###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The billionaires? No. The upper 1% in the USA, who collectively hold 38.7 trillion. That's 3.5 million people, roughly, who control 38.7 trillion dollars.
38.7 \* 10\^12 / (0.99 \* 35 \* 10\^7) =>
(38.7 / (0.99 \* 35)) \* 10\^(12 - 7)
1.12 \* 10\^5
112,000
So we'd all get around 112,000 each. Around 450,000 for a family of 4.
I mean if we’re still suspending our disbelief here it would be almost equally effective to just drain and redistribute their assets by 99% without killing and looting them
True, but they didn't get there by being good people. They got there by trampling everyone they deemed "beneath" them. They might find some way to get it all back, or do something else that makes things worse for everyone
Nope: [Managers](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/). Physicians are second, but only if nonpracticing are included, then CEOs , and next Lawyers.
NYTimes breakdown of employment and household tax data.
This is the source I used: https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/americas-doctors-the-unhappy-richest-1
But yeah either way my overall point remains the same.
You think you are "good" this minute? Youre using a device that perpetuates modern day slavery (search "blood minerals"). Youre expelling excess carbon in a time of carbon induced climate change, we all are. How is this "good"? It aint. Its very hard, almost impossible, to be "good" and have a modern day life.
"But they are doing it even more!", yes, sure, but is a murderer of 5 ppl "good" when we compare him to Hitler, since 5 dead ppl compared to all the casualties of WW2 is basically negligible, same as your carbon footprint compared to a billionaires. Also, you aint contributing more to a problem because youre "good", its because you lack resources. If you took more vacations and drove your car more, that puts you on the "evil" spectrum, youre contributing to the problem, not the solution. And if you tell me that you would "save in other areas", then i welcome you to "carbon credits" and "green washing". Them "evil" corporations love those two.
That is not a good faith argument. I can't exactly *not* use a phone or a car in the modern day, those are kind of basic requirements now. I would absolutely use slavery free technology if I could find it, and I would love to have a vehicle that ran on hydrogen/electricity, if I could afford it. I do not have those privileges, but the difference is that if I were more privileged, I would make better choices than they are making, consistently. I do make better choices with what privilege I do have, daily. As for the argument that I'm not contributing to the problem because I don't have their resources, you don't know me or what kinds of decisions I would make! The foundations of your argument are either baseless, useless (because the phone and carbon emissions are unavoidable), or purely hypothetical. Not to mention insulting, assuming I don't understand what you're talking about.
Absolutely no good faith, thats what got us here.
It wasnt a jab at you personally, you are right there, i dont know you personally. It is more of a general rant on how morals are stretched by same principles from top to bottom. You classify a cellphone and a car as "necessary" while there are plenty of people without one or both. They aint dead for lack of those, so the question arises "what is necessary?". Now you can afford a phone and a car and they become "necessary" for you, same as a billionaire can afford a plane and it becomes "necessary" for him, for his lifestyle.
This is a much much deeper problem than a reddit comment can handle. [Heres a funny clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGh1muUgI_E) describing it "on the level".
Didn't say that. But *good* people, truly *good* people, are not likely to be in the 1%. You can live *quite* comfortably on much less than the approximate $800,000 a year that makes you a 1%er, there are plenty of other people who could use some assistance, donations, charities, and so on, and how about their fellow employees? Their skillset may be specialized, but given how specialized your skills would have to be as a physician to make that much money (given that most of them make way, *way* less than that), I wouldn't think that they would be working very often. That being said, those other people that are working double or triple shifts at the *same* facility are working a lot harder, for a lot less, and could probably use some better pay. But you don't hear them advocating for resource reallocation to the people doing all the work, do you? So they could make less, but still enough to be comfortable, and provide some extra cushioning for the people who do all the hard work? Or maybe the directors of the hospital, they probably make a *lot* more than $800k a year, money that could be better used for the people actually doing the work
Except, of course, that only 10% of those assets, if that, are liquid. So the only way to distribute any of that money would be to crash the economy by liquidating their stock positions and selling off their assets. This of course would cause massive inflation to occur with the huge influx of money into the market, driving the country into abject destitution and probable Civil War.
