t want to start a political rally.”

At the 2015 meeting, Munger said: “I don’t think it’s totally clear what the effects of global warming will be on extremes of weather. I think there’s a lot of guesswork in that field and a lot of people who like howling about calamities that are by no means sure, like a crazy ideology. Not that global warming isn’t happening, just you can get so excited and make crazy extrapolations that are not necessarily correct.”

A year later Munger had more to say about shareholder proposals: “We’re asked, as a corporation, to take a public stance on very complicated issues. We’ve got crime in the cities. We’ve got 100 — we’ve got 1,000 — complicated issues that are very material to our civilization. And if we spend our time in the meeting taking public stands on all of them, I think it would be quite counterproductive. And I don’t like the fact that the people that constantly present this issue never discuss any solution, except reducing consumption of fossil fuels. So there are geo-engineering possibilities that nobody’s willing to talk about, and I think that’s asinine, so put me down as not welcoming.”

EDIT

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/heres-what-warren-buffett-thinks-about-climate-change-and-investing.html

EDIT

Warren Buffett helped to defeat a shareholder resolution Saturday that urged his sprawling conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc. to inform investors of the risks it faces from climate change. The billionaire also offered a full-throated defense of the oil and gas industry.

The failed climate risk resolution garnered support from more than 25% of Berkshire shareholders at its annual meeting. That more than doubled the high-water mark for an environmental proposal at the company, no small feat given that Buffett alone controls more than a third of Berkshire’s voting shares.

The support for the climate resolution — and another that called for a report on Berkshire’s diversity efforts, which garnered 24% of votes — are a sign to some Wall Street giants that the conglomerate’s 90-year-old chairman and CEO is increasingly out of step with mainstream investors.

Ahead of the vote, Berkshire’s top executives spent several hours answering questions from shareholders submitted via email. In that freewheeling forum, Buffett and his lieutenants defended their investment in the oil major Chevron Corp. and downplayed concerns about climate change."I think Chevron’s benefited society in all kinds of ways, and I think it continues to do so," said Buffett, whose company at the end of last year owned a 2.5% stake in the California-based driller. "We’re going to need a lot of hydrocarbons for a long time, and we’ll be very glad we’ve got them."

EDIT

https://www.eenews.net/articles/warren-buffett-sinks-climate-measure-says-world-will-adapt/

[MadameButterfly]

74. Thanks for the heads up

I tend to expect everyone to vote with their party's block of issues. I.E., if he makes responsible comments on taxing the rich, you think he's not also going to tank the planet.

[dpibel]

58. Isn't the question how he made the billions?

Stealing ideas. Running competitors out of business. Unfair practices. Monopolization (or attempts at, anyway).

At least as I read it, the OP is not about whether billionaires try for redemption once they've fought and clawed their way to the billions.

It's how they get the billions in the first place, and the fact we have a system that lets them--nay, encourages them--to pillage at will.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

113. Buffett is clearly on the good list

I got to meet Buffett at a dinner for a deal. I dragged my ex-wife from judging a swim meet and she came with wet hair. Buffett went over to her and talked about swim meets while the head of a local CPA firm was mad that Buffett was paying attention to someone else. Buffett is a good man as is his son who is helping out Ukraine

Link to tweet

[Callie1979]

25. Apparently they should also be done away with.

I swear we're going to screw up these elections if we dont read the damn tea leaves of WHY we lost the last one

[SharonAnn]

16. "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime".

[MadameButterfly]

36. Or an inheritance

[ck4829]

100. ... that came from a crime.

[Fil1957]

17. I think there are some that are ethical, just not enough. And I agree that billionaires should not be allowed to exist,

even ethical ones.

[MadameButterfly]

34. Or at least they should be taxed enough

that society benefits and there should be limits on their influence on elections.

[iscooterliberally]

18. Good people are not billionaires. n/t

[MadameButterfly]

39. George Soros, Paul McCartney,

JD Pritzger, Melinda Gates, Mackenzie Scott....

