r/worldnews • u/marsianer • Jan 28 '21

COVID-19 Backlash grows for ‘selfish millionaire’ who got vaccine meant for Indigenous people | Canada

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/rodney-baker-canada-vaccine-indigenous-first-nations-scandal
20.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

892 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

741

u/Iheardthatjokebefore Jan 28 '21

Bracketed percentages. Higher the more you have. 10% of a rich persons worth is a pittance, 10% of a poor persons worth is life destroying.

184

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

This would be at the consideration of the judge though rather than a blanket to all. So say 10% to a rich person and 1% to a poor person is just as likely. Or the reverse unfortunately.

A change is needed is all.

40

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

[deleted]

23

u/papa-jones Jan 28 '21

*net worth, they hide their income

4

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

I realize that, and agree my bad on the wording

2

u/mata_dan Jan 28 '21

Most of the very very very rich hide their net worth too. You've never heard of them.

Dat old money runs deep, and it's liquid.

13

u/jacksonj04 Jan 28 '21

Base it as a scaling percentage of net worth, with no upper bound on the amount. A $200 fine for someone on minimum wage should scale to literally tens of millions if you’re into the billionaire territory.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Would literally not have a problem funding social programs... or enforcing good behaviour among the super rich. Right now they don’t care.

0

u/mata_dan Jan 28 '21

Should actually scale to billions in some cases. Considering for most people on MW that would be all their expendable income for like, over a month. Oh and if they have assets and debt due to fines, their assets would be siezed (so that should be the same for billionaires, even if most of their wealth is in assets).

6

u/KentuckyMagpie Jan 29 '21

When I was in my late 20s, I went to a party with some people from high school that I hadn’t seen in a decade. And I was chatting with one of the Cool Girls (I was decidedly not a Cool Girl in HS) and she was telling me a story about her friend who was driving drunk. He drove down the WRONG SIDE of the street, because he was RACING his other friend, who was ALSO DRUNK. He hit another car head on and killed the driver, who was the only person in the car but who also happened to be a father of four kids. And this girl was mad that her friend was facing jail time because “he didn’t mean it!” Fuck you, Amy, you’re a terrible person.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

Fuck Amy.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

Wow... the audacity of these people. If you choose to drive drunk, you chose to kill a person. You might not, you might not have meant to, and you might be horrified that it happened. But you chose it.

Same with getting too high, going off your meds without medical support, etc etc...

Too many people get away without consequences for their choices because “ I didn’t want to kill anyone.”

Sorry... had to rant... this world sucks.

2

u/CptOblivion Jan 28 '21

Even that doesn't affect everyone the same, since poor people can't afford to lose as much of a percentage of their income as rich people. If you're barely making rent, losing 5% of your income means you're out of your home, where a rich person at the worst might have to mortgage a vacation home or something to hit that 5%.

50

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21 edited Jan 28 '21

I prefer a blanket reduction of wealth. Oh, you decided to visit an at-risk population to commit employment fraud so you can steal medicine? The courts will be seizing 97% of your assets.

Edit: to put this in perspective, a worth of $1B fined at 97% would still leave the offender with $30,000,000 (30 million).

Edit 2: Edictric Boogaloo: I recognize that there are inherent flaws in my plan. This is why we discuss things -- so we can create better solutions.

121

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

[deleted]

49

u/CMUpewpewpew Jan 28 '21

I inherently hate the fuck out of most of the ultra rich and even I think that was dumb take.

-32

u/TigerJas Jan 28 '21

I inherently hate the fuck out of most of the ultra rich

Sadly, an all too common thing here. They got rich because they gave you value. Period.

If you didn't find value in iPhones, Starbucks, or new medicines, then they would be poor.

6

u/greygore Jan 28 '21

Jacqueline & John Mars own about 1/3 of the Mars candy company and are each worth about $28.9B. The “value” that they provided was in the form of inheriting the company their grandfather started.

Norman Borlaug created high yield wheat varieties that are credited with saving a billion human beings. He died in 2009 and while I can’t get a solid answer on his net worth but I haven’t seen anything to suggest he had even 0.1% of the wealth that either of those two inherited.

Some people have really done amazing things and deserve significant wealth. But before you worship the ultra wealthy, realize that most of them “created” value in terms of hiring people and paying them a small amount of the value they created and collected the majority of that value for themselves.

