• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The global 1% include a whole lot of innocent “middle class” people in wealthier countries, like the uncle in your example.

    I think maybe you mean the global .01%?

    • Franklin
      link
      1424 hours ago

      I think they mean the $100 million to billionaire class. Or at least I’ve always taken it to mean that, no one in any fabricated middle class will be harmed.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        415 hours ago

        The capital / oligarch class. The people who are so disgustingly rich that they use their wealth to erode democracy because they already have everything they could ever want

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        722 hours ago

        That line should really be more at $10 million.

        I just imagine if some other planet was making star trek-like first contact with us, I imagine the judgements they would be making.

        So all these people are literally struggling to exist with any kind of happiness at all, while those people fill their pools with currency and burn it to heat their houses. They’re not even close to being ready for us.

        Unless you’ve had like 20 kids and have their families to look after, not one single person needs a net worth in the double digit million range. No one needs that, and you can be damn sure no one deserves it.

        That money should’ve been filtered out from them looooong ago. Just their existence is killing lots of innocent people.

        • Franklin
          link
          422 hours ago

          i think the number itself is fairly arbitrary. what we need to evaluate the cost of living and aggressively taxed above the point at which only exorbitantly lavish wants come into consideration.

          i think this would be wildly different depending on externalities and extremely difficult to ensure fairness, while avoiding excessive means testing which can cause a lot of overhead.

          it’d be interesting to hear other’s ideas. that being said it’s a lot easier to say fuck the rich than to determine an enforceable definition of excessive.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            321 hours ago

            That’s probably a better way to put it. Currently the rich people are in a “no taxes for us” club, so if we could actually stop making further bonuses to them legal and start actually charging them reasonable amounts, that’d be great and a lot of the problem would start solving itself.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          221 hours ago

          The difference between $100 million and $1 billion is 90% of $1 billion.

          People who have less than $100 million are much closer to the middle class than they are to being billionaires. We should be trying to recruit them to our side, not condemn them.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            120 hours ago

            For now, for this battle maybe. But by the time we cut down the super rich population, these people will still stick out pretty obviously.

            Still no reason not to cull them later.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        624 hours ago

        I know what they mean, which is why I’m correcting them because their guesstimate math is wrong.

    • @WagyuSneakers
      link
      -121 hours ago

      It’s a common phrase used to refer to them. If you didn’t know that you don’t belong in this conversation. If you did know that and were still a prick you’re being disingenuous.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        117 hours ago

        The global 1% includes the middle class of wealthy countries. You can literally look this up. The 1% of rich countries is much smaller.