Don't forget he accepted charity in the form of free housing and donations that were likely only available to him through existing connections.
Also this:
Despite failing to make the million dollars he had aimed for, Black says it was still a successful experiment after demonstrating how it was possible to rebuild his life through the power of determination.
So this dipshit learned nothing. He failed, and would probably have died in the gutter, but instead he pulled the ripcord and bailed on poverty in a way that isn't available to 99% of humans on earth.
He had knowledge and connections to the upper echelons and he couldn't make it, and when health concerns arose he went back to his money because it sucks to be working poor and in need of medical assistance.
Exactly. The calculus for taking risks is vastly different when there's a safety net. You can treat it as a game and go all in.
On the other hand if there's even a small chance of losing housing or getting in legal trouble or your family being destitute you take no risks - if you are a person with a sense of responsibility that is.
Yup, or you take maybe a couple risks in a lifetime, but if they don't pan out you suffer from them for years as you go back to stability and try to regain what little of a toehold on a good life you might have had.
The very real lesson for the poor is "don't try," especially if you have dependents. You'll be knocked back harder than you can imagine.
These mfs don't know what it's like to see loved ones start losing teeth because you made a failed push and now you're paying it back with interest.
His father got cancer during the experiment. He considered ending it then, but he continued with the experiment.
Imagine having that sort of choice. He didn't have to skip work to take his dad to appointments. He didn't have to eat ramen to afford chemo. It was only when his own health was at risk that he pulled the plug.
Imagine a world where everybody had that sort of safety net. Just like, "Nope, shit's too hard."
This is all political horseshit. It's not that hard to get out of homelessness, I was homeless a lot in my late teens and early twenties. Of course freezing to death in a Canadian winter is a strong motivator. Fucking taking a shower and doing work that you'd rather not is all it takes if you're not mentally fucked or strung out
Even the stress of worrying about money. Yeah you can take out a loan for your risky business venture when you know you won't have to worry about paying it back. Yeah, you can couch surf for a while when you aren't staring down the next few decades of your life.
Right, those 62k he did earn would have been gone and him probably homeless as soon as his health issues got worse. It's a reality for a lot of Americans. Also those 62k he earned were thanks to all the education and experience he was able to get thanks to his privilege. Most people aren't fortunate enough to have his level of education and experience to help them even get to 62k. I make 25 percent less than that and still feel fortunate of where I got to since I came from absolutely nothing.
* just ignore that I didn't again become a millionaire like I said I would. And just ignore all the experience and schooling I started with that others don't.
This video was such absolute bull crap lol. He randomly found some dude on like his SECOND night homeless that let him stay in a spare room for free.
Then he flipped free stuff on Craigslist and Facebook for cash which is... fine I guess. A little sleazy but whatever. Magically found transportation and the ability to store and haul this stuff all over town but never explained any of that.
Then he majestically found someone to cosign and provide initial payments to rent like a four bedroom house that he sublet to 3 other tenants... So he found some random guy to COSIGN for him which is crazy knowing how much liability that puts on you while ALSO finding a landlord that is allowing a guy with no job, no income, no credit, no prior residences, and no money to not only rent from him with a random co signer but also allowing him to sublet to three other random ass people the landlord will never even meet. This is possible... But EXTREMELY unlikely. Also, the fact that this dude tries to do a homeless challenge by immediately becoming a landlord is pretty funny ngl.
Also it's worth noting that his final number ($64k or whatever) was revenue not profit. He said himself he was making about 50% profit so he made closer to around $30k on the year.
And on top of all that, the fact that he cites health issues as this unforeseen unfortunate issue that got in the way of his inevitable success is kinda rich. That's... kinda the deal with poverty. You fall on hard times. Health often falls apart. Unexpected expenses destroy you. It can and often does completely tear your world apart. Thems the breaks man lol. Dude just experienced life a little and quit.
Used his existing social credit too. All his random business successes during those 9 months were from "I know a guy that might want in on this" kind of crap.
I mean, it's possible but unless he specifically said that he wouldn't use his identity during the experiment, just proving who he was would be enough to trivialize the risk of even a significant loan for most people. A lender would know that whatever happens, either they'll get paid back by him from within the experiment or he'll pay them back as the billionaire after the experiment, maybe even rounding up to the next significant digit or something crazy like that (but still trivial for him).
Also, "I was doing an experiment" isn't a defense against fraud. Though him being a billionaire probably means that the only penalty would be paying back the victim with maybe a little extra plus legal fees or hush money.
Nitpicking, but that's also not like a sustainable way to conduct oneself in a society. Like his only "service" was inserting himself as an unnecessary middleman.
If everyone did that you'd have nothing but grifters making money moves on eachother, and nothing would ever get actually made. Basically, it's not the kind of work which produces new value through labour.
Which maybe if the point idk, I'm not a total parasite
I could be wrong but isn't that more than most people make in 12 months?
So it might not be possible to make millions, but for someone who has the loose ethics of millionaires it's still possible to make significant money starting from scratch. The issue being the unethical/exploitative behavior needed to get there.
Not really something to be held up as an example of success. Not everyone can do that, or it wouldn't work. Plus there are people who could use that free stuff that he's essentially stealing from. Just goes to show that this guy has no ethics.
Honestly, I would argue at least a portion of those items would get thrown away if he hadn't gotten them. When someone wants something gone, and when a different person wants to acquire that particular thing don't always align. It's tweaker arbitrage, but it's not that big a deal IMHO.
The real moral failing from my perspective is not recognizing how much help he got, and how 'lucky' he was.
Sure, the a pick-up magically landing in his lap for free, at the exact moment he needed one, because he wasn't difficult to deal with is way more believable than "he lied and it wasn't even a good lie."
Well, with that attitude I’m not surprised this hasn’t happened to you because you’d probably end up blaming the person who gave it to you if anything goes wrong with it.
imagine the privilege to just quit being homeless for health concerns while a lot of people go homeless because of health complications. so he ended where homeless people frequently start. fuck that guy.
He wasn't homeless. He had free shelter by staying with a friend. Nothing luxurious, but he wasn't living on and from the streets. He also only made the money because he called in a "favor" from a business partner that let him sell some niche shit for more money lol
All in all it was a total failure, he realized how much of a failure it was and then backed out feigning "health concerns" to save face.
He made $62k and called that a success. Why not then use said $62k to fix his health issues? Wouldn’t that be much more realistic in terms of unplanned medical costs setting back a lot of Americans?
They would still have all the advantages of the business connections they made as a billionaire, and would still have a massive advantage over everyone else.
But many of their connections would be poor as well. Do you think people actually care what Elon or Bezos think? They're not geniuses, they just have money. Compare them to Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett, who actually knew what they were doing.
No one seriously asks Bezos or Elon for advice because they were just lucky. Their companies succeed despite them, not because of them. Like the guy who started Uber (forgot his name). Nobody listens to them.
The Apple Silicon machines are fucking awesome though, and most of them are fanless. Even the ones that do have them, you have to do some pretty special shit to make them turn on.
I hope the Linux world gets proper ARM machines some day too, but for the time being, the Apple machines are like a full generation ahead.
Well, being super smart in one field doesn't necessarily mean you have common sense. You could be the greatest physicist in the world but still think lizard people control everything.
I don't think Woz would. He had the opportunity but realised he had more than enough to last his whole life, so noped out of there to play pinball and watch his children grow up.
Steve Jobs was a grade A cunt with the rest of them. Don't give him a pass for his high charisma score. Dude walked into Atari with no fucken shoes on back in the 70s trying to get a job. I used to work with a 72 year old dude who was a head repairman there working on the consoles. Its all confidence, smoke, and mirrors. Skills are secondary to spewing bullshit and making people feel excited.
If he wasn't integral to Apple's success, then why did they fail after he left, and then succeed after he returned? What innovative products has Tim Apple created? Air Pods? The Apple Watch?
Why do we have party faces in tabletops? Why focus our skillsets on salesmenship while others become engineers? He was a great ringleader, he could probably sell people a wet banana peel like it was life changing. Maybe the products themselves aren't as stellar as Jobs made them out to be. Maybe a phone is just a phone and when Merlin isn't there blowing smoke up your ass you can finally see that.
Not all the random massive family inheritance people obviously. Just imagine some folks worked really damn hard to earn an unethically yet unfortunately legally large amount of money.
They would still have all the advantages of the business connections they made as a billionaire
Business connections to other people who also had their money stripped away.
I mean, we'll never run the experiment because the folks in charge of the Laboratory of Democracy all sit on the boards of Microsoft, Boeing, and Berkshire Hathaway. But Bill Gates doesn't benefit by hobnobbing with Warren Buffet when neither of them have any money.
It's also not one or two billion, it's multiple hundreds of billion owned by one person. I don't think you can overstress the difference in scale between millions, hundred millions, billions, and hundred billions.
There used to be taxes assessed by total asset valuation that focused more on wealthy individuals because they don't earn as much from income it's mostly assets increasing in value like property or ownership shares, that was stopped when they introduced the income tax that mostly targets low and middle class people who almost exclusively earn by income.
Loopholes like offshore accounts used to dodge income taxes by higher earners should be illegal, but the whole system is backwards forcing the least prosperous to shoulder the largest tax burden instead of the wealthiest who benefit from society the most.
Anyone who would buy. Unless you're sentimentally attached to something then I doubt you'd have a difficult time selling it. Billionaires own property as investment, not for use. Just sell it to another billionaire and buy property in a country more favourable to you. As for things like cars, collections, yachts, and other such mobile assets, just stick them on a container ship and unpack at your destination.
Yeah that sounds awesome let's divide those 200 billions into 333 million people and let's get a whooping one time only 600 USD extra for the month. Then let's repeat it again.
First of all 200 billion is chump change compared to how much the wealthy have. Second, spreading money would do far more to stimulate the economy than wealthy people buying yachts, flying into space, and visiting the Titanic.