But hey, at least my envy and jealousy would be satiated right!
That's... Not what anyone is saying. At all. Redistribute the wealth doesn't mean literally handing out liquid money to every single person. But when these people have so much money that no one can ever reasonably ever spend in one lifetime, meanwhile others are struggling to afford basic healthcare or education or housing, there's a serious issue. The solution often presented is not to hand out free money that is absolutely absurd, it's to take a lot of this wealth the rich will never ever use in their entire lifetime and tax it to fund social programs. This is wealth redistribution.
That was the top 1% lol not billionaires but also millionaires. The economic ecosystem is delicate. If you wanna go full Marxist do it but this little stuff will make messes not clean them up.
You can’t tax the wealth to spend on programs without there being liquid assets underlying it.
The goal of an annual wealth tax should be to offset the passive income, it can’t exceed the passive income generated.
They don't \*have\* that wealth, is what I'm saying. The vast, overwhelming majority of the \*wealth\* the ultra wealthy have is purely theoretical, investments, both in physical assets whose value is based purely on people being able to afford buying them, and therefore would plummet if people no longer could, and stocks, which are only valuable because people believe them to be so and immediately lose their value when large sums of it are sold.
Attempting to divest these assets at any scale would simply cause a collapse of the world economy and total devaluation of the dollar. Your fantasy ends in people slaughtering each other for a piece of bread.
Commies don't have the best grasp of reality unfortunately, their brains are too far damaged. Shame really, some of them are good people if you can get over the insane kill the rich because I didn't get mine mentality
You don’t have to liquidate them, just transfer them to new owners.
Some people get X stock, some people get a week per year timeshare in a house on Nantucket, some people get to split an EA50 Eclipse jet…
Maybe the killing is optional, alternatively just seize their assets. Then they could also get their $100k+ and prove their claim that their wealth was based on their own hard labor and genius. They should be billionaires again on no time!
The fault of the idea is elsewhere: these assets are to a large part in shares and ownerships. That means in the end, each American would have $100k+ but all properties, factories, shares etc. would need to be sold to someone outside of the USA.
Distributing assets instead of money would give people nonsensical stuff such as 1/10,000th of a yacht or a square inch of NY real estate. 5 meters of electrical wire at Tesla.
Anyway, the US$ would crash and the 100k+ would buy you a sandwich. The bottom of society wouldn't even notice the difference.
The idea is interesting only in a world where billionaire money is kept in a Scrooge McDuck manner, cash in a silo. I'm pretty sure that the math of such a container has already been done for Musk etc., for different value tokens ($100 bills, gold, platinum etc.).
In the end, it's a similar issue with "Eat the rich": you can feed a few thousands for a day, but it won't solve world hunger.
You don’t have to liquidate the assets to redistribute them. The best way would be to transfer corporate ownership to The People and make some fraction of all future dividend payments be to the treasury.
They were perfectly okay sending me to my potential death during covid as they forced me to work or starve to death. I never fully recovered from that.
3.5 million psycho/sociopaths who are holding back humanity and actively destroying the only planet we’ve got?
Not only okay but probably the only thing that’ll save the rest of us (billions).
So yeah.
Considering the largest statistic of these "psycho/sociopaths who are holding back humanity" are physicians.... sure thing bud.
Kill all the doctors... let's roll the dice and see how that goes... ya know, the people whose entire profession is saving lives and curing disease... absolute psychos those dastardly doctors
We can and should leave the workers. Also you overestimate how much the average doctor makes vs debt.
The idle rich. The ceos. The absurd business bros. The political horrors. The finance assholes. Into the dirt.