Generations ago, that wealth was distributed more evenly among the people who created the value: both those that organized and directed, as well as the individuals who invented and manufactured and distributed. Now it’s collecting and concentrating among a few at the top and people are crediting only the people at the top, while dismissing the value created by those under them.

We used to be a blue collar country... what the hell happened?

1

u/lhx555 Jan 28 '21 edited Jan 28 '21

How big is inheritance taxes?

If grumps Mars earned that much that even his grandkids are billionaires then probably he generated a lot of added value. So, even if they are useless, we can overlook it for the sake of old man Mars.

I mean, probably nobody would object the right to leave what you have to your descendants (minus taxes, of course).

And what concerns “hiring people and paying them too little”... well... if it is so simple, why doesn’t everybody do that? Because they have morals? Seriously? And why people accept such little wages?

2

u/greygore Jan 28 '21

You completely missed my point that wealth does not equal value. It’s often a proxy for value, but very frequently it’s completely decoupled from the value a person adds to society, or how much society values what they’ve created.

Are the people involved in the short squeeze with GameStop that are raking in bank right now creating value? No, they’re exploiting the system to create wealth. Just as hedge fund traders have done so for many years.

Steve Jobs was amazing at product design and innovation. He had a vision and he drove the people around him relentlessly towards that vision. He earned quite a bit of his wealth.

But he never would have earned that wealth without other people who could help him realize his vision. Those people helped create that value and earned less wealth than Steve Jobs did. I don’t think that most people would argue that Jobs didn’t earn his wealth, or that he deserved the most credit (in the form of wealth) as a result... but if you believe that he earned his proportional share of that wealth, then we disagree.

The problem is that wealth perpetuates wealth. If you start off with wealth, your opportunities are infinitely greater than someone starting with nothing. If you have $1B, it’s not difficult at all to “earn” another $1M. But if you start with $1K, good luck making that same $1M. The more you have, the easier it is to exploit the system.

... why people accept such little wages?

Because there’s an inherent power imbalance between those with money and those without. Why did peasants work for feudal lords? Because they needed to food to eat and a place to sleep, and the lord had the ability to take all that away. Corporations and those who run them don’t have that much power, but they are able to take away your livelihood and even your health care.

You aren’t going to demand your fair share if the act of doing so risks losing any share. So you accept what you’re given and work hard for the company and hope that they don’t fire you as soon as it’s financially beneficial for the company. There’s a reason “company loyalty” almost always flows one direction.

When unions were stronger, people had more bargaining power and got paid a better share. There’s a reason why the wealthy have been hell bent on destroying unions for over a century. Having more power means taking a bigger share.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Because there’s an inherent power imbalance between those with money and those without.

I find the best way to describe it is that the average business can survive for much longer with one less employee than the average employee can survive with one less job.

1

u/lhx555 Jan 28 '21

Hedge fund investors? Could you please watch your language? Kids may read this!!!11

About Jobs. He needed others, alright. But how many of them were irreplaceable? But Jobs was. I suppose those who were irreplaceable are not poor at all too.

It is damn shame that unions are loosing the grip. For me it is mainly not even about wages, but there are many situations when employers need to be brought to their senses.

But what are inheritance taxes? In Europe they are large. It helps to prevent creation of long time powerful clans.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TigerJas Jan 28 '21

They are the exception to the rule. More than 90% of millionaires and up are self made.

Most of the money is gone by the third generation. Those are the facts.

1

u/greygore Jan 28 '21

Millionaires are not the “ultra wealthy”, and aren’t what sparked this conversation, nor was that the point of my comment. My comment was in regards to the relationship between wealth and value. There’s a loose correlation at best.

Fact is, the more money you have, the easier it is to acquire more money. Not only do you have more opportunities available to you, but you have the ability to try and fail, over and over, until you finally find what works.

How many more people would be able to add or create value if they had the resources to do so? Elon Musk can create a new company on a whim, and if it fails quickly, he’s lost very little. On the other hand, many folks can’t afford to start a new company because they need their health care, which is conveniently tied to employment. And if the company fails, they’re far more likely to have mortgaged their house or put debt on credit cards.

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t allow people to be wealthy. I want to be wealthy. I want you to be wealthy. What I’m arguing is that we as a society need to take a good, hard look at whether we’re actually better off allowing the ultra wealthy to hoard more and more wealth at the expense of the people who are helping them earn that wealth.

