They are contributing. They might have businesses in California. They spend money in California for leisure and hiring people to maintain their properties. If they contribute nothing, why are states such as Florida and Texas encouraging them to come?
Then they can fuck off to somewhere else, like maybe a visit to Titanic.
Billionaires are inherently destabilizing to society. We’d be better off even if we took their money and just burned it in a big bonfire, because they wouldn’t be funding the reactionary fascist trash like the dickheads currently running our State.
They didn’t earn that money, they exploited people for it. Redistributing it is the nice option. I’m sure not going to lick their boots and beg them to come exploit my State harder; it’s pathetic.
Many billionaires such as Zuckerberg and Musk earn their money. A society isn’t destabilized just because there are rich people. People strive to be rich. A society is destabilized if there is a rich class and a large poor class and no or small middle class.
They’re antisocial leeches, and they suck everything good out of the community. They horde wealth so that they can do whatever they want. They’re the worst people on earth, I don’t want them in my country.
It’s so pathetic when people lick their boots like we need them more than they need us. They violated the social contract; they should consider themselves lucky that we don’t take all of their ill-gotten gains from them. They’re fuckin’ pirates, and not the cool kind.
Musk and Zuckerberg exploited a lot of people for that money. They didn’t earn it.
They built their fortune on exploitation and amoral pursuit of money and power with reckless disregard for everything besides their own influence. Your Nazi saluting hero should be locked up for what he did with DOGE. Zuckerberg facilitated a genocide in Myanmar because he didn’t give a shit about anything besides his wealth.
And here you are licking their boots. It’s disgusting.
I don’t get how you poors don’t understand that money is a zero sum game. Allowing one person to acquire all the resources leaves less for everyone else. It makes it harder to open up businesses. It’s stealing your American dream one rari at a time
And if that money were elsewhere, would that mean that more, less or the same number of people would be employed? And would the political system be more or less stable?
Because right now, you’re looking at one side of an equation but not the other.
Cons of a Wealth Tax
Difficult and costly to administer Valuing assets—especially private businesses, art, land, intellectual property or complex portfolios—creates high administrative burdens and legal disputes. This is a major reason many countries abolished their wealth taxes.
Capital flight / avoidance High-net-worth individuals may move assets abroad, change tax residency, restructure ownership or exploit legal loopholes. This could significantly reduce expected revenue.
Liquidity issues Wealth is not the same as cash flow. Someone with a valuable home but low income may struggle to pay an annual wealth tax. This raises fairness and practicality concerns (“asset rich, cash poor”).
Potential impact on investment A tax on wealth reduces the net return to saving and investing. Critics argue it could discourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking and long-term investment if not designed carefully.
Double taxation concerns Assets have often already been subject to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. A wealth tax may be viewed as taxing the same money multiple times.
Limited success internationally
Many European countries (e.g., France, Sweden, Germany, Denmark) scrapped wealth taxes because they raised little revenue relative to their administrative and economic costs. Only a few (Norway, Spain, Switzerland) still use them, often with significant exemptions and little revenue raised (e.g. Spain just €3bn).
They are contributing. They might have businesses in California. They spend money in California for leisure and hiring people to maintain their properties. If they contribute nothing, why are states such as Florida and Texas encouraging them to come?
Because the Texas and Florida governments are filled with bootlickers who would rather enrich themselves than do right by their constituency.
Or they realize billionaires would contribute to their state. They have to buy their Ferraris somewhere.
Then they can fuck off to somewhere else, like maybe a visit to Titanic.
Billionaires are inherently destabilizing to society. We’d be better off even if we took their money and just burned it in a big bonfire, because they wouldn’t be funding the reactionary fascist trash like the dickheads currently running our State.
They didn’t earn that money, they exploited people for it. Redistributing it is the nice option. I’m sure not going to lick their boots and beg them to come exploit my State harder; it’s pathetic.
Many billionaires such as Zuckerberg and Musk earn their money. A society isn’t destabilized just because there are rich people. People strive to be rich. A society is destabilized if there is a rich class and a large poor class and no or small middle class.
They’re antisocial leeches, and they suck everything good out of the community. They horde wealth so that they can do whatever they want. They’re the worst people on earth, I don’t want them in my country.
It’s so pathetic when people lick their boots like we need them more than they need us. They violated the social contract; they should consider themselves lucky that we don’t take all of their ill-gotten gains from them. They’re fuckin’ pirates, and not the cool kind.
Musk and Zuckerberg exploited a lot of people for that money. They didn’t earn it.
Musk and Zuckerberg built their fortune because they had good ideas. The appeal of capitalism is people can become rich.
They built their fortune on exploitation and amoral pursuit of money and power with reckless disregard for everything besides their own influence. Your Nazi saluting hero should be locked up for what he did with DOGE. Zuckerberg facilitated a genocide in Myanmar because he didn’t give a shit about anything besides his wealth.
And here you are licking their boots. It’s disgusting.
Jensen Huang, the founder of Nvidia worked hard to get his wealth.
I don’t get how you poors don’t understand that money is a zero sum game. Allowing one person to acquire all the resources leaves less for everyone else. It makes it harder to open up businesses. It’s stealing your American dream one rari at a time
No, many rich people like Musk have businesses which of course employ people.
And if that money were elsewhere, would that mean that more, less or the same number of people would be employed? And would the political system be more or less stable?
Because right now, you’re looking at one side of an equation but not the other.
From https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/218017/economics/wealth-tax-pros-cons/
Cons of a Wealth Tax Difficult and costly to administer Valuing assets—especially private businesses, art, land, intellectual property or complex portfolios—creates high administrative burdens and legal disputes. This is a major reason many countries abolished their wealth taxes. Capital flight / avoidance High-net-worth individuals may move assets abroad, change tax residency, restructure ownership or exploit legal loopholes. This could significantly reduce expected revenue. Liquidity issues Wealth is not the same as cash flow. Someone with a valuable home but low income may struggle to pay an annual wealth tax. This raises fairness and practicality concerns (“asset rich, cash poor”). Potential impact on investment A tax on wealth reduces the net return to saving and investing. Critics argue it could discourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking and long-term investment if not designed carefully. Double taxation concerns Assets have often already been subject to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. A wealth tax may be viewed as taxing the same money multiple times. Limited success internationally Many European countries (e.g., France, Sweden, Germany, Denmark) scrapped wealth taxes because they raised little revenue relative to their administrative and economic costs. Only a few (Norway, Spain, Switzerland) still use them, often with significant exemptions and little revenue raised (e.g. Spain just €3bn).
They buy their raris in Italy and ship them btw