• Refurbished Refurbisher
      link
      fedilink
      27
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      That’s probably the least of the issues.

      Getting money out of politics and removing the ability for billionaires to exist by taxing them out of existence via a 100% tax above a certain number (that number is negotiable, but I don’t think any person deserves to have over $50 million in combined realized and unrealized gains, as it is impossible to just “work that much harder” than the average worker). We live in a luck-based economy instead of a meritocracy (which cannot exist due to humans being the ones in control), but the wealthy have convinced us that we live in a meritocracy, and that they earned their massive fortune due to merit.

      Simply having a billion dollars is enough to sway governments, even if no money changes hands, as politicians will think that it might change hands if they serve their overlords. Now, in reality, the exchange of money happens both before and after.

      Check out Professor Richard Wolff. He’s an economic historian and gives very solid rundowns of why the economic system must change in order for corruption to even have a chance of disappearing.

      Not to mention the existence of the stock market at all completely defeats the idea that we live in a meritocracy. When your money that your parents gave you makes money, you’re not working harder than anyone. It’s just gambling for the rich, except they’re able to sue and win whenever they lose thanks to people like Jack Welch and Ronald Reagan.

      • @Olhonestjim
        link
        216 hours ago

        As a future lottery winner, 50 million is plenty.

    • ALQ
      link
      82 days ago

      We’re gonna need a lot of acid. Or base. Either way, we need a lot.

        • Optional
          link
          52 days ago

          Thanks again, stay-at-homers! You’re heroes!

          • Refurbished Refurbisher
            link
            fedilink
            32 days ago

            Voter shaming is a great way to make those people continue to not vote in the future.

            A lot of people require something to vote for and not just something to vote against.

            • Optional
              link
              323 hours ago

              It’s actually non-voter shaming.

              And the something to vote for is better than this. It was simple and obvious from day 1. They fucked it up, intentionally, to the detriment of everyone. They ought to be ashamed.