I'm not saying it's the norm, it's just not universally true.

[iscooterliberally]

84. I'm not so sure that anyone on your list is actually a good person.

They can all afford to buy the best PR firms, not just merely hire them. I think they give cover to the idea that it's OK for billionaires to exist at all. I love Paul McCartney's music and went to see him years ago so it pains me to think that he's probably not a good person either. I'm sticking with my statement though. I really believe that good people are not billionaires, it's all just an illusion. The love of money truly is the root of all evil.

[MadameButterfly]

90. George Soros has donated 32 billion and still has 7.2 billion

I think given numbers like that it's a little presumptuous of any of us to decide where the line is of how much money he can retain to qualify as a good person.

I can't speak about the dealings of rich businessmen, but we know how Paul McCartney made his money. I'd say the world is better for it. He is recognized as one of the top celebrity donors. One of his many causes is to end poverty.

That said, we need all kinds of laws to limit the abuse of money and power by wealthy people, and to shrink the income gap. I just don't feel the need to proclaim that all billionaires are bad. There are plenty that I know are bad, and I'll stick to that.

[librechik]

20. Without question. N/t

[Callie1979]

23. Hopefully the Democratic Party doesnt make that opinion a platform of the Party.

It's a LOSING position & I'd really like to win BIG in Nov & '28
The polls are great right now but it's entirely possible to screw that up. Remember, in '92 HW Bush had an approval rating around 90% and still LOST.

[MadameButterfly]

35. I agree--we don't need this fight in actual elections

There are lots of ways to reduce the damage big money has on the economy and politics without setting a limit on wealth.

[Callie1979]

63. Yes! Getting rid of unfair tax breaks, untaxed income, etc. Things MANY would get behind

[dpibel]

59. Did I miss something?

Is the OP author involved in drafting the Democratic platform?

Does the OP suggest that this position be part of the Democratic platform?

I'm thinking the answer to both is, "No." Which means you are beating up here on a bit of a straw person.

[Callie1979]

66. I refer you to post #31 & others. Lots WANT it to be a part of the platform

And it's a total LOSING idea.
Already some Congressional Dems have proposed a nearly 50% increase in capital gains taxes. Thats total insanity & another vote killer.
We MUST stop trump & his cult. THAT is the ONLY thing that matters

[dpibel]

68. I do not see "platform" or any remote synonym

in post 31.

Nor do I see anyone in this thread, other than you, discussing the D party platform.

Stating a position on a political discussion board actually does not automatically constitute a demand on the platform or the party.

I'm not sure the hyperbole helps your case much. You apparently believe billionaires have gotten to be billionaires through hard work and honest dealing and that many of them--maybe most--go forth and do good deeds with their billions.

To that I can only say: Bless your heart.

[Callie1979]

80. You dont get it. Most DUers are "workers". They participate. They contribute.

They use their voices
Everyone here posting about how GREAT it would be to get rid of billionaires would openly support a candidate pushing such a plan. You're splitting hairs.
I've been trying to get people to understand HOW & WHY we lost in 2024. Simply NOT being the GOP isnt enough to win. We've fallen for that before.
This isnt a defense of "billionaires". I've already said we need to get rid of the tax breaks they get that WE dont. The different treatment. But we're NOT balancing the budget trying to make them disappear. And we WONT win any votes we dont already HAVE
But hey, carry on & push the losing positions from '24 and see how it goes.

[ck4829]

97. Weird though how billionaires poisoning politics will cause us to lose Democracy though

Lose elections or lose democracy... Wow

[Callie1979]

104. What do you think are the top 3-4 reasons we lost in '24?

Just curious.
because if we dont learn from the voters we lost in '24 who voted for Biden in '20, we're in trouble.

[ck4829]

114. Dark money is up there

The 2024 federal election cycle was the most secretive since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. Dark money groups, nonprofits and shell companies that spend on elections without revealing their donors, plowed more than $1.9 billion into last year’s election cycle, a dramatic increase from the prior record of $1 billion in 2020.