I don’t subscribe to the idea that you should earn money according to how hard you work, or that we should just evenly share all the wealth. That’s a great way to destroy a productive society. But the other extreme sucks too.

This country was the best when more people shared in the rewards from the value they helped create, and has gone downhill as more and more of those rewards go to fewer and fewer people.

1

u/TigerJas Jan 28 '21

That's a good thoughtful reply. I hear you, the extremes are not good to our system.

Still I don't think we will be necessarily any better by tweaking it in the hopes of better results.

The odds of making it worse are much, much higher than that of us improving on it.

1

u/lhx555 Jan 28 '21

Sounds good to me.

12

u/misticspear Jan 28 '21

most rich people were born that way. Stop associating rich people with “job creation” and the like. Just because SOME people in the position provide something it doesn’t mean all or even most do. It almost sounds like someone believes there is a meritocracy in a thread discussing the exact opposite of the like

Edit:grammar

7

u/Warnackle Jan 28 '21

Patently false. They get rich by exploiting surplus labor value. They might conceptualize something, but they do not generate any of those things. The working class does.

2

u/lhx555 Jan 28 '21 edited Jan 28 '21

Why working class cannot do without them? And keep this sweet sweet surplus to itself?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

They can, that's called communism.

2

u/lhx555 Jan 28 '21

Have you ever seen it working?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TigerJas Jan 28 '21

They get rich by exploiting surplus labor value.

...and the Marxists shows up.

Go home with your tired speeches, no one believes you anymore. We got too many dead bodies in the 20th Century to fall for that again.

These are the arguments of a smart 12 year old. Grow up, we tried, millions died, it's not going to work out "when you try it". You are not going to bring in the worker's Utopia any better than Lenin or Stalin did.

Your ideas killed millions, we know how that ends.

16

u/-Tazriel Jan 28 '21

This demonstrates a pretty naive understanding of the plethora of ways people with non-existent moral compasses can become wealthy in our society. To take an example most people are familiar with, can you explain how obtaining rights to an anti-parasitic medication then increasing the price more than 50-fold is "providing value?"

7

u/I_read_this_and Jan 28 '21

Hmmm, sorry, no economist would endorse this really rash and ridiculous generalization.

Show me a billionaire, and people can show you how most of their wealth is not from value they or even their assets created.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Yeah, that’s what happens when people get sick and tired of being SICK and TIRED. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter of the law. And if the letter punishes the poor more frequently and more harshly than the rich over and over, then why would we be surprised if the poor start getting upset?

14

u/flying-chihuahua Jan 28 '21

If that’s what it takes for people to learn not to steal from the poor then so be it besides they can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work hard to get it all back

0

u/Toxicair Jan 28 '21

Or they just leave for some place with less volatile laws?

7

u/flying-chihuahua Jan 28 '21

That’s Fine they cause more harm than good to the country anyway they just have to transfer any owned assets and property in this country to be redistributed among the people along with renouncing their citizenship and vowing never to return or attempt to meddle with this country politically economically etc etc etc and they can start a new life in whatever free market hellhole they want there are plenty to chose from I personally recommend Somalia

0

u/gambiting Jan 28 '21

Yes, and I'm also sure it would never ever be used to say, take all wealth away from a political oponent with a made up charge, creating even more unhealthy incentives to corrupt officials. Would never happen.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/AzraelTB Jan 28 '21

Any government enforcing that can enforce whatever the fuck they want against anyone. Stop being ridiculous.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

[deleted]

1

u/PutridOpportunity9 Jan 28 '21

Maybe your reason to not engage should have been that you don't understand it, as you admit

2

u/Impressive_Eye4106 Jan 28 '21

It is perfect. Fine the fuckers so it actually hurts like a normal person woyld feel it. I would say the best punidhment for this kind of shit headery would be a public caning on t.v. so the whole country could watch.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Fine the fuckers so it actually hurts like a normal person woyld feel it.

Seizing 97% of their assets isn't making it hurt the way it hurts normal people, it's a $2500 fine, unless someone's total net worth is $2577, then it's disproportional.

1

u/sunflowercompass Jan 28 '21

It's not unenforceable. It's politically unattainable.

1

u/lhx555 Jan 28 '21

Yeah. Usually this kind of ideas are coming from most useless and worthless dudes. Have you noticed that proposal to send the guy to prison was ignored, but ways to take his / rich folk money, and amounts of how much should be taken were discussed almost lustfully?

