cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/30028880
Our policy initiatives and overall goal are slightly different than that of this sub, but we seek to have the largest tent that we can.
I believe incremental change is key, and although $12B may seem a ridiculously high wealth cap to a community arguing for a sub $1B cap, we hope you will look into our arguments.
A $12B cap has a much larger tent, as it only excludes 250 people in the world, and could be a first step in proving that wealth distribution is effective. By the numbers, people with $1B-$12B are not the driving issue of wealth inequality. If we can end the existence of major multi-billionaires all of humanity will be infinitely better off, whether they have a net worth of $1 or $1B
No, you don’t know how to do math.
Top 1% in USA has 42 trillion dollars. People with more than 12 billion dollars have a total of 3 trillion dollars, from which you want to let them remain with about 1 trillion.
So this cap only redistributes 2 trillion from the 1%, which is less than 5% of the wealth that they are hoarding. This doesn’t fix shit. Do you still not get it?
There are 813 billionaires in the US today. If we took away everything above $12B from them, we would start moving the roughly $5T they are sitting on while still leaving them with $1B-$12B each.
You are bringing up a completely different subject than what I referred to, which is that the 1% includes all net worths of $13M or more.
This conversation isnt about redistribution of much of anything from the 1% at large. Its about dislodging the 5 trillion dollars that sit largely in the hands of like 10 people. Just that $5T moving would be enough to allow the rest of the 1% unaffected. Thats like 1/3rd of the federal deficit
I fail to see where my math has been wrong at any point. The point of targeting that $5T specifically is because its $5T that is virtually guaranteed to never move otherwise. Its just feel good money for the mega billionaires, which even 1%er cant relate to or justify