161
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
161 points (88.9% liked)
Asklemmy
42523 readers
870 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The richest person can not be X times richer than poorest person.
Choose the X value wisely. Mine is 1000.
Very hard to define this rule. Money in the bank? Collective value of possessions? Value of those possessions set by whom and to what standard? What about rich people not owning much but having everything in their company, non profit, etc.
That's why writing laws is hard. But you get the intention: limit wealth inequality.
Why do we collectively call people like that rich?
Most of the rich, including billionaires, don't have any actual wealth. Even the stocks they take loans out against aren't really a guaranteed source of funds; the stock market could crash over any little old thing, wiping the books.
I believe most rich people are just scammers who tricked everyone else into giving them special privileges, and most of America's wealth is not real. I think the real wealth, i.e. the gold and such, were stolen decades ago.
Not even gold is "real wealth". The value ascribed to gold is in essence the same as the value we ascribe to anything else.
It holds objective value whether humans decide it has value to them or not. It's useful for certain things and would be useful for other intelligent, technological creatures besides humans because those uses are objective -- its malleability, resistance to rusting and conductivity make it valuable outside of the perceived human experience.
Land is probably a better measure of objective, external value though. Let's go with land -- the real rich people are the landowners, as they're the ones who can call the shots by deciding whether you can even exist in certain areas or not.
If they can spend the money on something not necessary for the company it should be counted as their money I think
Companies get their own money separate from an individual but after a certain bracket they have to be audited by an impartial third party to make sure the money isn't just being used for personal stuff
๐ Top 1% and Bottom 1% then
How about both minimum wage and mandatory cost of living pay raises are inextricably tied to BOTH the GDP and the highest net worth, to be determined by an independent commission that keeps track of the assets of the wealthy?
At the point when wealthy individuals' vast resources cause the pay rate to rise in a way that threatens economic stability, that would trigger policies to divest said resources into public trusts aimed at the most at-risk parts of the population. Instead of a trickle down model, you have more of a circular model, where fabulous wealth always funnels directly to the bottom. This creates a cycle of uplift, rather than simply an accumulation at the high end.