I am sure if you removed your mouth from the wealthy's cocks for a moment you would realize how fucked up the situation is. But I know you will just suck it foreverrrrrrrrrrr hoping they will gild you into their club.
The fact that you already confiscated them. Since we're talking hypotheticals though, you could confiscate those assets at the border. Or set up international treaties with a look-back provision.
See, what I don't like about this is that if you have the power to confiscate a billionaire's possessions for no other reason that they're a billionaire, then there's absolutely nothing stopping you from turning that power against anyone you don't like. And I'm not talking "you" as in you specifically, or anyone with a sense of morality and ethics, but "you" as in the inevitable exploitative scum that would at some point hold that power.
Now, if the confiscation is contingent on a billionaire commiting a crime then that's another thing, but then the billionaire would actually have to commit a crime. And if you made tax law ironclad then sure, if they break the law then they should have their things confiscated in recompense. But that's assuming that the trial wouldn't be bogged down in court by a billionaire being able to throw money at the problem.
you have the power to confiscate a billionaire's possessions for no other reason that they're a billionaire, then there's absolutely nothing stopping you from turning that power against anyone you don't like.
This is already how it is for poor people...
contingent on a billionaire commiting a crime
Weird how so many crimes are the things poor people do out of desperation rather than the things rich people do to coerce poor people to do the things poor people don't want to do...
You seem to be under the assumptions that hoarding vast wealth to the point of extreme inequality is benign and not damaging to society & individuals living in that type of civilization, and that limiting extreme wealth inequality for billionaires means they're coming for everyone next with no limits. These are some of the main ingredients in cooking an oligarchy soup.
No, I'm well aware that it's damaging and I'm not a proponent of the system. You would do well not to make assumptions. My problem is that the people that take power are rarely the ones who will use it with temperance. I see no way that the same laws used to penalize the accumulation of wealth wouldn't be applied to dissidents regardless of class. Rather than having an oligarchy of private citizens, you'll have an oligarchy of people with government powers. At least in the current system there's a degree of separation. What's needed is a way to strengthen the people, not to punish the wealthy. And I have some ideas for that, but I doubt any would be feasible.
To be fair, stones also usually sink but those red volcanic ones have so much air in them they will float in enough water. And how else would you describe most of these billionaires besides turds full of hot air?
Stool’s ability to float is usually related to air. A high fiber diet and gas can cause stool to float.
A diet high in fiber leads to increased bacterial fermentation during digestion. This produces more air, which can get trapped in stool, causing it to float.
This same source says that too much fat could also cause floating, but from a different article:
Some people think that floating poop is caused by fat, but it’s usually caused by gas. Research has indicated that once floating stools were degassed, they weighed the same as sinking poop. This indicates that gas was responsible for making floating stools float, rather than fat inside the poop.
Because your diet is normal... for anyone who has floating poop, more than likely a fat slob who eats chit tier food. And likely to have a health condition. I just happen to learn about poop a few months ago, since my daughter wanted to know about poop.
Well damn. I mean going to $5k a month from nothing isn't bad (especially in the middle of a pandemic) but those health issues are sure to put a damper on your spirits.
Instead of laughing we should give him props for putting his money where is mouth was and hope that he at least managed to get his health back.
Once you've been rich, you get certain privileges that are difficult to remove from the equation entirely, like education, connections, and (at least generally speaking) health. You also get a lot of leeway by having a safety net to fall back on.
But honestly, all that aside, big props to him for at least giving it a shot.
Did he admit that being born into poverty vs wealth and wellbeing provide vastly different opportunity?
Did he admit any use of said prior opportunity?
Did he admit his weak will when he couldn't go another measly 3 months to accomplish this one simple trick to stop being poor?
Did he admit he couldn't suffer through what millions do, what millions have to, what millions are forced to do, because of people with attitudes like him?
If he did give away all of his money then by definition he did not have a safety net to fall back on, no?
Unless you mean being able to call on friends when in a bind. I must admit to not taking the time to watch all the videos, so I don't know what rules he set himself for that, but I suppose it could also count, if it was allowed.
But I mean, proving that theory was entirely the point, wasn't it? He didn't try making his first million from nothing, he already made it once and tried to repeat it. Of course he'd have some sort of relevant experience to fall back on, and generally, almost everything you've done once is easier the second time around (unless you get thrown an unexpected curveball like he did).
I'm the furthest thing from an expert on this whole situation, but the fact that he was able to "give up" being poor once he had a health problem implies to me that there definitely was a safety net.
almost everything you've done once is easier the second time around
And yet he still failed. He quit after 9 months, that's 3/4 of the way to his deadline. 62k is not even 1/10th of the goal. I get close to that just going to work every day.
It was pretty scammy. He got free food, free housing, and free product, which he then sold. Yeah anyone can be successful if they aren't paying for shit.
I never said they were, but if you really did work with people on welfare then you'd know they aren't getting anything for free. After you qualify for welfare most forms are aggressively measured against the exact amount they think you need to stay housed and fed. And that amount is almost always less than what's really required. So there's no overage to take advantage of, no house you can rent and sublet, and selling furniture on Craigslist doesn't count as being employed for the work requirement. Further you're not getting a break for your medical problems. You can't just pull the ripcord and go back to being a millionaire. You have to tough it out on your job after the hospital stabilized you and turfed you like they do to all Medicaid patients.
But no go on about their "character" and how they have to act like angels in the system currently crushing them beneath it's bootheels.
Okay, look. Attacking their character was uncalled for and I apologize for that. I've met some fairly awful people who were on welfare but also some really good ones.
But the point is, you said "anyone can be successful if they aren’t paying for shit" and I gave you an example of people where that's largely not the case. Doesn't matter if that's because of illness, disability, or character flaws, "anyone" means "anyone". So shut up and just admit you were wrong.
In this experiment, you wouldn't have that power because you would only get a tiny fraction of the shares. The interesting bit would be to see what would happen to the company if everyone had a tiny say in what happens. Judging by the fact that most people are quite selfish, I think it may not be too much better for the workers.
That would be fascinating to find out. It would be such a badass move, too, if one of them were to give everything away to show they could do it again. I think it actually would be fine for quite a few of them. Their reputation would get them in so many doors and get them so many investors for whatever they get into after the big giveaway. To really do this experiment well, they would need to get plastic surgery and change their identity so they can really have a fresh start.
It would also be interesting to see the effect it would have on whatever they were doing before their exit. I guess it really depends on who gets their shares/power. If it goes to the government, then in most cases, things would probably get worse, I'd imagine. If it somehow gets evenly distributed amongst the world's population, that could be interesting. How would amazon fair if we all got 1/8B of Bezos shares? That would be quite interesting.
What did I say that made you think I have an "incorrect understanding of public versus private sector"?
Do you mean that because I think the government wouldn't be good at running a business that I misunderstood something? The us government is famously bad about spending outrageous amounts for simple things. Cups that cost over $1,000, toilet seats for over $10,000.. there's tons of things like this. That may be fine when you don't have to worry about being profitable, but it won't fly when trying to run a business.
IIRC the reason military spending is so extreme is because the US military is required by law to have the paperwork to prove their entire supply chain is domestic, as part of a worst case readiness thing. Could be wrong though, not like I've really looked into it all that much.
The US military gets so much stuff from other countries. There was a "Buy American Act" about 100 years ago, which still stands, but it allows for so many exceptions that get used very often. There have been a few other similar acts since then, but they all include well-used exceptions.
What you're describing would amount to either eminent domain or civil asset forfeiture, both things that you really shouldn't be resorting to for money unless you've run out of all other options to cover a budget and have a spectacular plan to get the country back onto regular revenue with that money already in place, because that window can only be broken into once.
The purpose is wealth redistribution, not financing the State. Ideally, that money would go to a one time expenditure like a tax rebate for lower earners or a stimulus or something. Revenue neutral for the State.
Even assuming we could just get all the money with no complications, every billion seized this way would redistribute something like 3 dollars to the average american, because there's a fokkin' lot of us.
What'd be better would be to turn that money into a sovereign wealth fund that can be tapped for crisis moments or unexpected budget deficits. Basically as a "fuck you we don't need austerity" piggy bank whenever economic downturn prompts the right wing nutcases to start complaining how things like a functioning government are a waste of money.
Why piggy bank it when there are things right now that could, and would, use the money?
Crumbling road infrastructure, social programs, implementation of better public transit, EV rebates, homelessness programs, library attorney's fees, replacing lead pipes for water delivery systems, forest fire management, employment insurance, boosting food and cash aid for the needy, etc.
Because we currently have money for those things and just aren't spending it on them.
Building up an actual lean time fund for actual lean times instead of engineered poverty that can and should be addressed with what's already there is just good policy, growth is not infinite, and having an emergency fund available to make up differences can significantly smooth over bust times for the working class.
Not necessarily. If you want to do a new thing, make a new rule
For example, send them a tax bill for 99% their net worth. Offer to accept assets at the calculated market price and the government can sell it slowly, or let them sell it off for pennies on the dollar and submit their new net worth for an adjusted amount
Obviously that's super heavy handed, but you can slice it a million different ways
That would be interesting. Anyone who has over a billion dollars is forced to distribute their wealth across anyone who has ever worked for them. Even more interesting than this would be to do it for anyone who has ever worked for anyone else. All boss/employee relationships. I wonder how this would change the world.
This was tested...sort of. He didn't give away his money he just supposedly didn't make use of it essentially hitting the road as a fake homeless and making money by selling stuff he bought on facebook market.
The fellow was a millionaire not a billionaire and I think he went from nothing to ~50k in nearly a year. He called it off early because he was basically destroying his health.
Not to mention that actually poor people don't have a cheat code to get them out when their health suffers. Which then makes them less able to keep working at maximum mental and physical capacity.