Citizens United, which allowed corporations and unions to raise and spend unlimited amounts on elections, was premised significantly on the Court’s assumption that all of this newly permitted election spending would be transparent. In reality, many of the groups the Court allowed to spend money on elections were not required to disclose their donors. Since Citizens United, dark money groups have spent at least $4.3 billion on federal elections.

As dark money has proliferated, it has also evolved. Immediately after Citizens United, many newly empowered groups purchased their own ads to influence elections. Some of these purchases were reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which makes such information publicly available. However, since at least 2020, dark money groups have largely shifted toward making large transfers to allied super PACs — in amounts that far exceeded any previous direct ad spending. These totals can only be tabulated by reviewing each super PAC’s campaign finance reports. Dark money groups also increasingly run ads, including many online ads, that are worded and timed such that they do not trigger FEC disclosure requirements.

This analysis offers the first comprehensive accounting of dark money in the most recent federal election cycle. It combines publicly available FEC data with data on otherwise undisclosed television spending from the Wesleyan Media Project, a research institute that tracks political advertising, and data on digital political ad sales that certain online platforms voluntarily make public. Some other categories of undisclosed political spending cannot be reliably tracked. Therefore, the $1.9 billion figure reported in this analysis necessarily — and perhaps substantially — underestimates the true scale of dark money spending in 2024.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark-money-hit-record-high-19-billion-2024-federal-races

Billionaires are not going to save us in any situation.

[lastlib]

26. Shakespeare Amendment:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the billionaires."

[LudwigPastorius]

75. You don't need to kill them, just take away their money.

Most of them would then commit suicide, because their money is all they have going for themselves.

[greatauntoftriplets]

28. JB Pritzker, Governor of Illinois.

[OneGrassRoot]

31. How sad that not everyone agrees...

A system that allows billionaire status shouldn’t exist. No billionaires are reliably on “our side” - if they were, they’d give away enough money to no longer be a billionaire. I can appreciate when good is done with their funds, but unspendable wealth is obscene in my very strong opinion. They should help dismantle tha system.

[ancianita]

42. You don't think JB Pritzker and Tom Steyer are reliably on our side? Seriously?

Steyer is running for governor of California. He'll be good for CA. He and Pritzker both know how to run states.

[MadameButterfly]

44. I prefer Steyer stay out of the governor's race until he gets some experience.

in politics and not just try to step in at the top because he has money. There are better candidates for California. This is hilighting the problem with billionaires.

[ancianita]

47. You need to take a closer look at him, imo. Just what is your standard for "enough" political experience?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer

Steyer and Taylor created the TomKat Ranch in Pescadero, California, near Half Moon Bay.[31] The ranch is meant to research and demonstrate a sustainable way of doing agriculture.[32] The ranch's activities include underwriting healthy food programs and co-producing an independent film, La Mission, starring Benjamin Bratt, about San Francisco's Mission neighborhood.[33] Around 2011, Steyer joined the board of Next Generation, a nonprofit intending to tackle children's issues and the environment. In 2013, Steyer founded NextGen Climate, an environmental advocacy nonprofit and political action committee.[2]

In August 2015, Steyer launched the Fair Shake Commission on Income Inequality and Middle Class Opportunity, which was intended to advocate policies for promoting income equality...

