this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
1265 points (99.5% liked)
tumblr
6463 readers
303 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This isn't universally true. There are plenty of people with that amount of money that aren't psychologically poisoned, but they stop trying to double their weathly and many go philanthropist but you rarely hear those stories because they don't make a big deal about it.
If you have that kind of money and choose to keep it, you're evil. Full stop.
To play Devil's Advocate, that kind of money gets you connections you'd never have access to otherwise. If your goal is to improve the world, having a direct line to the people in charge could let you do more good, and nothing is stopping you from donating it all posthumously anyway.
If we don't let anybody accumulate that kind of wealth, then that wealth can't be used to buy access.
Where do you draw the line?
A retiree that invests well and owns a home can easily end up with well over 10 million.
I'm fine with a billion but I find it gets tricky below that. Since a billiion is a very large magnitude above the mean.
I'd rather push for philanthropic efforts rather than force people to do weird things like setup trusts for every heir that sits just below some limit but remain funds they still directly control by being the trustee.
If the goal is truely to prevent being able to possible accumulate those amounts then we're looking for a different economic system which is fine but then just say that.
No human being can own more than the average insurance value of a human life. Raise the average value of a human life if you want more money. That's my solution.
There isn't an insurance value, only values awarded and liability coverages.
The latter it based on risk profiles with some people having very high coverages.
The former is literally based on earnings and ages so it would need to be a median not average.
And a side effect you're going to run into is that by force this restriction you actually cap the punitive damages which in extreme cases can be well over 100 million so it ends up protecting billion dollar corporations which will continue to exist just spread among more investors.
Capitalists will find a way to exploit any solution you apply. Best way to think of capital is it is like gravity, it bends everything around it and pulls more towards itself.
Spreading the capital into a thin layer could work but will require continued and ever changing effort to prevent it from clumping.
We should in some way couple the amount of money retirees receive (don't know how it is calculated in the US, here it is dependent of how much you earned in life and how many years you were working, with a minimum and maximum value) to the maximum amount a single person can directly and indirectly own. If your investments get over the limit, you can only spend, but not earn more money - in some cases this might result in you having to sell off something you own and donating what you get for it (and you can't use your investments as collaterals for a credit line when over) until you are back below the max.
Yes, that's why I keep saying America's problem is the boomer class. By value of assets it's 8 times bigger than even the billionaire class. And that's just boomers, it gets worse when you include the older ones (silent or greatest or whatever).
Like MacKenzie Scott (Bezos ex-wive). The amount of money she is funneling to struggling NGOs is insane.
The idea that NGOs can provide better ROI than tax supported public services is billionaire propaganda.
I agree, but she can't really force the state to tax her more, can't she? Supporting NGOs (which also might lobby for higher effective tax rates for the rich) is for sure a better way to help people now instead of sitting on the money and waiting that the country does something they will never do on their own.