quote:
one Trillionaire, please explain how this would not be a diaster.

Here are the possible top 10 in the US….

1.Elon Musk: $1.2 trillion (Tesla, SpaceX)
2.Larry Ellison: $276 billion (Oracle)
3.Mark Zuckerberg: $253 billion (Meta)
4.Jeff Bezos: $241 billion (Amazon)
5.Larry Page: $230 billion (Google)
6.Sergey Brin: $280 billion (Google)
7.Jensen Huang: $180 billion (NVIDIA)
8.Warren Buffett: $150 billion (Berkshire Hathaway)
9.Michael Dell: $150 billion (Dell Technologies)
10.Steve Ballmer: $145 billion (Microsoft

Almost all are tech related, and all the wealth is in stock values.
Do you take their stock away or tax them so they have to sell stock to get below a certain amount? Now these people are no longer controlling their companies and making the decisions that have made their companies successful.
Where do the liquidated assets go? It would be a one time money grab and crash the stock market. Enlighten me on the actions that you would take to accomplish this. These people would probably take their assets to friendlier lands overnight.

Even granting them their silly want, the takeaway is obvious: barely a dent made in the national debt.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by imjustafatkid

Alabama

Member since Dec 2011

66130 posts

Posted on 6/16/26 at 1:03 pm to rltiger

quote:
Do you take their stock away or tax them so they have to sell stock to get below a certain amount?

Cap gains taxes are how you get homeless "millionaires" who have to sell assets just so they can pay their taxes.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by theliontamer

Baton Rouge

Member since Nov 2015

2081 posts

Posted on 6/16/26 at 1:10 pm to rltiger

They don't care so much about distributing the wealth as they do taking it away from someone. It's their classic play of lowering the standards so everyone can pass.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by NC_Tigah

Make Orwell Fiction Again

Member since Sep 2003

139723 posts

Posted on 6/16/26 at 1:33 pm to Yokelhoma

quote:
To me it matters less how much wealth has so long as that wealth can't be used to basically buy our government.

Well, that would entail laws about lobbying on the political side. Because, God willing, there will always be wealth. Whether that wealth comes in the form of a publicly owned company or an individual source doesn't really matter. The influence, or potential influence, is the same.

The problem is it currently exists, is someone like John Thune wields significant power. Yet he himself is not particularly wealthy. At the same time, he is having to maintain two households, one in Dakota and one in DC. He is included in circles of tremendous wealth in DC, and circulating in those social groups requires significant expense. Assuming he had to pay, he would be bankrupt in a week. But he doesn't have to pay.

He is instead invited as a guest on the dime of wealthy patrons or PACs. DC politicians view such things as a "perk." They falsely claim that such socialization has no effect on their politics. Watching Thune's political behavior tells a completely different story. It is fairly obvious to anyone watching that the man is owned by lobbying interests.

The solution would be to pay politicians in DC far more in salary, and concomitantly subject them to rules, such as those imposed on physicians accepting perks from pharmaceutical and medical equipment representatives in the private sector. No lobbying perks whatsoever. Investments/holdings would be placed in a blind trust. Penalties for breach would include expulsion from Congress.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Godfather1

What WAS St George, Louisiana

Member since Oct 2006

89318 posts

Posted on 6/16/26 at 1:37 pm to Undertow

quote:
You have to be economically retarded to believe that we can institute these wealth taxes that the left wants and it not have a negative effect on the economy.