In 1983, Steyer worked on Walter Mondale's presidential campaign.[35] He raised money for Bill Bradley in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.[36]


Steyer in 2008
An early supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2008, Steyer became one of Barack Obama's most prolific fundraisers. Steyer served as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 2004 and 2008.[37] Steyer has been a member of the Hamilton Project[38] and has been involved with the Democracy Alliance, a network of progressive donors whose membership in the group requires them to donate at least $200,000 a year to recommended organizations.[39][40]

California ballot measures
Steyer has been active in California politics, particularly in ballot initiative campaigns.[41] In 2010, Steyer joined the former Secretary of State, San Francisco-based George Shultz, to co-chair the No on Prop. 23 campaign. Proposition 23, backed by a coalition including conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, aimed to overturn California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Steyer donated $5 million to the No on Prop. 23 campaign, which succeeded with a margin of 61%.[42][43][44]

In 2012, Steyer was the leading sponsor of Proposition 39 on the ballot in California. Its purpose was to close a loophole that allowed multi-state corporations to pay taxes out of state, mandating that they pay in California. Funds raised by closing the loophole, estimated at $1 billion annually, went to a combination of clean energy projects and the state's general fund. Steyer contributed $29.6 million to the campaign, saying that he could wait no longer for the change.[45][46][47] The initiative passed with 61% of the vote.[48]

While supporters of Steyer's effort said it would "help break the partisan gridlock in Sacramento", critics objected that "the increasing involvement of rich individuals perverts the original intent of the initiatives". Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said that the level of giving was unprecedented for an individual donor.[47] Some critics called the initiative an ineffective jobs stimulus, while Steyer labeled it a success for closing a corporate loophole.[49]

Steyer co-chaired the 2016 campaign in support of California's Proposition 56, which raised the state's tobacco tax by $2 per pack to fund a combination of healthcare programs, Medi-Cal, and tobacco-use prevention.[50] He contributed more than $11 million to the effort and appeared in the campaign's television advertising.When Proposition 56 was approved with 64% of the vote, it became the first successful ballot initiative to raise the tobacco tax in over a decade, ultimately directing over $1 billion per year to the Medi-Cal program.[51][52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer

[OneGrassRoot]

82. They perpetuate the system...

and that system is NOT good for the average person. I honestly think any progressive-minded billionaire who gives away enough money to remove themselves from billionaire status would win in a heartbeat. I would LOVE it if Pritzger would do that.

[MadameButterfly]

43. George Soros has given away the overwhelming majority of his wealth

just not down to the last billion. I'm good with that.

In a perfect world he might not think he needed billions to help break up the USSR and support the resulting new republics, or opposed George W. Bush, or buy up local news/radio stations in the US to not let them all fall into the hand of the RW. Maybe if the other billionaires didn't exist, we wouldn't need Soros. But until that happens, I won't call Soros obscene for keeping more that 1 billion.

[OneGrassRoot]

88. That's fair, but please note...

I'm not "attacking" the billionaires themselves. although I certainly would think more highly of any progressive-minded billionaire who recognized the damage of a system which allows for unspendable wealth and did their part to dismantle it. I don't have a spreadsheet in my head of who is a "good" or "bad" billionaire. The SYSTEM that allows billionaires not only to exist but proliferate as is now the case is what is obscene.

[OneGrassRoot]

89. And to add...

as I was asked elsewhere, while I can appreciate any good that is done by people like Soros and Cuban, the fact that they perpetuate a system which allows them to have unspendable wealth makes me feel that, ultimately, when we get to the bottom line of it all, they aren't on our side because that system is destroying nearly everyone and everything except for the billionaire class.

[MadameButterfly]

102. Fair enough but

one must look closer. Soros made a lot of money on theories that have the potential of changing how financial markets work. Joe Kennedy made money on the stock market and then made his strategies illegal when he worked for FDR, making the stock market a fairer place. Insider trading, for example, wasn't illegal until he made it so. One of Paul McCartney's causes is to end poverty. I don't know much about the organizations he is funding, but I'm guessing they will be more effective than just giving up his billion.

But I think you are talking about things more fundamental, and I agree with that.
The Vanderbuilts and the Rockefellers gave away a lot of money after destroying the lives of their workers to get wealthy.
For example.

