When you don’t understand her but you’re already thinking about how many dogs you’ll have when you’re married

I love it

So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?

Yes.

Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.

Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm.  That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and  it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.  

Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point  is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible. 

The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?

There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE

No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.

I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.

Seriously.

Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.

It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.

Nobody owns billions in cash though. Billionaires’ worth is evaluated through their stock-options and Bourse actions and so on.

Nonliquid assets are still assets. The king isnt less rich because all his wealth is tied up in castles.

So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?

Yes.

Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.

Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm.  That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and  it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.  

Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point  is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible. 

The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?

There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE

No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.

I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.

Seriously.

Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.

It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.

Uh-huh.

Take away billionaires and you just put millions or possibly billions of people out of work.

Glad to know you hate the working class.

twodotsknowwhy
>No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.

Leaving aside the part where you made that up, what if your employees are all satisfied and happy? 

What if the employees are in trouble because of their own poor life choices? 

What if you’re using the houses to support your own family, or they’re in use as homeless shelters?

What if you’re a billionaire with just one nice, modest house? What does having a nice house have to do being a billionaire?

Why does FAF assume the billionaire is not circulating the money? Most billionaires have their wealth invested or in assets.

Everyone above the poverty line in a first-world country should be giving most of their money to chari ty, right? Even if they can barely keep the lights on and food on the table?

FAF probably thinks that a billionaire has actual billions of actual currency in their bank accounts.

FAF knows that nonliquid assets are still assets. Gasp.

When you talk about yourself in third person, I’m going to think you’re talking about me

Thats an odd thing to think, especially given the context

So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?

Yes.

Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.

Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm.  That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and  it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.  

Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point  is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible. 

The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?

There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE

No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.

I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.

Seriously.

Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.

It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.

Uh-huh.

Take away billionaires and you just put millions or possibly billions of people out of work.

Glad to know you hate the working class.

twodotsknowwhy
>No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.

Leaving aside the part where you made that up, what if your employees are all satisfied and happy? 

What if the employees are in trouble because of their own poor life choices? 

What if you’re using the houses to support your own family, or they’re in use as homeless shelters?

What if you’re a billionaire with just one nice, modest house? What does having a nice house have to do being a billionaire?

Why does FAF assume the billionaire is not circulating the money? Most billionaires have their wealth invested or in assets.

Everyone above the poverty line in a first-world country should be giving most of their money to chari ty, right? Even if they can barely keep the lights on and food on the table?

FAF probably thinks that a billionaire has actual billions of actual currency in their bank accounts.

FAF knows that nonliquid assets are still assets. Gasp.

So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?

Yes.

Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.

Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm.  That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and  it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.  

Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point  is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible. 

The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?

There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE

No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.

I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.

Seriously.

Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.

It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.

If Jeff Bezos stops to pick up a crisp fifty dollar bill from the sidewalk, he will have made less money from that bill than he did from his assets in the same amount of time.

Billionaires aren’t an incentive towards productivity, they’re the opposite. When you have so much money that you can make money just by existing, what external motivation do you have to actually contribute to society?

And they employ everyone else………so……

No? They dont? Like, not every boss is a billionaire and not everyone works for a company with a CEO.

Baloo and Bageera are high-key in love.

So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?

Yes.

Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.

Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm.  That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and  it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.  

Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point  is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible. 

The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?

There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE

No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.

I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.

Seriously.

Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.

It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.

This always sounds like people complaining that they’re not rich. It’s not a crime to be a billionaire and to virtue signal this hard is dumb as shit. Everybody knows damm well they wouldnt turn their nose to a billion dollars.

I 100% do not want or need a billion dollars. Not everyone is fundamentally motivated by greed.

Agree, though the way to do it isn’t to have the government take what they’ve earned if that’s what OP thinks. Forcing them to give up their money won’t change their hearts.

I kinda dont give a shit about Jeff Bezos’s heart. I care about his capacity to exploit others and profit from human suffering.

So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?

Yes.

Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.

Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm.  That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and  it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.  

Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point  is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible. 

The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?

There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE

No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.

I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.

Seriously.

Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.

It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.

This always sounds like people complaining that they’re not rich. It’s not a crime to be a billionaire and to virtue signal this hard is dumb as shit. Everybody knows damm well they wouldnt turn their nose to a billion dollars.

I 100% do not want or need a billion dollars. Not everyone is fundamentally motivated by greed.

unfortunately it doesn’t work that way

Gasp. No fucking way. I had no idea.

Well….that was…..something, to be sure. Woah.

And End of Evangelion explains things?

Mmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmm

Well.

That was.

Near incomprehensible.

Ok.

Well….that was…..something, to be sure. Woah.

And End of Evangelion explains things?