So this was nothing but a demonstration that nepotism and money is what one really needs.
He could also take higher risks, since he knew that there was a security net to catch him. Much easier to make high risk/reward decisions, if the risk (e.g. going broke) isn't actually real. He presumably also had an above average education and many other benefits. This is also why many rich people might end up building successful businesses. The average person might get one shot and either makes it or goes broke. The rich person can roll the dice multiple times (and might have learned something from the last try).
Also disregarding everything even, if he had succeded: That would still only have been a sample size of one. I doubt anyone is saying that you can't under any circumstances pull yourself out of poverty, but on average the cards are just stacked against you in many ways.
Also i doubt that reselling second hand stuff is a viable business model for a larger group. Like sure in a large city a few people might be able to carve out a niche for themself, but the more people do it or the smaller the market, the less it works.
Eventually, a man with an RV allowed him to stay for several nights in his van. Black started off small and managed to make his first $300 by selling furniture online.
Nobody lets a homeless stay in their van to bootstrap their buy and sell craigslist furniture business
Three months into the challenge, Black's entrepreneurial spirit appeared to shine through having set himself up as a social media manager, managing to land clients - while even coming up with his own brand of coffee.
Most people who were homeless 90 days prior is going to be in a position to be appointed someone's social media manager or else they likely wouldn't even be homeless in the first place.
Even with obvious cheat codes he couldn't get more than 64k starting from "zero" wherein zero means being homeless in nice gear with your $1000 phone and unlimited internet plan with a health plan and a GP and specialists
Throughout the entire project, we haven't shared it with you, but I've been in and out of the doctor's office.'
I say tax rates should be decided based on wealth shares.
Break it down like this, brackets set at the 20th, 40th, 60th, 80th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of household incomes.
People in the 20th 40th and 60th percentile brackets pay a tax rate equal to how much wealth is controlled by households in each of those brackets.
People in the 80 and 95 brackets pay twice the share they control.
People in the 99 bracket pay three times, and also can't hold public office for ten years after the last time they peak this bracket because, objectively, they are doing just fine for themselves and don't need to be going ahead of others who have actual problems a nation should be focused on addressing.
Also, with very few exceptions like a mortgage on a primary residence or a car loan for a primary vehicle, loans collateralized on capital assets are treated as income for tax purposes.
The central problem of a wealth tax is defining wealth. Real estate is relatively simple and well-tried, there's an appraisal process. But securities can fluctuate a lot. A billionaire CEO might turn into a millionaire after a bad earnings report, and end up paying taxes on wealth he was never able to actually have.
Then there's the whole infinite banking, living off loans secured with investments thing.
Not saying it's impossible, just difficult and complicated.
As income? It would have to be a much much lower rate than that. And how would you make sure this doesn't harm middle and lower class borrowers? Mortgages, car financing, home improvement, debt consolidation loans, etc? Normal people get loans too. It would make homeownership completely impossible for anyone not a multimillionaire.
I'm trying to say that it would be very difficult to just have a ton of little carve-outs for specific loan types that primarily non rich people use. You'll have things like people getting a $100k loan secured by a way overvalued car. Ok so you introduce regulations to appraisals, that would require a massive new government bureaucracy. Now everything that secures a loan requires an appraisal, so that raises the cost. You have a carve out for credit cards, so rich people invent a "credit card" that only has a 3% interest rate that you can only get approved for if you have a certain amount of assets. So now you set more regulations for credit cards and unsecured debt. And on and on.
It would be even more byzantine and difficult than existing tax laws. Income is a relatively straightforward concept. Unrealized income (aka wealth) is not.
loans collateralized on capital assets are treated as income under this model
As soon as someone unironically suggests that loans should be considered income, under any circumstances, you can safely stop listening to their economics takes, lol.
Billionaires do nothing different than anyone who takes out a HELOC on a house that appreciates in value at a rate higher than the LOC.
No one "ruined" anything or "played games", you're just ignorant of what's actually being done. If your collateral happens to be something that appreciates in value faster than your loan balance does, you can do the exact same thing.
Small business loans are also all basically predicated on the exact same premise: "loan me this upfront money I need, and I can use it to make enough money to pay you back and then some". The only difference is that I'm that case, the 'thing that becomes more valuable' is being created, it's not something that exists already that's growing in value.
Yeah no except they literally did ruin it for everyone else and play games. Billionaires use extremely low interest loans collateralized on capital assets as a means to get free money that allows them to throw their wealth around without ever having to either risk number go down or having to pay their due.
We cannot allow billionaires to keep getting away with dodging what they owe because some people who frankly probably shouldn't be in the small business gang anyways might have to gasp get a job!
A billionaire would potentially turn into a multi hundred millionaire. Very unlikely they would lose ~99% of their wealth to "only" become a millionaire.
The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars.
If there's a huge tax penalty to hording company shares, maybe, just maybe, they would be instead incentivised to profit share with their employees. To focus more on retention than to do waves of layoffs to give their massive holdings a bump.
But we can't have that. We need to incentivize narcissistic mega billionaires to have all the money in the world, and still clutch to every last penny while they work their peasants to death.
Great. But how do you value them. A stock that's worth $5 one day, $10 the next, and $3 the next. How much do you tax it? How often?
You're giving high minded speeches and stuff but I'm asking how it would practically work. Because I think it's way more complicated than you think it is.
Edit: See further down, it could be done by averaging amounts over time.
High minded speeches? Seriously? There are plenty of feasible options.
If it's a public company, you can take the median price for the quarter. If they're holding over $500,000 or whatever amount as calculated by the median share price, they're taxed. You can make it tiered, and tax the shit out of anyone holding over $500m or whatever. If they want to avoid that tax, they can sell, and pay the capital gain.
Or they could tie it to % over median employee shares granted per year. So if you have lopsided profit sharing, tax the fuck out of the greedy C level.
Private is harder since it's less obvious what the tangible value is. But you could use the % shares granted yearly again. Maybe have it tiered to a companies net worth or whatever other metric that would be most appropriate.
It's fucking ridiculous that we have articles like "Bezos lost $1 billion after shares took a dive this week" kind of articles. That's a single person hording billions and billions in shares while the workers doing the actual work get pennies.
I mean those who have a crap ton of money have it because they don't mind exploiting others in terrible ways to get it. So maybe the cream would rise back up to the top psychopaths.
There was a recent case of a young billionaire who basically signed over everything to a family member to live on the street to prove he could "Make millions from nothing!" and that the poors "Were just being lazy"
It didn't end well for him and he begged mommy to give him his wealth back because going too long without his gold-plated jaquzzi was hard
They killed left and right, we're talking about like taxing unusable wealth from peop'e who don't need it (and didn't earn it in any kind of morally okay way).
They would. It's an interesting mindset to have. There's people who get into debt over stupid chit... like cars and jewelry. And there's people who get into debt by pulling loans and investing with said loans to then multiply their investments and intentionally stay in perpetual debt for their financial benefit. They don't feel the stress of owing money back to the banks, they're a godless (it is a sin within Abrahamic religions to not pay back your debts, essentially, you're stealing someone else's money) and immoral people.
Not true.. You need good credit to have money and make that money make you money. Or ask for a loan from a person instead of a bank.
And isn’t greed a sin? isn’t having billions being greedy? You just hate poor people, don’t you?
Greed is a sin. It is subjective, having billions doesn't automatically make you a greedy person. If you have billions, are you giving to charities?
I'm Muslim so here's this:
The Quran encourages believers to be generous and spend in the way of Allah. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:177) emphasizes the importance of giving:
Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, and the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous.
No, I don't hate poor people. I was born into a lower middle class family and if the world was perfect, all humans would be wealthy and live financially stress free, accessible to any and all resources needed to prosper.
If you think having more money than 99% of the people that have ever existed on earth is not greed... not even god could save you.
You could give out 99% of that money and live a lavish life.
If greed is subjective then sins are subjective. Therefore not paying back your debts is subjective. There's no objective meaning to anything, it seems.
So you're saying that if you're wealthy to an extreme, that not even giving to charity, helping the needy, will save you from the definition/title of being greedy?
Hey, I agree. If I was a business man and I was making a cool $1M per year, whatever other profits I make beyond that would easily go to the company and its employees. $1M per year is a very healthy income to live on. However, I would not ever violate another person's right to own whatever they own just because they have an excess of it. Because that too could happen to me. If they gained that excess by means of crime (breaking actual laws), that's a different story.
And I also agree regarding charities.. for example, I don't give my money to the red cross. I'm at work so I don't have access to my bookmarks, but there's a site that lists all charities and what percentages of donations goes to the organization itself vs the people who need it.
The problem with having this much money is the power that it brings. A life of modesty brings you way closer to god than anything else. Billionaires are sometimes praised but poor who dare use tricks to gain wealth are called sinners and immoral people. We're stuck playing a game with rules that are different for everyone.
Yes- especially people like Bill Gates, who gives to charities he controls, so basically he's still benefiting from the power his insane wealth brings, but gets to pretend he's helping the world.
The Baha'i Faith was told explicitly that the first step towards True World Peace is universal education for all. The second step is the abolition of extremes of poverty and wealth.
All billionaires come from privileged positions that afforded the needed social structures, and funding, to do it. Most people who become billionaires do so via inheritance. When you look into those who did not you see a pattern of born into a position with the resources to do so, and/or a string of random luck allowing for the needed connections.
Bill Gates' parents had enough money to send him to one of the few high schools that had a computer to learn coding on, had an investment banker uncle that put millions into microsoft when it was still operating in a motel room, and his mother was on the board of a charity with one of the board members of IBM, and asked him to consider her son's software.
Warren Buffett happened to meet a man who owned a large commercial property, that liked him, and ended up giving him the property, after mentoring him on how to invest, something he had developed an interest in after meeting someone in that industry while in the military. He sold the property for a lot of money and used it to apply what he had been mentored on.