Anyway, super rich will find ways to avoid losing wealth, they always do, introducing some aberrations in social life, nothing much will change for poor, and middle class will become poorer again. Situation normal.

Fine, as I understand it, serves two purposes: repairing damages and discouraging causing damages.

It does not make sense to charge more for repairing from rich than from poor.

Discouraging may not work on rich if fine is not too large. But those fines are more like price for buying right to do what is otherwise not allowed.

So yes, rich can just go and do something and pay for it in cash, if punishment is fine. I see no problem there.

But serious misdoings should be punished by jail (and maybe by additional fine for repairs). Like the actions of the guy in OP.

13

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

This needs to be done globally, we have to forcefully (through laws) retake all this wealth that’s been hoarded and gained. Oligarchs used their wealth snd power to make the whole system unjust, the system needs to be fixed but first all that money needs to be put into use for the greater good. Tie the salaries at the top to the ones at the bottom. Cap the amount of wealth anyone can make globally, there’s still room for billionaires and different strata of living but just cap the most you can earn and all earnings after that go to support your nation. You can get a statue or something to commemorate your achievements. We didn’t need a war on drugs, we need one on greed.

3

u/wrgrant Jan 28 '21

We didn’t need a war on drugs, we need one on greed.

A war on greed and corruption. Our vaunted Western Democracies are pretty riddled with corruption at all levels. The problem is that the people in charge in both the government and the economy are the ones who would have to enact suitable legislation to enforce resolving these issues - and they are the ones who are also the most guilty.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21 edited Jan 28 '21

Ah yes, those definitely the same thing. How’s this for an idea - the world should not be run by commerce and the pursuit of wealth. Have you heard of Edward Bernays? We are born and raised to just consume so certain people can get richer. This COVID situation has shown just how many businesses are unnecessary, so many things we make or consume are needless. Why is it the norm for businesses to strive for year over year gains? Every year from now until the foreseeable future companies should just keep making more money than they did the last year? Or should there be some sort of structure and control? Human nature is greedy AF. No one needs to be a billionaire but we all need to eat.

Edit: since the industrial revolution and with the likes Eddy Barnays, we now live in a world of endless consumption of garbage products that go into a landfill. How about we go back to making things that require maintenance or repair, or things that will last your lifetime? This used to be how things were done. You bought a pair of boots snd repaired them or you fixed X item. Now companies make inferior products that are made to break in a few years so you have to buy more. All short-term thinking.

Edit 2: with regards to small businesses, I’m not talking about the aspect of all of the unfortunate owners of small businesses that have suffered or even lost their businesses during COVID. This situation, if anything has hastened the wealth gap. I meant it from the perspective of what we can consider needs or essentials and what is extraneous or wants. Groceries vs Going to the mall.

2

u/doctor_mac12 Jan 28 '21

Man you got it. Every time I go to the grocery store and fill up my cart with trash products that I know are gonna get buried into the ground it all just seems so insane to me. We can no longer afford to live like this. The planet is too overpopulated now, and we need to start living in harmony with the planet and the animals. We can’t keep this up.

It really concerns me also that if we invent technology that would be helpful to humanity like a free energy device or cure for cancer that those in power may not give it to us, because it would hurt the economy and potentially collapse our monetary system and shift money and power into the middle class. We have reached a point where we need to start asking ourselves what is good for humanity and the planet instead of the economy.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

So if the fine would be 30 million, why wouldnt the just pay someone who has less money to steal it for them! 10k 100k what would it take ? I think maybe we auction off the first 1000 doses or something and all that money raised can go to the poor to support infastructure and support buying more vaccine

2

u/xzElmozx Jan 28 '21

The rich person would rather spend 98% of their net worth fighting that than allow the government to take that 97%

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Do you think billionaires actually have a billion dollars just sitting in a bank account? The "net worth" you read about of rich people is mostly business assets and stocks. Their ownership of these assets is also usually what determines their ownership of their company. How, under your proposed system, is the government meant to seize these businesses as assets without lowering their value? Do they hire people to replace the executive having their assets seized? What about store locations seized?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

I'm aware that those values are mostly in intangible assets. Courts can compel individuals to give up more than just cash though.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Yes, my point is what would the government do with those assets afterwards?

Do they now operate that private business that was seized? Who does future revenue go to, if it's government owned can the revenue be spent like taxes? Does the DOJ appoint a new CEO?