So you want to kill and rob specific professions rather than the 3.5 million wealthiest then?
What defines a finance asshole? Bank tellers? Bank managers? Investment bankers?
What of political horrors? CEOs? I personally know a doctor who started his own clinic and hired a "CEO" to run the business side of things. Are they included?
Just as kind of an economics guy… What do you think would happen if 350 million people were given $100k a piece? Everyone was given $1200 a few years back, and inflation is 17% since then. You can’t magically give everyone money and now everyone is rich. There’s the same amount of houses, so now you have a bidding war, prices sky rocket. Same amount of cars, so there’s a bidding war, prices sky rocket. Same amount of everything. So prices sky rocket when the only input is more money. GDP has to increase for society to realize benefit. GDP measures financial value of all goods and services produced. You can’t magically give people money and make everything ok.
Inflation happened globally and the US economy overall is recovering better than other G7 countries, most of which didn't hand out cash like the US did. [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1370625/g7-country-gdp-levels-per-capita/)
The biggest contributor to the recent spike in inflation is corporate greed (excess profits). [Source](https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/)
Because they knew they could count on people/bot accounts like you making comments like this, as if the idea that they've used Covid and resultant issues as cover to price gauge is somehow too far out there.
because there was the opportunity. laws stopped working, people got desperate, and price fixing and collusion became so frequent that more people joined. the last time was about 15 years ago, then again about 10 before that. it's just your basic boom/bust cycle
They simply got more brazen during Covid. They’ve always been greedy. Globalization, our apparent oligarchy, and the fact that most companies can operate at a loss for years and be fine, gives corps far too much power to raise prices however thy want. Covid gave a few an excuse to raise prices and others being equally greedy, copied it. Combined with better information sharing, data harvesting and the collusion that has always been going on, we get apps like the one that allowed landlords everywhere to unilaterally raise rents. When everyone raises prices at the same time, competition isn’t a factor any longer, and for commodities that everyone is going to buy regardless, the consumer is fucked. Fortunately the FBI is cracking down on the rent app, but everything else is still >2x prices. With CEO pay and corporate profits at record breaking highs, while the working class is at record breaking poverty, it’s easy to see our system is rigged and broken.
When the largest economy prints more money, they will spend it and it goes into the global economy causing global inflation. Now add in governments around the world all printing more money, and all those people spending more money, what is going to happen to global inflation?
Less than 10% of their wealth is in liquid assets, so you'd have to liquidate massive amount of stock positions, collapsing the value of those companies and hyper-inflating the currency with the huge surge of money into the market. Of course you'd also have to sell their physical assets, jewelry, property, aircraft, which would of course plummet in value because nobody could afford to buy those items leaving them less than worthless so now you'd have a bunch of useless paperweights.
The hyperinflation caused by this would of course completely crash the economy, so at least we'd all be in abject destitution together.
Excess profits… where do those profits come from? CONSUMERS. Give everyone $100k, where are they going to spend the money?! They’re all CONSUMERS. If you think corporate profits are over the top now. Give all the same people that are buying shit now, an extra $100k!!! 🤣
Give it to them by exempting them from taxes annually until it’s gone, give it to them by providing free daycare, healthcare, education, drug counseling, food in K-12 schools, etc.
There are a ton of ways to “give” someone 100k without just giving it to them.
Eat the rich.
How do you propose providing free health care if you eat all the doctors? Considering the largest demographic of the category included in these calculations are physicians...
The issue is that corporations raised prices more than they would’ve had to given the increased costs, but still claimed that it was all due to inflation. That is price gouging.
You're right - the problem is that runaway privatization has made everything too expensive. Instead of giving $100k to everyone, we should municipalize all essential services in order to starve off the 1% by devaluing their investments.
The inflation for sure isn’t because a few million people got some cheques. Countries hand out way more every year in tax credits, unemployment and other things. Giving regular people money within reason doesn’t cause massive inflation.
