use the proceeds to fund needed social programs like medical care for all and universal basic income.
Let’s forget all other social programs for the moment. What annual amount of universal basic income (in the US) do you think the net worth of the totality of US billionaires (about $8 trillion, presently), assuming you could wave a magic wand and convert it all straight into the equivalent amount of cash, and that they would be left not as multimillionaires, but with literally nothing, could actually fund?
Because if you split $8 trillion in cash among everyone who’s 18 or over (to include both working-age and retired), a population of about 265 million, that comes out to about $30,000 total per person. And UBI is supposed to be an ongoing, annual thing, not a one-time payout. Even over a measly 10 years that’s $3000 a year, well below the poverty line.
It doesn’t work well with the limiting constraints you’ve devised here. Consider that taxing the billionaires out of existence provides us with numerous benefits beyond cashflow - perhaps most importantly, they won’t be able to buy politicians anymore. We should also seek to ensure this is the case by overturning citizens united and adding other safeguards as necessary, to ensure elected officials are representing their constituents and not donors, domestic or foreign.
Imagine how much further even a paltry 3000/year could go if we had government safeguarding the people’s interests, instead of corporate interests. For example, look at how average grocery prices have nearly tripled in the past several years. This isn’t a result of market forces, it’s collusion of grocer monopolies and pure unadulterated greed. Restore competitive grocery pricing and you go from 3000/year of food, which is a lot already at today’s prices, to an equivalent closer to 10k/year for food, enough to sustain most families comfortably. That’s 20k equivalent in food value per typical household using your math for 2 adults, which is really starting to add up.
But then also consider how much the average household will save when we do away with insurance companies to provide single payer healthcare. Americans pay 10x more in medical costs for worse outcomes compared to peer nations. Insurance wise, it’s often 500+ per month in premiums per person. Eradicating that financial burden and combining it with better societal health through accessible preventative care, and no more bankrupting medical debt from big procedures, and it makes a massive difference in people’s lives.
My point is this - people’s socio-economic well being is the result of intersectionality of many contributing factors. If you consider things holistically, I hope you’ll start to understand the incredible possibilities for America in embracing a more socialist approach.
It doesn’t work well with the limiting constraints you’ve devised here.
Limiting? I made several assumptions that make it a much stronger proposition than it’d actually be (I thought the use of “magic wand” would have made that obvious). There is no way you’d realistically get anything close to $8 trillion if an attempt to liquidate that wealth was actually undertaken. And I didn’t even mention the millions upon millions of people who’d lose their jobs, their income altogether as a result, because they worked at Walmart (2+ million) or Amazon (1.5+ million), to name just a couple.
Consider that taxing the billionaires out of existence provides us with numerous benefits beyond cashflow
I’ve already pointed out that doing so provides next to no actual cashflow, and you clearly seem to have not considered any overall negative consequences of even attempting to do this, much less succeeding.
I hope you’ll start to understand the incredible possibilities for America in embracing a more socialist approach.
There is a very good reason no country has ever attempted anything even remotely resembling ‘taxing billionaires out of existence.’ It’s hard to imagine more of a non-starter. This is miles beyond merely “a more socialist approach”. It’s an extreme position that would instantly ruin any economy that attempted it, especially in this global age.
Let’s forget all other social programs for the moment. What annual amount of universal basic income (in the US) do you think the net worth of the totality of US billionaires (about $8 trillion, presently), assuming you could wave a magic wand and convert it all straight into the equivalent amount of cash, and that they would be left not as multimillionaires, but with literally nothing, could actually fund?
Because if you split $8 trillion in cash among everyone who’s 18 or over (to include both working-age and retired), a population of about 265 million, that comes out to about $30,000 total per person. And UBI is supposed to be an ongoing, annual thing, not a one-time payout. Even over a measly 10 years that’s $3000 a year, well below the poverty line.
How would this work?
It doesn’t work well with the limiting constraints you’ve devised here. Consider that taxing the billionaires out of existence provides us with numerous benefits beyond cashflow - perhaps most importantly, they won’t be able to buy politicians anymore. We should also seek to ensure this is the case by overturning citizens united and adding other safeguards as necessary, to ensure elected officials are representing their constituents and not donors, domestic or foreign.
Imagine how much further even a paltry 3000/year could go if we had government safeguarding the people’s interests, instead of corporate interests. For example, look at how average grocery prices have nearly tripled in the past several years. This isn’t a result of market forces, it’s collusion of grocer monopolies and pure unadulterated greed. Restore competitive grocery pricing and you go from 3000/year of food, which is a lot already at today’s prices, to an equivalent closer to 10k/year for food, enough to sustain most families comfortably. That’s 20k equivalent in food value per typical household using your math for 2 adults, which is really starting to add up.
But then also consider how much the average household will save when we do away with insurance companies to provide single payer healthcare. Americans pay 10x more in medical costs for worse outcomes compared to peer nations. Insurance wise, it’s often 500+ per month in premiums per person. Eradicating that financial burden and combining it with better societal health through accessible preventative care, and no more bankrupting medical debt from big procedures, and it makes a massive difference in people’s lives.
My point is this - people’s socio-economic well being is the result of intersectionality of many contributing factors. If you consider things holistically, I hope you’ll start to understand the incredible possibilities for America in embracing a more socialist approach.
Limiting? I made several assumptions that make it a much stronger proposition than it’d actually be (I thought the use of “magic wand” would have made that obvious). There is no way you’d realistically get anything close to $8 trillion if an attempt to liquidate that wealth was actually undertaken. And I didn’t even mention the millions upon millions of people who’d lose their jobs, their income altogether as a result, because they worked at Walmart (2+ million) or Amazon (1.5+ million), to name just a couple.
I’ve already pointed out that doing so provides next to no actual cashflow, and you clearly seem to have not considered any overall negative consequences of even attempting to do this, much less succeeding.
There is a very good reason no country has ever attempted anything even remotely resembling ‘taxing billionaires out of existence.’ It’s hard to imagine more of a non-starter. This is miles beyond merely “a more socialist approach”. It’s an extreme position that would instantly ruin any economy that attempted it, especially in this global age.