Steve Jobs was adopted by well to do parents who raised him in silicon valley. This not only allowed him to be in silicon valley as it set off to be the most important place in the tech industry, he also had other benefits. His father had a full blown mechanic's set up in their garage because it was his hobby. He taught Steve to use tools, and work on machines. Their neighbor was also an eccentric engineer in the very early silicon valley computer tech industry. This neighbor went out of his way to befriend the local kids and teach them about computers, software, electronics, and engineering. He also happened to become close friends with the brilliant Steve Wozniak.
I can go on. All billionaire's lives are a string of exceptional fortunate events.
Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, was not born into a particularly wealthy family. His parents, Jacklyn and Ted Jorgensen, were teenagers when Bezos was born on January 12, 1964, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Bezos's biological father, Ted Jorgensen, was a bike shop owner and later worked as a circus performer. Jacklyn and Ted divorced when Bezos was still an infant, and Jacklyn remarried Miguel Bezos, a Cuban immigrant who legally adopted Jeff and gave him his last name.
Miguel Bezos worked as an engineer for Exxon, and the family moved frequently due to his job. While Bezos grew up in a relatively stable and middle-class environment, his parents emphasized hard work, education, and resourcefulness. Bezos often credited his stepfather, Miguel, for instilling in him important values and a strong work ethic.
While Bezos did not inherit significant wealth, his upbringing provided him with a supportive family environment and access to educational opportunities. Bezos attended Princeton University, where he studied electrical engineering and computer science, laying the groundwork for his future entrepreneurial endeavors. It was during his time at Princeton that Bezos developed the idea for an online bookstore, which eventually grew into the e-commerce giant Amazon.com.
Oprah Winfrey: Born into poverty in rural Mississippi, Oprah Winfrey overcame significant challenges, including a difficult childhood marked by poverty and abuse. Through perseverance and talent, she became one of the most successful media personalities in the world, building a media empire that includes television, film, publishing, and philanthropy.
Howard Schultz: Growing up in a Brooklyn housing project, Howard Schultz faced financial hardship and struggled academically. Despite these challenges, he became the CEO of Starbucks, transforming it from a small coffee retailer into one of the world's most recognizable brands.
Jan Koum: Jan Koum immigrated to the United States from Ukraine as a teenager with his mother, facing poverty and relying on government assistance. He later co-founded WhatsApp, a messaging platform that was acquired by Facebook for billions of dollars, making Koum a billionaire.
Larry Ellison: Larry Ellison grew up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood in Chicago, raised by his aunt and uncle after his father died when he was nine months old. He co-founded Oracle Corporation, one of the world's leading enterprise software companies, and became one of the wealthiest individuals in the world.
John Paul DeJoria: John Paul DeJoria experienced homelessness and financial struggles early in his life. He went on to co-found Paul Mitchell Systems, a hair care company, and later founded the Patron Spirits Company, becoming a self-made billionaire.
Ralph Lauren: Ralph Lauren grew up in the Bronx, New York, in a working-class family. He started his career in fashion by selling ties, eventually launching his own brand, Polo Ralph Lauren, which became synonymous with luxury and style.
The issue with having billions is that with maybe a miniscule amount of exceptions, no one person is able to generate billions. 99% of the time someone becomes a billionaire by starting or buying a company and maintaining a disproportionately large stake of ownership while the dozens or hundreds of people working for them receive a salary less than the profits they generate while receiving equity that is significantly smaller than the value that they contribute to the business. A truly ethical billion or trillion dollar company would be composed of a large group of multi millionaires along with a few millionaires and people living comfortable lives rather than a small group of multi billionaires and a few millionaires along with countless people struggling to get by.
Usury is still considered a sin, I believe. But then they figured out a way to make "charging interest on loans" ≠ "usury" so that lenders can now make money on their loans with impunity.
It's the first and third Abrahamic religions. Christ never said anything about usery, and Baha'u'llah said that it was allowed within certain guidelines. It was only the Jewish and Muslim faiths that weren't supposed to charge other Jews, or other Peoples of The Book, (that would be Jews, Christians, and Muslims,) respectively. They could charge the hethans interest though
lol.. Muslims can't charge interest. Interest is a form of oppression.
In Islam, usury (known as "riba" in Arabic) is strictly prohibited. Riba refers to any guaranteed interest on loaned money, which is seen as exploitative and unjust. The prohibition of riba is based on several Quranic verses and Hadith (sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him).
Quranic Verses on Riba
Condemnation of Riba:
The Quran clearly condemns riba and warns of severe consequences for those who engage in it. For example:
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:275-279):
Those who consume interest cannot stand [on the Day of Resurrection] except as one stands who is being beaten by Satan into insanity. That is because they say, "Trade is [just] like interest." But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest. So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists may have what is past, and his affair rests with Allah. But whoever returns [to dealing in interest or usury] - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.
Allah destroys interest and gives increase for charities. And Allah does not like every sinning disbeliever.
Indeed, those who believe and do righteous deeds and establish prayer and give zakah will have their reward with their Lord, and there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.
O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of interest, if you should be believers.
And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal - [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.
Surah An-Nisa (4:161):
And [for] their taking of usury while they had been forbidden from it, and their consuming of the people's wealth unjustly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.
In conclusion, in Islam, usury or interest (riba) is unequivocally prohibited due to its exploitative nature and potential to cause social and economic injustice. The Quran and Hadith provide clear guidance on avoiding riba and encourage ethical alternatives that promote fairness, mutual benefit, and social welfare. Islamic banking and finance have developed various instruments to adhere to these principles while providing viable financial services.
Wasn't there some guy who set themselves a challenge where they were going to make a living without using any of their money?
I believe he had to stop after 3 months because of health concerns.
They see being poor as entertainment.
It didn't end that quick, but he stopped after 9 months due to health concerns. The goal was to earn $1 million in a year, he had earned $62k.
And IIRC, he only did so through siphoning off the value of free facebook/craigslist furniture.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13332399/Millionaire-Mike-Black-homeless-broke-purpose-ends-bizarre-social-experiment.html
It sucks that the only reporting on this is shitty tabloids.
Don't forget he accepted charity in the form of free housing and donations that were likely only available to him through existing connections.
Also this:
So this dipshit learned nothing. He failed, and would probably have died in the gutter, but instead he pulled the ripcord and bailed on poverty in a way that isn't available to 99% of humans on earth.
He had knowledge and connections to the upper echelons and he couldn't make it, and when health concerns arose he went back to his money because it sucks to be working poor and in need of medical assistance.
He also didn’t have the stress that would come from actual failure with no money.
Bankruptcy, homelessness and real poverty fuck up your ability to succeed in a vastly underrated way.
Exactly. The calculus for taking risks is vastly different when there's a safety net. You can treat it as a game and go all in.
On the other hand if there's even a small chance of losing housing or getting in legal trouble or your family being destitute you take no risks - if you are a person with a sense of responsibility that is.
Yup, or you take maybe a couple risks in a lifetime, but if they don't pan out you suffer from them for years as you go back to stability and try to regain what little of a toehold on a good life you might have had.
The very real lesson for the poor is "don't try," especially if you have dependents. You'll be knocked back harder than you can imagine.
These mfs don't know what it's like to see loved ones start losing teeth because you made a failed push and now you're paying it back with interest.
His father got cancer during the experiment. He considered ending it then, but he continued with the experiment.
Imagine having that sort of choice. He didn't have to skip work to take his dad to appointments. He didn't have to eat ramen to afford chemo. It was only when his own health was at risk that he pulled the plug.
Imagine a world where everybody had that sort of safety net. Just like, "Nope, shit's too hard."
For most people, it's easier to become homeless than it is for the homeless to extricate themselves from it.
This is all political horseshit. It's not that hard to get out of homelessness, I was homeless a lot in my late teens and early twenties. Of course freezing to death in a Canadian winter is a strong motivator. Fucking taking a shower and doing work that you'd rather not is all it takes if you're not mentally fucked or strung out
Even the stress of worrying about money. Yeah you can take out a loan for your risky business venture when you know you won't have to worry about paying it back. Yeah, you can couch surf for a while when you aren't staring down the next few decades of your life.
Right, those 62k he did earn would have been gone and him probably homeless as soon as his health issues got worse. It's a reality for a lot of Americans. Also those 62k he earned were thanks to all the education and experience he was able to get thanks to his privilege. Most people aren't fortunate enough to have his level of education and experience to help them even get to 62k. I make 25 percent less than that and still feel fortunate of where I got to since I came from absolutely nothing.
Yea, he flipped free furniture off of Facebook. Only a rich asshole would come up with an idea like that
"If I can be a parasite, you can too*"
* just ignore that I didn't again become a millionaire like I said I would. And just ignore all the experience and schooling I started with that others don't.
This video was such absolute bull crap lol. He randomly found some dude on like his SECOND night homeless that let him stay in a spare room for free.
Then he flipped free stuff on Craigslist and Facebook for cash which is... fine I guess. A little sleazy but whatever. Magically found transportation and the ability to store and haul this stuff all over town but never explained any of that.
Then he majestically found someone to cosign and provide initial payments to rent like a four bedroom house that he sublet to 3 other tenants... So he found some random guy to COSIGN for him which is crazy knowing how much liability that puts on you while ALSO finding a landlord that is allowing a guy with no job, no income, no credit, no prior residences, and no money to not only rent from him with a random co signer but also allowing him to sublet to three other random ass people the landlord will never even meet. This is possible... But EXTREMELY unlikely. Also, the fact that this dude tries to do a homeless challenge by immediately becoming a landlord is pretty funny ngl. Also it's worth noting that his final number ($64k or whatever) was revenue not profit. He said himself he was making about 50% profit so he made closer to around $30k on the year.