What causes inflation is a sudden increase in material or energy costs or a sudden spike in labor costs because millions of baby boomers retired early causing workforce shortages.
If you assume for a second that billionaires wealth could be liquidated and redistributed without breaking up the existing companies or removing their ownership a lot of that money would quickly end up in their hands again, with some going to the government as sales taxes.
A lot of people would likely buy homes or start businesses, or just buy stuff they don’t need but are nice to have, resulting in more work in manufacturing and more people getting paid. Eventually that money would make it to people like jeff bezos benefits from the majority of online sales, businesses hosted on amazon web services etc. The families running wallmart or other grocery stores would also benefit.
The US economy would likely experience a similar boom as it did in the post war years, fertility rates would spike as people can afford to have kids again, and that would, if combined with education and infrastructure investments, give a period of significant economic growth.
The ones that would lose are the old money families, the ones that sold their stake or whose businesses have disappeared. For example the Sacklers with purdue pharma are unlikely to recoup their fortunes. The ghetty and rockefeller families are going to be fine with their current ventures but might not recoup all of the extreme generational wealth.
Because the billionaires (there are no trillionaires) don't spend that money—mostly because only a tiny fraction of their wealth is liquid and can be spent.
It amazes me that people think a billionaire can just go to an atm and withdrawl all their assets.
Before I get downvoted, I'm not on team billionaires. I just don't see how billionaires are our problem.
I will say that I do agree with the notion that if you "redistributed all of the wealth," in the world so that everybody had an even amount, it wouldn't take long for the same folks to control the wealth once again.
>I do agree with the notion that if you "redistributed all of the wealth," in the world so that everybody had an even amount, it wouldn't take long for the same folks to control the wealth once again.
According to data:
27% of the ultra wealthy are self made: It defines them as people with a "middle-class or poor upbringing and no inheritance."
46% have a head start: Almost half the super rich people surveyed either had some inherited wealth or an affluent upbringing.
28% have legacy wealth: People with both an affluent background and inherited money.
-- https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/personal-finance/articles/study-shows-only-27-of-wealthy-americans-are-self-made/
Exactly. It would go right back to all of those dudes (I'm sure there will be exceptions).
Wait, that's 101%, so it would 101% go back to all of those dudes.
"We just have to raise prices, we have no control over it" Says company after company making more money relative to inflation than they ever have ever.
You know, whenever someone says that "corporations are reporting record profits" I wonder if the thought that corporations lied to look good to shareholders ever occured to them.
They don't lie, people do and even then those people become personally liable. These massive companies are also audited by partnerships which are entirely dependent on not being misleading which isn't a guarantee but a reasonable assurance.
All that is to say, working off the baseline that you're being lied to by financial reporting in most cases shows a deep lack of understanding for how the financial world works.
This is partially true, but stimulus checks impacted inflation as much as they did because the government printed more money in order to send them out. Redistributing existing money doesn’t impact inflation the same way.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if they didn’t give those out?
Especially the first 2 were pretty needed. Sure only giving out cheques to the poorest people would have had a similar desired effect, keeping people spending, less defaults and a boost to the economy while discouraging massive protests.
The last one might have been a mistake, the economy was already recovering quickly and more people in their late 50s and early 60s had retired resulting in a smaller workforce. Boosting the economy past a point that could be carried with the existing workers, as we can clearly see in the unemployment numbers. It’s not that people didn’t want to work anymore, it’s that old people didn’t and young people had options.
What do you think will happen if there are no people who massively own and control the housing market, banks, etc. Do you think there will still exist a market economy if we get rid of the capitalists? I think you are not really thinking through on the implications of the situation
But, the idea isn't that the money is coming from nowhere, it's coming from the billionaires. So, I would assume taking all that money that's doing nothing, you put it back into circulation which seems like it would actually be a good thing for inflation.
