That’s such a small number. I bet there might be one or two near you even. You can just Google it!

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      3 days ago

      And that goes for all of these fucking leeches: The beloved pop star. The legendary athlete. The really nice lady who gave away ten billion. The soft-spoken revered investment guru who cosplays as middle class.

      Every damn one of them should be paying 100% in taxes over a billion dollars, but they never will. Their greed is a more important consideration than whether or not you can get health care.

      • Mac@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        100% over a billion

        million
        fine, I’ll settle for 10 million

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 days ago

          No, a flat amount will never work. Make it a multiple of some figure, like average wage. That way it actually changes with inflation and we don’t have a situation where the the inflation adjusted minimum wage is 6 times the actual federal minimum wage.

            • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              Ya, that seems reasonable.

              I think it’s a pretty core democratic value that no person is worth more than another. A compromise of 1 million times should satisfy individuals with even the most acute case of wealth hoarding.

          • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Make it so that if poor people earn more, the rich pay less taxes… Or something, that might actually not function.

        • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I’m fine letting people have 100m. It’s really a drop in the bucket compared to the folks who have 1,000 times more than them. Definitely down to tax everything past that.

    • Klox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure, but it’s also proven to be more cost effective to just manipulate people and shift their costs. Some moron was arguing against California’s billionaire wealth tax bill because billionaires might have “liquidity problems” lmfao.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I mean to be fair I’d spend a dollar to stop people from asking me to buy some shitcoin.

      But I also like, work, and pay taxes and shit.

      • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 days ago

        Paying money to prevent spam is different than paying money to avoid helping people and doing your share in society.