And on top of all that, the fact that he cites health issues as this unforeseen unfortunate issue that got in the way of his inevitable success is kinda rich. That's... kinda the deal with poverty. You fall on hard times. Health often falls apart. Unexpected expenses destroy you. It can and often does completely tear your world apart. Thems the breaks man lol. Dude just experienced life a little and quit.
It sounds like he wasn't using his money directly but might have used his ability to access his money to build "credit" with others.
Used his existing social credit too. All his random business successes during those 9 months were from "I know a guy that might want in on this" kind of crap.
Or scammed someone really hard which is worse.
I mean, it's possible but unless he specifically said that he wouldn't use his identity during the experiment, just proving who he was would be enough to trivialize the risk of even a significant loan for most people. A lender would know that whatever happens, either they'll get paid back by him from within the experiment or he'll pay them back as the billionaire after the experiment, maybe even rounding up to the next significant digit or something crazy like that (but still trivial for him).
Also, "I was doing an experiment" isn't a defense against fraud. Though him being a billionaire probably means that the only penalty would be paying back the victim with maybe a little extra plus legal fees or hush money.
Nitpicking, but that's also not like a sustainable way to conduct oneself in a society. Like his only "service" was inserting himself as an unnecessary middleman.
If everyone did that you'd have nothing but grifters making money moves on eachother, and nothing would ever get actually made. Basically, it's not the kind of work which produces new value through labour.
Which maybe if the point idk, I'm not a total parasite
Ah, so despite having tons of advantages, they were able to find themselves right smack dab at an average income. Nice.
I could be wrong but isn't that more than most people make in 12 months?
So it might not be possible to make millions, but for someone who has the loose ethics of millionaires it's still possible to make significant money starting from scratch. The issue being the unethical/exploitative behavior needed to get there.
He didn't really start from scratch, though. He used connections and training he had from before he embarked on this "experiment".
That, and getting free stuff online and selling it for profit is kind of shitty.
That's what I mean by loose ethics and exploitation.
Eh, that's a common hustle among people who need money.
Not really something to be held up as an example of success. Not everyone can do that, or it wouldn't work. Plus there are people who could use that free stuff that he's essentially stealing from. Just goes to show that this guy has no ethics.
Honestly, I would argue at least a portion of those items would get thrown away if he hadn't gotten them. When someone wants something gone, and when a different person wants to acquire that particular thing don't always align. It's tweaker arbitrage, but it's not that big a deal IMHO.
The real moral failing from my perspective is not recognizing how much help he got, and how 'lucky' he was.
But the kind of thing rich people do. Also, why does lemmy say that you answered @[email protected] before they even wrote their comment?
Anybody can get training at a community college or do networking. This isn't exclusive to millionaires.
One of his connections provided him with free housing
0-62k in a year aint bad tbf
Sure, without any debt plus free housing and donations from folks you already know.
In the middle of a pandemic, no less.
Using a free car that "magically" fell into his lap, whats more.
You'd be surprised at the things you can get for free simply for not being an onerous person.
Sure, the a pick-up magically landing in his lap for free, at the exact moment he needed one, because he wasn't difficult to deal with is way more believable than "he lied and it wasn't even a good lie."
Well, with that attitude I’m not surprised this hasn’t happened to you because you’d probably end up blaming the person who gave it to you if anything goes wrong with it.
*chose to stop
*because of high health care prices
And as far as I know they have not used any of their privilege to do anything to change that situation for others who don't have that choice.
It's because the problem was being poor.
So...stop being poor.
It's easy. He just proved it!
(Massive /s but sadly, for the privileged guy, not sarcasm)
Omg you’re so right!
If the experiment was a success, shouldn’t he help others with that path?
Or maybe that path was overinflated as much as possible…
imagine the privilege to just quit being homeless for health concerns while a lot of people go homeless because of health complications. so he ended where homeless people frequently start. fuck that guy.
He wasn't homeless. He had free shelter by staying with a friend. Nothing luxurious, but he wasn't living on and from the streets. He also only made the money because he called in a "favor" from a business partner that let him sell some niche shit for more money lol
All in all it was a total failure, he realized how much of a failure it was and then backed out feigning "health concerns" to save face.
He made $62k and called that a success. Why not then use said $62k to fix his health issues? Wouldn’t that be much more realistic in terms of unplanned medical costs setting back a lot of Americans?
That's revenue not profit. He said he only made about 50% profit, so he made about 30k for the year.
Healthcare doesn't count , it's too rng based.
There's that guy, but there's also the whole trustafarian "subculture".
They would still have all the advantages of the business connections they made as a billionaire, and would still have a massive advantage over everyone else.
Run the experiment.
But many of their connections would be poor as well. Do you think people actually care what Elon or Bezos think? They're not geniuses, they just have money. Compare them to Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett, who actually knew what they were doing.
No one seriously asks Bezos or Elon for advice because they were just lucky. Their companies succeed despite them, not because of them. Like the guy who started Uber (forgot his name). Nobody listens to them.
Steve Jobs, the man who thought he could beat pancreatic cancer with a juice cleanse?
The guy who wanted to build fanless computers. Forcing designers to turn down the fans on laptops, having them cook but silent.
Yeah, that guy was a true genius. /s
He was great with words though.
The Apple Silicon machines are fucking awesome though, and most of them are fanless. Even the ones that do have them, you have to do some pretty special shit to make them turn on.
I hope the Linux world gets proper ARM machines some day too, but for the time being, the Apple machines are like a full generation ahead.
I mean, Jobs was long dead by the time Apple Silicon came along.
Well, being super smart in one field doesn't necessarily mean you have common sense. You could be the greatest physicist in the world but still think lizard people control everything.
TBF Woz was the brains behind Apple. Jobs was just a good salesperson.
Jobs was good at getting the right people together.
So maybe Woz would get rich again? There have to be a few others…
I don't think Woz would. He had the opportunity but realised he had more than enough to last his whole life, so noped out of there to play pinball and watch his children grow up.
He really is the smart one.
Woz really was the friend that Jobs didn't deserve.
This goes along with a thing I like to say: Being rich doesn't make one an asshole. It takes an asshole to become rich.
Love it
Except Elon is stupid in all fields.
He's great at hustling though.
Tesla has literally an unrealistic valuation based on Elon fanboys
Steve Jobs was a grade A cunt with the rest of them. Don't give him a pass for his high charisma score. Dude walked into Atari with no fucken shoes on back in the 70s trying to get a job. I used to work with a 72 year old dude who was a head repairman there working on the consoles. Its all confidence, smoke, and mirrors. Skills are secondary to spewing bullshit and making people feel excited.
If he wasn't integral to Apple's success, then why did they fail after he left, and then succeed after he returned? What innovative products has Tim Apple created? Air Pods? The Apple Watch?
Why do we have party faces in tabletops? Why focus our skillsets on salesmenship while others become engineers? He was a great ringleader, he could probably sell people a wet banana peel like it was life changing. Maybe the products themselves aren't as stellar as Jobs made them out to be. Maybe a phone is just a phone and when Merlin isn't there blowing smoke up your ass you can finally see that.
Or would their connections who weren't billionaires just exploit them so they could take the top spot?
Only one way to find out
Take the money away and the connections are worthless. They have business connection because of money.
I don't think so. They know each other.
Rich people are not good at being friends, especially the one who are in charge of large businesses. They are good at exploiting others.
Do some of them have big brains/work ethic?
Not all the random massive family inheritance people obviously. Just imagine some folks worked really damn hard to earn an unethically yet unfortunately legally large amount of money.
Gates seems smart enough. If he lost all his money I am sure he is capable to saying being the store manager at. Walmart.
Well, if you remove from ALL billionaires, they won't be much different from me or my neighbor
Business connections to other people who also had their money stripped away.
I mean, we'll never run the experiment because the folks in charge of the Laboratory of Democracy all sit on the boards of Microsoft, Boeing, and Berkshire Hathaway. But Bill Gates doesn't benefit by hobnobbing with Warren Buffet when neither of them have any money.
We would need to remove all the effects of the birth lottery as well
It's also not one or two billion, it's multiple hundreds of billion owned by one person. I don't think you can overstress the difference in scale between millions, hundred millions, billions, and hundred billions.
There used to be taxes assessed by total asset valuation that focused more on wealthy individuals because they don't earn as much from income it's mostly assets increasing in value like property or ownership shares, that was stopped when they introduced the income tax that mostly targets low and middle class people who almost exclusively earn by income.
Loopholes like offshore accounts used to dodge income taxes by higher earners should be illegal, but the whole system is backwards forcing the least prosperous to shoulder the largest tax burden instead of the wealthiest who benefit from society the most.
What's stopping the wealthy from just up and leaving? They could liquidate their assets and invest in somewhere with tax laws more favourable to them.
Liquidate to who? Are those assets things they can take with them, or are they things like buildings that stay right where they are?
Anyone who would buy. Unless you're sentimentally attached to something then I doubt you'd have a difficult time selling it. Billionaires own property as investment, not for use. Just sell it to another billionaire and buy property in a country more favourable to you. As for things like cars, collections, yachts, and other such mobile assets, just stick them on a container ship and unpack at your destination.
But then there has to be at least one billionaire who is staying right there, and can be taxed.
Yeah that sounds awesome let's divide those 200 billions into 333 million people and let's get a whooping one time only 600 USD extra for the month. Then let's repeat it again.
It sure will last foreverrrrrrrrr
The money itself is not the only reason. Eliminating their undue influence is.
Foreverrrrrrrrr
First of all 200 billion is chump change compared to how much the wealthy have. Second, spreading money would do far more to stimulate the economy than wealthy people buying yachts, flying into space, and visiting the Titanic.
I am sure if you removed your mouth from the wealthy's cocks for a moment you would realize how fucked up the situation is. But I know you will just suck it foreverrrrrrrrrrr hoping they will gild you into their club.
