[shrubby]

Human being, with very few exceptions, is corrupted by power. And a billion dollars is immense amount power.

You can make your opponent's life a living hell with a hundred thousand and buy or figure out a way to frame extortion material from almost any decision maker with a million.

See how wars are being started tweeting from the toilet seat by a man who has never known anything but power to harm others.

See the many "formerly normal" people ending on a private island, doing horrendous things to children.

We tried to figure out examples of people with power who weren't corrupted by it, at least to some extent, and came up with very few.

It's a human trait we know very well, but do very little about.

[JKCalhoun]

Yeah, that's kind of where I am: Billionaires appear to be a net-negative for society, the planet.

Regardless of what you even do with the money, simply preventing people from ever having billions is going to be a good thing for the world, democracy, etc.

[shevy-java]

> See how wars are being started tweeting from the toilet seat by a man who has never known anything but power to harm others.

To be fair: it is not Trump only who is addicted to warfare. You have a whole industry that benefits from war and thus wants warfare. Trump is just, in addition to being corrupt, really really not that clever. And now he is old and has dementia - amazing how the USA can so easily become subverted by Russia here. The KGB won.

[slashdev]

Suppose you add a very high tax (it would have to be a wealth tax, not income, because they don’t have much income.)

Zuckerberg just moved to Florida for a tiny wealth tax in California.

These people would just leave the state or leave the country. It’s been happening in Norway with just a small wealth tax.

It’s not impossible, but it’s also not that simple to do.

These kind of policies are risky, because you may drive away the next generation of entrepreneurs and the jobs they create.

The rich should pay more taxes, but not to the point that it would chase them away or disincentive them from building companies.

That being said, taxes are incredibly destructive. Every dollar you tax someone is much more than a dollar you take from that person and the economy. Government is too big, it’s out of control. They can’t balance a budget either, so we pay an additional destructive tax called inflation. I would personally like to see government go on a diet to half or a quarter of the size it is and reduce taxes at the low end instead.

[RetroTechie]

As you said a wealth tax would be needed, as opposed to income tax.

Taxes always have some optimum level: a point where benefit to society as a whole is maximized. Too high, and indeed investors / entrepreneurs could move away. Too low, and society leaves money on the table that could be better used elsewhere.

The simple fact that a society allows individuals to amass $100B+ (or even a 'mere' $1B) shows that wealth taxes are below what's optimal. If existing at all. It doesn't matter if wealth is stuck in assets, it's still society-distorting / corrupting power. There's no benefit to society to have individuals sit on say, >100x the wealth of average folks. Let alone 1000x, 100,000x or even higher.

So why is there no such wealth tax? Answer that question (in depth!), and you're getting closer to fixing the problem.

[JKCalhoun]

"Too high, and indeed investors / entrepreneurs could move away."

Has that happened? Has that been a problem?

[slashdev]

We can see a little of that in California and also Norway. So, yes, there is some of that going on.

[JKCalhoun]

But has it been a problem?

[atmavatar]

> These people would just leave the state or leave the country. It’s been happening in Norway with just a small wealth tax.

Would they really, though?

A lot of people say this, but I think one very important thing is being overlooked: should a billionaire leave the US, they'd also lose a significant amount of influence over US policy. Especially when their wealth is built significantly upon the stocks of major US companies, giving up that influence is a huge risk to their wealth.

Just think - not only would the billionaire's influence suddenly become stigmatized "foreign influence", but it would also become tainted by the fact that they fled the country to avoid taxes. Politicians on the opposing side of an issue the billionaire wants to fight for would have a field day pointing out both every time the billionaire attempted to influence any policy.

[shrubby]

Based on what Sarah Wynn-Williams told about Zuck and what we've seen a lot of these state out loud (and know a lot more that have exrepessed this in private) seems that the society is being held hostage by child's who are threatening us with a tantrum, should we refuse the lollipop.

I think it's about time we turn adult now. The coming of age for humanity, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer used to say.

[JKCalhoun]

Is it even a problem if they leave?

(I understand there is at least one Billionaire that wants to occupy Mars—and I am 100% on board.)

[shrubby]

"If you don't wanna play with our rules, you probably won't do business within our jurisdiction".