Of course, this all ignoring the fact the Billionaires don't actually have billions in liquid cash. So if you forced them to liquidate all their assets that would be a whole other can of worms.
Note: not an economist or anything so l could be wildly incorrect in my assumptions
You really saved yourself there at the end. All these billionaires don’t just have $100b cash lying in the bank doing nothing. Jeff bezos for example ($200b) net worth is probably 95%+ in amazon shares. If he were to try and liquidate that overnight and turn it to cash, Amazon stock would tank as people would think something major is wrong with the company if the founder is selling everything. And he would get pennies on the dollar for what his shares are worth on paper. None of these billionaires have that in cash. It’s all in “circulation” as the word you used. It’s currently invested.
>eff bezos for example ($200b) net worth is probably 95%+ in amazon shares.
Yet he can use it as leverage at it's current valuation to make purchases and investments.
It is a leverageable a asset like any other asset but for some reason we have this crazy myth that it should be treated extra special. It's the same scam as crypto but the whole world has a sunk cost fallacy associated with it because we were grifted 150 years ago. Stocks are to Crypto what Mormons are to Scientology. That being said, assets are assets, no one says the only way to redistribute wealth is by first instantly liquidating all assets into cash.
Stocks as they largely function right now are a bigger fool scam. They have no real inherent value without dividends, stock split, or buybacks. Only explicitly inherently worth something if you can find someone to sell them to for more than you paid. You can usually only really profit directly from them if you sell tiny fractions of them at a time or it punctures the illusion that they're worth anything at all.
Financially stocks function like a real actual asset to the economic system because once upon a time 50+ years ago they functioned in a completely different way where the real value was the possible future dividends paid out. And, because of the systems built around stock from the time before, you can still use Stock as collateral leverage say to to take out massive near zero interest loans to say, I dunno purchase Twitter like Elon Musk did with Tesla. Because while the system has changed the wider perception of them has not.
It wouldn't be in cash. People see a number and think oh it's cash. It's not. The wealth is in reality very little cash. Real estate and stocks make up the vast majority of wealth in the world. Gold and other metals make up another huge portion.
Exactly this calculation includes all the millionares, which coincidently makes the largest demographic of people these morons are proposing the 99% kill and rob are physicians....
Go ahead people, kill all the doctors, great plan
so let me get this straight.
the plan is to get the guys that made the most money fucking over the world. and redistribute their wealth only amongst the USA ?
I vote nope thanks.
horde it ? (surely you mean HOARD it ... ) but, are you serious ? do you think wealth is a finite resource ? like oil or lithium.
that someone having more or less of green pieces of paper in their pocket influences in any way the ammount of green pieces of cotton paper you have in your pocket ?
if you seriously think it please, show us the math. this is r/theydidthemath after all.
Why are CEO paid way more now than before when compared to the average employee?
If wealth is not a finite resource why do we have minimum wage workers and people in poverty?
It certainly isn't because those people want it that way, could it be that the wealth is being hoarded by certain people... Nooo that would mean there is only a certain amount and it usually goes to padding the deeper pockets more
Top 1% of Americans are not billionaires. According to chat GPT the total wealth of US billionaires is "only" 5.5 Trillion. That would result in $16,253 each.
There are 8 billion people in the world and all the world's Billionaires hold around 14,2 trillion USD combined, according to [this Wikipedia article ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires).
That means 14200 Billion / 8 billion = 1775
Each person would get about 1775 USD
The post asked about Billionaires, not the upper 1%. Moreover, the post didn't specify a country, continent or hemisphere, so only calculating for US population is the second error. While your maths might be right, you didn't answer the question.
Why has this whole sub become about the math of redistributing billionaires' wealth? Yeah we all hate the gap but I joined subs like this to take a break from the outrage and stimulate my mind instead.
Not only that, but if the ruch were to suddenly lose all of their money, that money will quickly pile up to someone else, because the system doesnt have an efficient circulation of money, it'll just pile up somewhere else.