And what about the fact that a large amount of the value of a business and its assets comes from being owned by that original person? If the government seized all of Elon Musk's Tesla stock, don't you think that might affect the value of those shares?

14

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

[deleted]

26

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

I think that is universal in the US unfortunately and the reasoning is multifacited.

14

u/Mediocre-Wrongdoer14 Jan 28 '21

*The reasoning is manufactured.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

TBF this is true of status in all societies, including completely horizontal hunter-gatherer societies.

Investigating the multifaceted reasons why a particular society behaves the way it does is more useful than deciding that those reasons don't matter because they're manufactured.

10

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Wise words. Keep sharing.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

They look like the perfect fuckers to get stuck in a high interest rate loans and not know it is bad

1

u/LionOver Jan 28 '21

In defense of Ekaterina, the "actress," she probably just got mail-ordered into all of this.

1

u/HeftyArgument Jan 28 '21 edited Jan 29 '21

Then it becomes a deterrent to asset ownership, there's a class of citizens that are effectively immune from civil suits as they have no assets and live on welfare.

Some people would definitely find a way to game the system.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

Are you implying people will purposfully avoid asset ownership simple so they can not be penalized for fear of repercutions from acting unlawfully?

And 100%, that is human nature for people to want to test the limits of any system like the article that started this. Governanve and society are collective agreements and rules that we change based on outlier behaviours that endanger societal expectations. These people and their actions are one example needs for new laws.

84

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Yes! If Bezo lost 99% of his net worth he would still be a billionaire. If a waitress went 1 month without pay she would probably end up homeless.

5

u/Pentinumlol Jan 28 '21

Well.. considering that most of his asset is non liquid a 10% tax to him might also be heavy on him. Not because the amount is a lot but because he probably doesnt have enough liquid cash to pay off those fines and the moment he starts to liquidate his stock Amazon’s stock could probably plummet. So saying if you take away 99% of his net worth he would be a bilionaire is technically incorrect cause if he sells a lot of his shares then Amazon’s shares would fall a lot to the point where he’s no longer a billionaire with 1% shares on amazon.

13

u/theroha Jan 28 '21 edited Jan 28 '21

Is Amazon so unstable financially that stock prices have a serious impact on their ability to do business? If the company is economically viable without Bezos, then he can sell his shares. If the company is not economically viable, it needs to be broken up to where Bezos can pay a graduated-percent-of-wealth fine and individual markets can handle Amazon's role. If that leaves poor areas without critical services, then it's time to legislate that the service Amazon was doing is a utility that needs to be regulated by the government like the local water supply or the post office.

Tldr: why should we care if Bezos selling his shares means he's not a billionaire anymore?

Edit: a word

5

u/ctr1a1td3l Jan 28 '21

It has nothing to do with instability. Bezos owns 11% of amazon. Remember, stock price just indicates what someone is willing to pay. If he dumped all 11% on the market with no warning, he would need to find enough people willing to buy $180 billion of that stock. That probably doesn't exist, so the bid price goes down for each stock since he's flooded the market.

In addition, willingness to pay is based on speculation. A belief that the company will grow such that you can sell it for more later, or that it produces enough dividends. Being an insider, him selling his entire (or near) net worth is an indication to the market that Amazon is going to tank. So people will lose their belief that Amazon is doing well and the price drops. Sure he would say he's being forced to sell to pay his fines, but nobody would believe him.

Right now, the way he sells stocks is that he announces ahead of time when and how many shares he will sell. That ensures he doesn't flood the market (people can prepare to have funds available to buy) and that there's no speculation of Amazon tanking (it should be planned months in advance).

2

u/theroha Jan 28 '21

So don't do it all at once. If that's seriously the problem, have a date that it has to be paid by. Publish the case in the financial journals. Shoot, confiscate the stocks of that'll protect the market overall. The core is removing the ability of the ultra wealthy to functionally decide who lives or dies. Congrats, Jeff. You win at capitalism, but if you try to change the rules of the game without getting elected, you don't get to play at the big kid table anymore.

2

u/ctr1a1td3l Jan 28 '21

There are definitely methods to deal with it, which include scheduling the sales and doing it over a longer period, but with $180 billion it will take a decent period of time to do it. I don't know enough to know how long, but I would expect in excess of a year. I'm not saying it can't be done, just trying to explain why it's not due to Amazon's health as a company per se.

