[imgabe]

This is a very stupid idea that will no doubt get a lot of attention for the author by people who will explain in great detail how stupid it is. I wonder if that was the intent?

There is zero chance of this ever happening. It is not worth the time to read about it.

Edit: Seriously, this is populist clickbait drivel the Times is running so the broke millennial demographic can drool over revenge fantasies of smashing the bourgeoisie while the Times and their cadre of surveillance partners figure out how to get them to buy a Lexus. Ignore it.

[ryandvm]

You may be right, but I don't think you could have made a less persuasive argument.

[imgabe]

I doubt anyone who doesn't immediately dismiss this as nonsense is capable of being persuaded by any kind of rational argument.

[happytoexplain]

This kind of black and white vitriol actively drives people away from what you're saying.

[imgabe]

This article is a troll. It is not a good faith argument. It's an attempt to gain attention by saying something outlandish. The proper response to a troll is to ignore it.

There are real discussions to be had about how to best redistribute wealth to benefit society. This isn't it. Thy picked an arbitrary number and declared people with more money than that "bad" and "immoral". There is zero mention of what mechanism would be implemented to stop people from attaining more money than the arbitrary "bad person" number, so there is nothing to discuss in terms of whether this would be helpful.

[viivaux]

Give it an hour - I guarantee there are worse ones to come.