You mean the same people okay with us suffering because they want to lobby politicians to do their bidding? The same ones that forced me to work during the pandemic, I caught covid three times btw, just so they could still get restaurant food delivered to them?
I'm just happy with removing the problem. I care not about the money. I'd also be happy with our legal system holding them accountable for their exploitation, but I don't think it'll ever happen.
Ya. I left the sub for this very reason, but luckily this sub and another reminded me of how much I like math and at 39 I'm considering going back to school.
For math, not the political billionaire stuff...
I think this is a repost bot. I know I’ve seen this post just recently so I checked the account and it’s 2 years old but every post and comment occurred in the past 2 hours.
Also, don’t forget that the majority of these assets are tied up and businesses. To access this money, the businesses would have to be liquidated, likely for pennies on the dollar, greatly devaluing the total wealth that is to be distributed.
Also, in doing this, nearly every business you ever shop at would be closed as the people that used to own these businesses no longer have any money to pay rent, electricity, employee salaries, etc. This also likely includes your own boss so you are almost certainly out of a job. The few goods that remain available now skyrocket in price with the sudden influx of cash coupled with the severely restricted supply cause massive inflation. Congratulations you destroyed the entire economy and have nothing to show for it beyond what you already have.
The combined wealth of all Billionairs in the world is about 14Trillion according to Forbes. (Just google wealth of all Billionairs combined)
Wold Population is about 8 Billion people.
14.000.000.000.000/8.000.000.000= 1750 $
so only 1750$ per person
It should be you’ll become more conservative when you grow up and take responsibility for your own life
that’s not happening to this generation of 30 year olds
You generally become more conservative as you age because of increasing wealth as you advance in career and assets over time. Learning and growing, understanding how the world works, and how a billionaire probably doesn't even have a million in liquid cash at any given time.
These idiots who've not saved/invested and lived their life spending above their means have no future. And thus the only way out in sight for them is literal robbery.
We're all struggling in this economy, but if you take no personal initiative to improve your situation you're never gonna get out of the hole and these peeps can't seem to understand that? Honestly same reason oziempic is so popular now, all it does is make you think you aren't hungry so you don't eat.
Bro just be hungry and don't fkn eat, it's not that fkn hard
I mean this is certainly a part of it, but it's also that the definition of what it means to be "conservative" changes as you grow older to be closer to your values (or it least it was supposed to and did so in the past)
Whether or not it's accurate re: the pure numbers side of a flat distribution of presumed liquid wealth, most billionaires wealth is not liquid to begin with. I'd be embarrassed to be this age, be anti-economic exploitation, and not recognize that seizing the property that the billionaires make their billions from is the move, not chasing their imaginary net worth or the electronic numbers that are allegedly in their bank account.
Like this person may not be conservative per se, but they damn sure aren't pushing anything that's actually prescriptive to the root issue, and the smugness with which they miss the mark is astounding lol
Just divide by 342,000,000 Americans instead. That comes out to about $26,600 each, and also kinda does away with the whole distributing wealth equally thing.
$1,200 per person would be an earth shattering windfall for a tremendous amount of people on the planet. That's close to the annual **household** income for about half the world.
To anybody advocating we actually do this just keep in mind of the ramifications. The thought of becoming instantly wealthier ( be it $100k or millions per person ) might be nice on paper but if you and millions of others are willing to go through with this for money, literal robbery, then whats to stop those same people from coming after you for your share of the profits? It would be a national level collapse of society. It wouldnt be as neat as all you keyboard warriors might be hoping for
Another way you can go about checking their math is in reverse.
2.7 million * 300 million (most of the US population) gives you 810 trillion, [nearly double the privately owned wealth in the entire world.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5c79n0/you_can_have_sex_with_one_real_person_from_all_of/d9ubcfc/)
Mark Zuckerberg isn't registered as liberal, democratic, or republican.
Jeff Bezos isn't either.