Stimulate the economy LMAO 🤣
Bro just admit you don't know shit about how money works and leave it at that haha
The fact that you already confiscated them. Since we're talking hypotheticals though, you could confiscate those assets at the border. Or set up international treaties with a look-back provision.
See, what I don't like about this is that if you have the power to confiscate a billionaire's possessions for no other reason that they're a billionaire, then there's absolutely nothing stopping you from turning that power against anyone you don't like. And I'm not talking "you" as in you specifically, or anyone with a sense of morality and ethics, but "you" as in the inevitable exploitative scum that would at some point hold that power.
Now, if the confiscation is contingent on a billionaire commiting a crime then that's another thing, but then the billionaire would actually have to commit a crime. And if you made tax law ironclad then sure, if they break the law then they should have their things confiscated in recompense. But that's assuming that the trial wouldn't be bogged down in court by a billionaire being able to throw money at the problem.
This is already how it is for poor people...
Weird how so many crimes are the things poor people do out of desperation rather than the things rich people do to coerce poor people to do the things poor people don't want to do...
Every billionaire has committed wage theft. Wage theft is a crime.
You seem to be under the assumptions that hoarding vast wealth to the point of extreme inequality is benign and not damaging to society & individuals living in that type of civilization, and that limiting extreme wealth inequality for billionaires means they're coming for everyone next with no limits. These are some of the main ingredients in cooking an oligarchy soup.
No, I'm well aware that it's damaging and I'm not a proponent of the system. You would do well not to make assumptions. My problem is that the people that take power are rarely the ones who will use it with temperance. I see no way that the same laws used to penalize the accumulation of wealth wouldn't be applied to dissidents regardless of class. Rather than having an oligarchy of private citizens, you'll have an oligarchy of people with government powers. At least in the current system there's a degree of separation. What's needed is a way to strengthen the people, not to punish the wealthy. And I have some ideas for that, but I doubt any would be feasible.
If that were to happen, my cream would rise to the top.
You know what else rises to the top of liquid?
A turd.
Uh.. my turds sink. Is there a problem with my diet?
To be fair, stones also usually sink but those red volcanic ones have so much air in them they will float in enough water. And how else would you describe most of these billionaires besides turds full of hot air?
If they float, it typically means the person is consuming too much fat in their diet. Not always but moat times.
I need to start shitting in moats again
What do you call fine paintings floating in a water-filled ditch? Mozart!
That's close to being a joke.
Source: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325274
This same source says that too much fat could also cause floating, but from a different article:
Source: https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/what-to-know-about-floating-stools
But, in general, not necessarily something to worry about.
Don't floaters mean not enough fiber in diet?
Which fits perfectly to the metaphor
Normal turds slowly sink. If they sink like a stone, you are eating too much fiber, if they float you ate too much fat or have an irritated bowel.
Because your diet is normal... for anyone who has floating poop, more than likely a fat slob who eats chit tier food. And likely to have a health condition. I just happen to learn about poop a few months ago, since my daughter wanted to know about poop.
Randy Savage?
Who do I vote for to make this happen?
Or is that French shortening device the only way at this point?
Vote in favor of the union at your workplace
Alternatively just take their shit because billionaires shouldn't exist.
A millionaire tried doing this and gave up
https://www.unilad.com/news/money/millionaire-broke-experiment-make-1-million-in-year-599679-20240423
I guess it only works for billionaires. Millionaires can't do it: https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/04/29/millionaire-made-himself-homeless/
Ha. Millionaires are like 1000x lamer than billionaires though!
Well damn. I mean going to $5k a month from nothing isn't bad (especially in the middle of a pandemic) but those health issues are sure to put a damper on your spirits.
Instead of laughing we should give him props for putting his money where is mouth was and hope that he at least managed to get his health back.
Once you've been rich, you get certain privileges that are difficult to remove from the equation entirely, like education, connections, and (at least generally speaking) health. You also get a lot of leeway by having a safety net to fall back on.
But honestly, all that aside, big props to him for at least giving it a shot.
I Haven't read about him..
Did he admit defeat?
Did he admit that being born into poverty vs wealth and wellbeing provide vastly different opportunity?
Did he admit any use of said prior opportunity?
Did he admit his weak will when he couldn't go another measly 3 months to accomplish this one simple trick to stop being poor?
Did he admit he couldn't suffer through what millions do, what millions have to, what millions are forced to do, because of people with attitudes like him?
Did he admit he's a clown?
Gonna come clean: everything I know about this guy I learned from this very post lol.
There's a bunch of videos in that article, so if you have the time to watch them, you'll probably be able to answer most of these questions yourself.
If he did give away all of his money then by definition he did not have a safety net to fall back on, no?
Unless you mean being able to call on friends when in a bind. I must admit to not taking the time to watch all the videos, so I don't know what rules he set himself for that, but I suppose it could also count, if it was allowed.
But I mean, proving that theory was entirely the point, wasn't it? He didn't try making his first million from nothing, he already made it once and tried to repeat it. Of course he'd have some sort of relevant experience to fall back on, and generally, almost everything you've done once is easier the second time around (unless you get thrown an unexpected curveball like he did).
I'm the furthest thing from an expert on this whole situation, but the fact that he was able to "give up" being poor once he had a health problem implies to me that there definitely was a safety net.
Fair point I guess, although like everyone else ITT I haven't watched the videos so we're all just speculating here, aren't we.
Also, earning five grand a month is not exactly what I'd consider "poor". In fact, it's just a grand shy of a median household income in the US.
And yet he still failed. He quit after 9 months, that's 3/4 of the way to his deadline. 62k is not even 1/10th of the goal. I get close to that just going to work every day.
Easier != success is guaranteed
It was pretty scammy. He got free food, free housing, and free product, which he then sold. Yeah anyone can be successful if they aren't paying for shit.
You sure about that? Because there's plenty of people living on welfare who never make it anywhere.
Tell me you know nothing about welfare without saying you know nothing about welfare.
I've met and worked with enough people on welfare to know they're not innocent angels for the most part.
I never said they were, but if you really did work with people on welfare then you'd know they aren't getting anything for free. After you qualify for welfare most forms are aggressively measured against the exact amount they think you need to stay housed and fed. And that amount is almost always less than what's really required. So there's no overage to take advantage of, no house you can rent and sublet, and selling furniture on Craigslist doesn't count as being employed for the work requirement. Further you're not getting a break for your medical problems. You can't just pull the ripcord and go back to being a millionaire. You have to tough it out on your job after the hospital stabilized you and turfed you like they do to all Medicaid patients.
But no go on about their "character" and how they have to act like angels in the system currently crushing them beneath it's bootheels.
Okay, look. Attacking their character was uncalled for and I apologize for that. I've met some fairly awful people who were on welfare but also some really good ones.
But the point is, you said "anyone can be successful if they aren’t paying for shit" and I gave you an example of people where that's largely not the case. Doesn't matter if that's because of illness, disability, or character flaws, "anyone" means "anyone". So shut up and just admit you were wrong.
Yeah no, that's not true.
Well sure there's always the idiots of the world.
Billionaires hold a tiny percentage of their wealth in money, so taking all their money away wouldn't even make them stop being a billionaire.
I’ll take some Amazon shares from Bezos.
I would honestly hold them and demand more ethics from the company that I now “own a part of”.
If enough people do this…
In this experiment, you wouldn't have that power because you would only get a tiny fraction of the shares. The interesting bit would be to see what would happen to the company if everyone had a tiny say in what happens. Judging by the fact that most people are quite selfish, I think it may not be too much better for the workers.
That would be fascinating to find out. It would be such a badass move, too, if one of them were to give everything away to show they could do it again. I think it actually would be fine for quite a few of them. Their reputation would get them in so many doors and get them so many investors for whatever they get into after the big giveaway. To really do this experiment well, they would need to get plastic surgery and change their identity so they can really have a fresh start.
It would also be interesting to see the effect it would have on whatever they were doing before their exit. I guess it really depends on who gets their shares/power. If it goes to the government, then in most cases, things would probably get worse, I'd imagine. If it somehow gets evenly distributed amongst the world's population, that could be interesting. How would amazon fair if we all got 1/8B of Bezos shares? That would be quite interesting.
What did I say that made you think I have an "incorrect understanding of public versus private sector"?
Do you mean that because I think the government wouldn't be good at running a business that I misunderstood something? The us government is famously bad about spending outrageous amounts for simple things. Cups that cost over $1,000, toilet seats for over $10,000.. there's tons of things like this. That may be fine when you don't have to worry about being profitable, but it won't fly when trying to run a business.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/opinion/pentagon-budget-military-spending-waste.html
You're so cryptic. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but you really don't answer clearly or explain your reasoning.
IIRC the reason military spending is so extreme is because the US military is required by law to have the paperwork to prove their entire supply chain is domestic, as part of a worst case readiness thing. Could be wrong though, not like I've really looked into it all that much.
The US military gets so much stuff from other countries. There was a "Buy American Act" about 100 years ago, which still stands, but it allows for so many exceptions that get used very often. There have been a few other similar acts since then, but they all include well-used exceptions.
What you're describing would amount to either eminent domain or civil asset forfeiture, both things that you really shouldn't be resorting to for money unless you've run out of all other options to cover a budget and have a spectacular plan to get the country back onto regular revenue with that money already in place, because that window can only be broken into once.
The purpose is wealth redistribution, not financing the State. Ideally, that money would go to a one time expenditure like a tax rebate for lower earners or a stimulus or something. Revenue neutral for the State.
I feel like that almost makes it worse
Even assuming we could just get all the money with no complications, every billion seized this way would redistribute something like 3 dollars to the average american, because there's a fokkin' lot of us.
What'd be better would be to turn that money into a sovereign wealth fund that can be tapped for crisis moments or unexpected budget deficits. Basically as a "fuck you we don't need austerity" piggy bank whenever economic downturn prompts the right wing nutcases to start complaining how things like a functioning government are a waste of money.