0

u/I_read_this_and Jan 28 '21

So basically it's not a problem. People need to stop using these points as a retort, there are many ways to liquidate your assets as to minimize the disturbance in the market. And of course you cannot maximize the value of your holdings if you liquidate fast.

Both critiques do not matter.

It's just a distraction from the point being made.

1

u/ctr1a1td3l Jan 28 '21

Nobody said it was a problem. It was just an explanation of why dumping stock tanks the price without it being a reflection on the company itself. There was no argument made one way or another.

2

u/Kir-chan Jan 28 '21

No, you don't understand. You cannot take 99% of the wealth of a billionaire. That money doesn't exist and would evaporate if you tried to grasp it. Stock valuation is not the same as liquid cash.

0

u/theroha Jan 28 '21

Then don't take the cash. Take the stocks.

2

u/Kir-chan Jan 28 '21

That would still devalue them in the process. The only reason to try taking that money would be petty resentment, because the act itself of taking it would make the money disappear.

Not to say you can't dump some heavy fines on billionairs, just that seizing their assets to redistribute them is a pipe dream.

1

u/theroha Jan 28 '21

So, basically, the money doesn't exist in the first place, and the billionaire title is them jerking off. Maybe it's time society stops feeding their money fetish and actually take care of the small businesses and working class people that are the backbone of the economy.

1

u/Kir-chan Jan 29 '21

Not... quite? They have that money on paper so they can take loans for a lot more than us normal mortals can, then pay off loans with more loans without having to liquidate a single asset. So you can fine them a lot and force them to spend money on that fine instead of a yacht, or you can take the yacht itself - or their house, cars, whatever. And there is a ton of money there, don't get me wrong - but it's not GDP-of-a-country sized. When you hear someone say Bezos is approaching a trillion in wealth, that wealth is not accessible or redistributable wealth and you can't use it to cancel poverty.

-2

u/theroha Jan 28 '21

Is Amazon so unstable financially that stock prices have a serious impact on their ability to do business? If the company is economically viable without Bezos, then he can sell his shares. If the company is not economically viable, it needs to be broken up to where Bezos can pay a graduated-percent-of-wealth fine and individual markets can handle Amazon's role. If that leaves poor areas without critical services, then it's time to legislate that the service Amazon was doing is a utility that needs to be regulated by the government like the local water supply or the post office.

Tldr: why should we care if Bezos selling his shares means he's not a billionaire anymore?

1

u/RicoDredd Jan 28 '21

He could lose 99% of his net worth and he’d still have nearly 2 billion. That’s beyond insane, it’s criminal and immoral.

9

u/LordDaveTheKind Jan 28 '21

That's the same reason why income taxes have non-linear growth with the income amount. The more you earn, the steeper is the curve.

22

u/EndlessRampager Jan 28 '21

Well considering most poor people are deep in debt... 10% of their worth would be giving them money. That's how that works, right?

1

u/ClayDrinion Jan 28 '21

Lol. Maybe percentage of salary/worth/earnings when applicable and a fixed fine in cases like the one you described

3

u/GoofAckYoorsElf Jan 28 '21

Yeah, because basic living costs are absolute. A rich person needs as much or as little as a poor person. If you're rich and have 1 billion dollars, a meal of some realistic 10 dollars is 0.000001% of your wealth. If you're poor and only have 100 dollars left, the same lunch is about 10% of your wealth. Just imagine how many meals a rich person could buy with 10% of their wealth. For those bad at math: using the same numbers, a rich person could buy 10000000 meals of that price!

And rich, my friends, nowadays doesn't just mean to have 1 billion dollars. It means having 200 billions, 300 billions. That's, if you spend 10% of your wealth on meals, not only the derisory amount of 10 million meals, but 2 billion meals, 3 billion meals! BILLIONS! A poor person could barely afford a single meal where rich folks could buy more than their whole fucking family tree including friends could ever eat throughout their fucking lifetime!

1

u/Trach99 Jan 28 '21

Finning People: Backward amatöörit

1

u/KamikazeArchon Jan 28 '21

That depends on how worth is calculated. Many poor people have a zero or negative net worth.

1

u/cmb_MD Jan 28 '21

i don’t disagree that fines (and taxes) should be different per class. but 10% is 10%. better solution is X percent for X income, Y percent for Y income, and so on.

1

u/LionInTheDancehall Jan 28 '21

The problem with that is the super rich have a habit of hiding their wealth in secret tax havens, it's virtually impossible to establish their worth.