[ancianita]

40. Off the top, JB Pritzker is an ethical billionaire. You don't want him allowed to exist? What does that even mean?

Then there's ...
Warren Buffett: Known for pledging almost all his wealth to philanthropic foundations, including the Gates Foundation.
Bill & Melinda French Gates: Through their foundation, they focus on reducing extreme poverty, improving global healthcare, and expanding education access.
MacKenzie Scott: Recognized for rapidly donating significant portions of her wealth to various non-profit organizations and community initiatives.
George Soros: Founder of Open Society Foundations, which focuses on human rights, justice, and education.
Azim Premji: Founder of the Azim Premji Foundation, dedicated to reforming school systems in India.
Michael Bloomberg: Known for large-scale donations to public health, climate change, and education.
Chuck Feeney (Deceased): Known for giving away his entire fortune ($8 billion+) during his lifetime to educational and charitable causes.
Tom Steyer: an American businessman, billionaire, and environmentalist, graduate of Yale and Stanford, member of the Democratic Party, became an advocate for climate action and founded the political advocacy organization NextGen America.

The Giving Pledge: Founded by Buffett and the Gateses, this initiative encourages the world's wealthiest individuals to donate the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes.

This mentality of throwing out the baby with the bath water isn't sensible. Humans, including billionaire humans, aren't defined by their wealth, but by what they do with it.

[mike_c]

41. greed is a public health issue...

...as the greed of wealth hoarders harms everyone else.

[Mysterian]

45. I agree

It would embarrass me to be a hoarder of wealth. It is a plain and obvious evil to anyone who who wants to live in a fair, just and peaceful society. Marx was correct that capitalism is self-destructive. Without strong, progressive taxation and estate taxes, a capitalistic society will implode inevitably, which is what is happening to the USA.

[ancianita]

48. Anti-billionaires here are too broad brush. The mentality of throwing out the baby with the bath water is

a kind of mental laziness. Humans, especially the ethical billionaire ones, are more complicated in their efforts than they're given credit for.

[Mysterian]

55. ZZZZZzzzzzzz..........

[DFW]

57. Brava, giusto.

There has ALWAYS been some group of people responsible for something that bothers you. Libbruls, corporatists, Jews, Arabs, Asians, Africans, billionaires, academics, zoologists of Inuit origin, whatever. Just make sure they don’t exist any more and your life will be carefree and wonderful.

But before you go roaming the world with your Acme hand-held neutron bomb thrower, and your license to kill, personally notarized by Charlie Kirk’s ghost, just be aware that making your life carefree and wonderful will involve more than eradicating some group you are sure is responsible for all that bothers you. It has been tried throughout history, and it hasn’t worked yet.

[dpibel]

60. That rhetoric is beneath you

A cheap bit of reductio ad absurdum

Please show me where the OP claims that having no billionaires will make their life "carefree and wonderful."

I've been here a long time. I've read many, many of your posts.

This kind of frothing at the mouth is not up to your standards.

And if, as I suspect, this post gets alerted, I hope you have a chance to read it before it gets sent to the memory hole.

[Callie1979]

106. Anyone who alerts your post is an idiot. You stated an opinion not an insult.

Even if I dont agree with it
HOWEVER, a lot of people here are "alert happy"; regardless of facts or reasoning.

[Mysterian]

69. Riiiiggghhht... wealth hoarders are the exact same as ethnic groups

What an idiotic post.

[OneGrassRoot]

83. Personally, I don't believe they are THE...

problem. But their existence is part of our systemic problems.

I don’t care if someone thinks I’m mentally lazy or any other shade, it’s not a positive development that the number of billionaires increase as poverty also increases. I don’t focus on the individual billionaires as many here are doing, as far as their attributes and contributions, though I certainly appreciate a Soros over a Musk. The fact that such a status is proliferating makes more Musks possible, which is why I think the most helpful things progressive-minded billionaires can do is work to change the system even if it means removing themselves from that status.

I realize nothing is black or white but it’s a concrete and symbolic action that could shift things in a meaningful way.