Why piggy bank it when there are things right now that could, and would, use the money?
Crumbling road infrastructure, social programs, implementation of better public transit, EV rebates, homelessness programs, library attorney's fees, replacing lead pipes for water delivery systems, forest fire management, employment insurance, boosting food and cash aid for the needy, etc.
Because we currently have money for those things and just aren't spending it on them.
Building up an actual lean time fund for actual lean times instead of engineered poverty that can and should be addressed with what's already there is just good policy, growth is not infinite, and having an emergency fund available to make up differences can significantly smooth over bust times for the working class.
Why not? What about it being a silly thought experiment invalidates wanting to look closer at it?
Billionaires do not earn their wealth. That's the through line.
Not necessarily. If you want to do a new thing, make a new rule
For example, send them a tax bill for 99% their net worth. Offer to accept assets at the calculated market price and the government can sell it slowly, or let them sell it off for pennies on the dollar and submit their new net worth for an adjusted amount
Obviously that's super heavy handed, but you can slice it a million different ways
Take their assets.
Give them to who?
The people who built them.
That would be interesting. Anyone who has over a billion dollars is forced to distribute their wealth across anyone who has ever worked for them. Even more interesting than this would be to do it for anyone who has ever worked for anyone else. All boss/employee relationships. I wonder how this would change the world.
This was tested...sort of. He didn't give away his money he just supposedly didn't make use of it essentially hitting the road as a fake homeless and making money by selling stuff he bought on facebook market.
The fellow was a millionaire not a billionaire and I think he went from nothing to ~50k in nearly a year. He called it off early because he was basically destroying his health.
Yeah, with friends housing him and hiring him 🤡
Not to mention that actually poor people don't have a cheat code to get them out when their health suffers. Which then makes them less able to keep working at maximum mental and physical capacity.
So this was nothing but a demonstration that nepotism and money is what one really needs.
He could also take higher risks, since he knew that there was a security net to catch him. Much easier to make high risk/reward decisions, if the risk (e.g. going broke) isn't actually real. He presumably also had an above average education and many other benefits. This is also why many rich people might end up building successful businesses. The average person might get one shot and either makes it or goes broke. The rich person can roll the dice multiple times (and might have learned something from the last try).
Also disregarding everything even, if he had succeded: That would still only have been a sample size of one. I doubt anyone is saying that you can't under any circumstances pull yourself out of poverty, but on average the cards are just stacked against you in many ways.
Also i doubt that reselling second hand stuff is a viable business model for a larger group. Like sure in a large city a few people might be able to carve out a niche for themself, but the more people do it or the smaller the market, the less it works.
So you have a link? That sounds interesting as.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13332399/Millionaire-Mike-Black-homeless-broke-purpose-ends-bizarre-social-experiment.html He made 64,000 before he tapped out. His trajectory is also not entirely kosher
Nobody lets a homeless stay in their van to bootstrap their buy and sell craigslist furniture business
Most people who were homeless 90 days prior is going to be in a position to be appointed someone's social media manager or else they likely wouldn't even be homeless in the first place.
Even with obvious cheat codes he couldn't get more than 64k starting from "zero" wherein zero means being homeless in nice gear with your $1000 phone and unlimited internet plan with a health plan and a GP and specialists
And do what with it? Just, like, fund society and shit? how are we going to grow extra assholes doing that?
100% It will work.
A fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism.
It's actually just hungry hungry hippos. And hippos can eat smaller hippos
I say tax rates should be decided based on wealth shares.
Break it down like this, brackets set at the 20th, 40th, 60th, 80th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of household incomes.
People in the 20th 40th and 60th percentile brackets pay a tax rate equal to how much wealth is controlled by households in each of those brackets.
People in the 80 and 95 brackets pay twice the share they control.
People in the 99 bracket pay three times, and also can't hold public office for ten years after the last time they peak this bracket because, objectively, they are doing just fine for themselves and don't need to be going ahead of others who have actual problems a nation should be focused on addressing.
Also, with very few exceptions like a mortgage on a primary residence or a car loan for a primary vehicle, loans collateralized on capital assets are treated as income for tax purposes.
The central problem of a wealth tax is defining wealth. Real estate is relatively simple and well-tried, there's an appraisal process. But securities can fluctuate a lot. A billionaire CEO might turn into a millionaire after a bad earnings report, and end up paying taxes on wealth he was never able to actually have.
Then there's the whole infinite banking, living off loans secured with investments thing.
Not saying it's impossible, just difficult and complicated.
I said in the thing, loans collateralized on capital assets are treated as income under this model
It's not a wealth tax, it's a tax on trying to avoid using that wealth through the bank shit.
So if you get a loan for 100k, and pay back 100k + interest, what are you taxed on?
The 100k loan
As income? It would have to be a much much lower rate than that. And how would you make sure this doesn't harm middle and lower class borrowers? Mortgages, car financing, home improvement, debt consolidation loans, etc? Normal people get loans too. It would make homeownership completely impossible for anyone not a multimillionaire.
I literally said in the thing that primary residence mortgages and primary vehicle car loans would be exempt.
Are you actually reading anything I posted here or are you just trying to sealion for the billionaires?
I'm trying to say that it would be very difficult to just have a ton of little carve-outs for specific loan types that primarily non rich people use. You'll have things like people getting a $100k loan secured by a way overvalued car. Ok so you introduce regulations to appraisals, that would require a massive new government bureaucracy. Now everything that secures a loan requires an appraisal, so that raises the cost. You have a carve out for credit cards, so rich people invent a "credit card" that only has a 3% interest rate that you can only get approved for if you have a certain amount of assets. So now you set more regulations for credit cards and unsecured debt. And on and on.
It would be even more byzantine and difficult than existing tax laws. Income is a relatively straightforward concept. Unrealized income (aka wealth) is not.
As soon as someone unironically suggests that loans should be considered income, under any circumstances, you can safely stop listening to their economics takes, lol.
Billionaires ruined it for everyone else by actually using it as their real income.
Blame them for playing games.
Billionaires do nothing different than anyone who takes out a HELOC on a house that appreciates in value at a rate higher than the LOC.
No one "ruined" anything or "played games", you're just ignorant of what's actually being done. If your collateral happens to be something that appreciates in value faster than your loan balance does, you can do the exact same thing.
Small business loans are also all basically predicated on the exact same premise: "loan me this upfront money I need, and I can use it to make enough money to pay you back and then some". The only difference is that I'm that case, the 'thing that becomes more valuable' is being created, it's not something that exists already that's growing in value.
Yeah no except they literally did ruin it for everyone else and play games. Billionaires use extremely low interest loans collateralized on capital assets as a means to get free money that allows them to throw their wealth around without ever having to either risk number go down or having to pay their due.
We cannot allow billionaires to keep getting away with dodging what they owe because some people who frankly probably shouldn't be in the small business gang anyways might have to gasp get a job!
ok
A billionaire would potentially turn into a multi hundred millionaire. Very unlikely they would lose ~99% of their wealth to "only" become a millionaire.
The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars.
Great but that doesn't change my point. Securities fluctuate, if you don't sell then how do you value them?
And why shouldn't they be forced to sell?
If there's a huge tax penalty to hording company shares, maybe, just maybe, they would be instead incentivised to profit share with their employees. To focus more on retention than to do waves of layoffs to give their massive holdings a bump.
But we can't have that. We need to incentivize narcissistic mega billionaires to have all the money in the world, and still clutch to every last penny while they work their peasants to death.
Great. But how do you value them. A stock that's worth $5 one day, $10 the next, and $3 the next. How much do you tax it? How often?
You're giving high minded speeches and stuff but I'm asking how it would practically work. Because I think it's way more complicated than you think it is.
Edit: See further down, it could be done by averaging amounts over time.
High minded speeches? Seriously? There are plenty of feasible options.
If it's a public company, you can take the median price for the quarter. If they're holding over $500,000 or whatever amount as calculated by the median share price, they're taxed. You can make it tiered, and tax the shit out of anyone holding over $500m or whatever. If they want to avoid that tax, they can sell, and pay the capital gain.
Or they could tie it to % over median employee shares granted per year. So if you have lopsided profit sharing, tax the fuck out of the greedy C level.
Private is harder since it's less obvious what the tangible value is. But you could use the % shares granted yearly again. Maybe have it tiered to a companies net worth or whatever other metric that would be most appropriate.
It's fucking ridiculous that we have articles like "Bezos lost $1 billion after shares took a dive this week" kind of articles. That's a single person hording billions and billions in shares while the workers doing the actual work get pennies.
Most stocks are in mutual funds and ETFs. So if I have a million dollars, but I only own like $500 worth of any one company...?
Division of labor would suggest the people that are best at hunting money, hunt the money for the tribe while the others do other stuff.
I mean those who have a crap ton of money have it because they don't mind exploiting others in terrible ways to get it. So maybe the cream would rise back up to the top psychopaths.
Naw, I'm down with exploiting others for personal gain but I simply lack the capital to do so in the same way as the ultra rich.
I'm not going to pretend every low income person is some ethical ideal, because I sure as fuck aren't.
And that's why like laws and shit are needed to prevent that exploitation or whatever.
True they'd need to keep at least a few million to rise back to the top
Don't underestimate the power of social capital.
Don't forget, Nepotism and "net working" aka groups of sociopaths working together to shear the sheep...
If you take their money, they still have their connections, as long as the other wolves don't turn on them.
Edit: as another poster said "social capital" is a thing.
Not gonna lie, had me in the first half
Not me, but only because I've watched his videos on YouTube. The man is a brilliant comedian IMO.
What's fun is everytime something like this is tried, it fails spectacularly... and they know that.
When in history did anybody take away billionaires' money?
There was a recent case of a young billionaire who basically signed over everything to a family member to live on the street to prove he could "Make millions from nothing!" and that the poors "Were just being lazy"
It didn't end well for him and he begged mommy to give him his wealth back because going too long without his gold-plated jaquzzi was hard
The French revolution and other related uprisings. See: Romanov family vs Bolsheviks.
Edit: it was a joke ffs
They took away power and status, not primarily the money.
Eh, those kids had a lot of diamonds on them.
They killed left and right, we're talking about like taxing unusable wealth from peop'e who don't need it (and didn't earn it in any kind of morally okay way).
You can't tax wealth.
Not with that attitude.
Eat the rich.
And get food poisoning
Same goes for a wealthy grifter. Take all his money away and he will steal more. Scum always rises to the top. No need to test that.
Oh man, Lemmy is finally popular enough for the shitty ads.
We did it!
Oooh they even have an AZ area code.
So she's local? Don't miss the opportunity!
They would. It's an interesting mindset to have. There's people who get into debt over stupid chit... like cars and jewelry. And there's people who get into debt by pulling loans and investing with said loans to then multiply their investments and intentionally stay in perpetual debt for their financial benefit. They don't feel the stress of owing money back to the banks, they're a godless (it is a sin within Abrahamic religions to not pay back your debts, essentially, you're stealing someone else's money) and immoral people.
There's no correlation between being rich and being intelligent.
Also, no they wouldn't. 90% of them are rich because they had money before they gained consciousness. You have to have money to make money.
And isn't greed a sin? isn't having billions being greedy? You just hate poor people, don't you?
Not true.. You need good credit to have money and make that money make you money. Or ask for a loan from a person instead of a bank.
Greed is a sin. It is subjective, having billions doesn't automatically make you a greedy person. If you have billions, are you giving to charities?
I'm Muslim so here's this:
No, I don't hate poor people. I was born into a lower middle class family and if the world was perfect, all humans would be wealthy and live financially stress free, accessible to any and all resources needed to prosper.
If you think having more money than 99% of the people that have ever existed on earth is not greed... not even god could save you.
You could give out 99% of that money and live a lavish life.
If greed is subjective then sins are subjective. Therefore not paying back your debts is subjective. There's no objective meaning to anything, it seems.
So you're saying that if you're wealthy to an extreme, that not even giving to charity, helping the needy, will save you from the definition/title of being greedy?
Okay.
There's thousands of people who need to have their salaries increased. Aren't they the needy?
Pay the workers, ffs. Else, you're greedy, yes.
This is not the argument you think it is.
Those who run charities are not the holiest humans either. A fraction of what is sent to charities goes to those they claim to help.
Hey, I agree. If I was a business man and I was making a cool $1M per year, whatever other profits I make beyond that would easily go to the company and its employees. $1M per year is a very healthy income to live on. However, I would not ever violate another person's right to own whatever they own just because they have an excess of it. Because that too could happen to me. If they gained that excess by means of crime (breaking actual laws), that's a different story.
And I also agree regarding charities.. for example, I don't give my money to the red cross. I'm at work so I don't have access to my bookmarks, but there's a site that lists all charities and what percentages of donations goes to the organization itself vs the people who need it.
The problem with having this much money is the power that it brings. A life of modesty brings you way closer to god than anything else. Billionaires are sometimes praised but poor who dare use tricks to gain wealth are called sinners and immoral people. We're stuck playing a game with rules that are different for everyone.
Temporarily embarrassed millionaire :/
Yes- especially people like Bill Gates, who gives to charities he controls, so basically he's still benefiting from the power his insane wealth brings, but gets to pretend he's helping the world.
The Baha'i Faith was told explicitly that the first step towards True World Peace is universal education for all. The second step is the abolition of extremes of poverty and wealth.
Greed will kill us all, if we don't stop it.
That's The Hidden Imam that said that.
I really needed to puke, thank you for helping me achieving said need.
All billionaires come from privileged positions that afforded the needed social structures, and funding, to do it. Most people who become billionaires do so via inheritance. When you look into those who did not you see a pattern of born into a position with the resources to do so, and/or a string of random luck allowing for the needed connections.
Bill Gates' parents had enough money to send him to one of the few high schools that had a computer to learn coding on, had an investment banker uncle that put millions into microsoft when it was still operating in a motel room, and his mother was on the board of a charity with one of the board members of IBM, and asked him to consider her son's software.
Warren Buffett happened to meet a man who owned a large commercial property, that liked him, and ended up giving him the property, after mentoring him on how to invest, something he had developed an interest in after meeting someone in that industry while in the military. He sold the property for a lot of money and used it to apply what he had been mentored on.
Steve Jobs was adopted by well to do parents who raised him in silicon valley. This not only allowed him to be in silicon valley as it set off to be the most important place in the tech industry, he also had other benefits. His father had a full blown mechanic's set up in their garage because it was his hobby. He taught Steve to use tools, and work on machines. Their neighbor was also an eccentric engineer in the very early silicon valley computer tech industry. This neighbor went out of his way to befriend the local kids and teach them about computers, software, electronics, and engineering. He also happened to become close friends with the brilliant Steve Wozniak.
I can go on. All billionaire's lives are a string of exceptional fortunate events.
Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, was not born into a particularly wealthy family. His parents, Jacklyn and Ted Jorgensen, were teenagers when Bezos was born on January 12, 1964, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Bezos's biological father, Ted Jorgensen, was a bike shop owner and later worked as a circus performer. Jacklyn and Ted divorced when Bezos was still an infant, and Jacklyn remarried Miguel Bezos, a Cuban immigrant who legally adopted Jeff and gave him his last name.
Miguel Bezos worked as an engineer for Exxon, and the family moved frequently due to his job. While Bezos grew up in a relatively stable and middle-class environment, his parents emphasized hard work, education, and resourcefulness. Bezos often credited his stepfather, Miguel, for instilling in him important values and a strong work ethic.
While Bezos did not inherit significant wealth, his upbringing provided him with a supportive family environment and access to educational opportunities. Bezos attended Princeton University, where he studied electrical engineering and computer science, laying the groundwork for his future entrepreneurial endeavors. It was during his time at Princeton that Bezos developed the idea for an online bookstore, which eventually grew into the e-commerce giant Amazon.com.
Oprah Winfrey: Born into poverty in rural Mississippi, Oprah Winfrey overcame significant challenges, including a difficult childhood marked by poverty and abuse. Through perseverance and talent, she became one of the most successful media personalities in the world, building a media empire that includes television, film, publishing, and philanthropy.
Howard Schultz: Growing up in a Brooklyn housing project, Howard Schultz faced financial hardship and struggled academically. Despite these challenges, he became the CEO of Starbucks, transforming it from a small coffee retailer into one of the world's most recognizable brands.
Jan Koum: Jan Koum immigrated to the United States from Ukraine as a teenager with his mother, facing poverty and relying on government assistance. He later co-founded WhatsApp, a messaging platform that was acquired by Facebook for billions of dollars, making Koum a billionaire.
Larry Ellison: Larry Ellison grew up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood in Chicago, raised by his aunt and uncle after his father died when he was nine months old. He co-founded Oracle Corporation, one of the world's leading enterprise software companies, and became one of the wealthiest individuals in the world.
John Paul DeJoria: John Paul DeJoria experienced homelessness and financial struggles early in his life. He went on to co-found Paul Mitchell Systems, a hair care company, and later founded the Patron Spirits Company, becoming a self-made billionaire.
Ralph Lauren: Ralph Lauren grew up in the Bronx, New York, in a working-class family. He started his career in fashion by selling ties, eventually launching his own brand, Polo Ralph Lauren, which became synonymous with luxury and style.
The issue with having billions is that with maybe a miniscule amount of exceptions, no one person is able to generate billions. 99% of the time someone becomes a billionaire by starting or buying a company and maintaining a disproportionately large stake of ownership while the dozens or hundreds of people working for them receive a salary less than the profits they generate while receiving equity that is significantly smaller than the value that they contribute to the business. A truly ethical billion or trillion dollar company would be composed of a large group of multi millionaires along with a few millionaires and people living comfortable lives rather than a small group of multi billionaires and a few millionaires along with countless people struggling to get by.
Usury is still considered a sin, I believe. But then they figured out a way to make "charging interest on loans" ≠ "usury" so that lenders can now make money on their loans with impunity.
Interest in general is a sin, yes.
You can thank a certain people for that.. can't name names, don't want to be labeled a bigot or racist.
No one single group of people invented the idea of charging interest for loaned money. What makes you a bigot is that you think there is.
The oldest recorded history of usury was during ancient Mesopotamia.
It's the first and third Abrahamic religions. Christ never said anything about usery, and Baha'u'llah said that it was allowed within certain guidelines. It was only the Jewish and Muslim faiths that weren't supposed to charge other Jews, or other Peoples of The Book, (that would be Jews, Christians, and Muslims,) respectively. They could charge the hethans interest though
lol.. Muslims can't charge interest. Interest is a form of oppression.
In Islam, usury (known as "riba" in Arabic) is strictly prohibited. Riba refers to any guaranteed interest on loaned money, which is seen as exploitative and unjust. The prohibition of riba is based on several Quranic verses and Hadith (sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him).
Quranic Verses on Riba Condemnation of Riba: The Quran clearly condemns riba and warns of severe consequences for those who engage in it. For example:
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:275-279):
Surah An-Nisa (4:161):
In conclusion, in Islam, usury or interest (riba) is unequivocally prohibited due to its exploitative nature and potential to cause social and economic injustice. The Quran and Hadith provide clear guidance on avoiding riba and encourage ethical alternatives that promote fairness, mutual benefit, and social welfare. Islamic banking and finance have developed various instruments to adhere to these principles while providing viable financial services.
My apologies, I was differently informed by another Muslim. Admittedly they didn't go straight to the source, as we were having a casual conversation.
Baha'is can charge interest, but because of the examples in Judaism and Islam, we tend to stay out of finance altogether.