[ck4829]

93. "ethical billionaire"... good one

[Callie1979]

105. Well said. I wish more would listen.

[ck4829]

95. People collect cats and newspapers and get called hoarders. Do it with cash and you're a "genius"

[Buddyzbuddy]

49. Charlie Munger's son almost single handidly

financed the opposition of prop 50 in California. Prop 50 was the recent voter approval of redistricting to gain Democratic seats.
He was against it.

[ck4829]

96. +1. Good to know

[Evolve Dammit]

50. A very wealthy man once told my co-worker that "the problem with you, is that you don't know how to FUCK people." nt

[debsy]

51. Absolutely!

EvenAI responds like this:

“Billionaires can earn around 10% to 15% annually on their investments, which can translate to hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, depending on their total wealth. For example, if a billionaire has $1 billion and earns a 10% return, they would make $100 million in a year.”

This has a pretty good break down, IMO:
https://moneyzine.com/banking/interest-on-1-billion-dollars/]

[BlueTsunami2018]

52. One hundred percent.

This whole capitalist system needs to be destroyed.

[Permanut]

53. I would go with severe regulation.

[BlueTsunami2018]

54. Regulation doesn't do any good if it can simply be taken away.

As we’ve seen over the years.

This system just doesn’t work. It inevitably ends up as fascism.

[Permanut]

56. Roger that..

Thiis is such a huge subject; there are many ways for enforcement to be subverted. We would need to have a beer or two to even get started.

[ck4829]

98. For real

[dpibel]

61. Might we separate "what they do" and "how they got it"?

The fact that these people may do some (or even a lot) of good with their money changes not one whit the fact that their money is value extracted from others, and frequently in ways that are less than ethical.

Do we actually think that very wealthy individuals do a better job of doing good with their money that democratic governments.

Or, for that matter than the people whose labor, one way or another, is represented by that money?

[OneGrassRoot]

86. Excellent distinction. Thank you. n/t

[duckworth969]

62. Agreed

[Dave Bowman]

76. The road to hell on earth is paved with greed.

[Skittles]

78. what do you think of Mark Cuban

I think he truly cares

[markodochartaigh]

79. While I generally agree with your premise;

consider the case of Chuck Feeney,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54300268

[summer_in_TX]

81. "Too much power makes people sick in the head "

“Our society is increasingly under the thumb of people for whom too much power and impunity have made them sick in the head: devoid of moral compass, detached from reality, and literally dangerous. No person or entity should ever have so much power or money that they cannot be held accountable by somebody. All power ultimately belongs to the people. We need to assert that authority over an out-of-control government and private sector, and restore some common sense. This applies to everything from unnecessary wars, global child trafficking rings, abuse of power, end-stage economic inequality, the reckless progression of A.I., and the destabilization of our climate.“

…” What popped into my head was that our society seems to be under the control of men who have been driven mad by their accumulation of money and power. Why do people even want to abuse children, start wars, or take enormous risks with our economy or even the future of humanity? Is it that A) wealth, power, sexual domination, violence, etc. does not heal whatever inner wound they were hoping it would heal, and B) nobody has said “no” to them for way too long? Have they become addicted to the accumulation itself in a way that requires escalation far beyond the bounds of rationality or humanity? How else do you explain an Epstein or a Trump? A Thiel or Musk? A Vought or Miller? What in the ever-loving F*** is wrong with these people?”


https://open.substack.com/pub/reframingamerica/p/too-much-power-makes-people-sick

[ck4829]

99. Wow, that is good.

[malaise]

85. They have their own highways,airports

And planes.
Rules and laws are for peons

[WhiskeyGrinder]

87. this thread is hilarious

[ck4829]

91. None.

[moondust]

94. Greed is God

in tRumpland:

[Initech]

101. Yup! All they do is hoard wealth and weaponize it against us!

They can all go get royally fucked.

[Faux pas]

103. Yep and

GREED is the deadliest SIN (says the atheist).

[CapnSteve]

109. Matthew 19:24

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

[LetMyPeopleVote]

111. There are some ethical billionaires