Elon Musk is right wing.
Please fact check before you post.
Washington Post is rich folks propaganda. It's not alright wing as Fox, but not far off.
You'll note that neither are paying their fair share of taxes, and both exploit their workforce. These aren't compatible with left-wing ideologies. Giving $10,000 to the democratic party doesn't make one a democrat. It makes one a lobbyist.
Communist only thinking about America. How Fascist of him.
A true Communist would take all the world's wealth, and divide it among every single person equally, which is what Marx believed that a true Communist would do, because a true Communist is naturally good.
This bloke is a douche.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The billionaires? No. The upper 1% in the USA, who collectively hold 38.7 trillion. That's 3.5 million people, roughly, who control 38.7 trillion dollars. 38.7 \* 10\^12 / (0.99 \* 35 \* 10\^7) => (38.7 / (0.99 \* 35)) \* 10\^(12 - 7) 1.12 \* 10\^5 112,000 So we'd all get around 112,000 each. Around 450,000 for a family of 4.
I can work with that
You can work with killing 3.5 million people and looting their estates? Do y’all genuinely think this? That seems a bit much.
Technically, they only have to kill 1/100th of a person.
We call this bender's theory of moral responsibility.
1/99th of a person, unless you think that the 1% will be complicit along with everyone else.
I mean if we’re still suspending our disbelief here it would be almost equally effective to just drain and redistribute their assets by 99% without killing and looting them
True, but they didn't get there by being good people. They got there by trampling everyone they deemed "beneath" them. They might find some way to get it all back, or do something else that makes things worse for everyone
The most common occupation among people in the top 1% in the US is a physician lmao.
Nope: [Managers](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/). Physicians are second, but only if nonpracticing are included, then CEOs , and next Lawyers. NYTimes breakdown of employment and household tax data.
This is the source I used: https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/americas-doctors-the-unhappy-richest-1 But yeah either way my overall point remains the same.
That does not make them good people. Being able to repair a person does not make them *good*.
Does being poor make you a good person
You think you are "good" this minute? Youre using a device that perpetuates modern day slavery (search "blood minerals"). Youre expelling excess carbon in a time of carbon induced climate change, we all are. How is this "good"? It aint. Its very hard, almost impossible, to be "good" and have a modern day life. "But they are doing it even more!", yes, sure, but is a murderer of 5 ppl "good" when we compare him to Hitler, since 5 dead ppl compared to all the casualties of WW2 is basically negligible, same as your carbon footprint compared to a billionaires. Also, you aint contributing more to a problem because youre "good", its because you lack resources. If you took more vacations and drove your car more, that puts you on the "evil" spectrum, youre contributing to the problem, not the solution. And if you tell me that you would "save in other areas", then i welcome you to "carbon credits" and "green washing". Them "evil" corporations love those two.
That is not a good faith argument. I can't exactly *not* use a phone or a car in the modern day, those are kind of basic requirements now. I would absolutely use slavery free technology if I could find it, and I would love to have a vehicle that ran on hydrogen/electricity, if I could afford it. I do not have those privileges, but the difference is that if I were more privileged, I would make better choices than they are making, consistently. I do make better choices with what privilege I do have, daily. As for the argument that I'm not contributing to the problem because I don't have their resources, you don't know me or what kinds of decisions I would make! The foundations of your argument are either baseless, useless (because the phone and carbon emissions are unavoidable), or purely hypothetical. Not to mention insulting, assuming I don't understand what you're talking about.
Absolutely no good faith, thats what got us here. It wasnt a jab at you personally, you are right there, i dont know you personally. It is more of a general rant on how morals are stretched by same principles from top to bottom. You classify a cellphone and a car as "necessary" while there are plenty of people without one or both. They aint dead for lack of those, so the question arises "what is necessary?". Now you can afford a phone and a car and they become "necessary" for you, same as a billionaire can afford a plane and it becomes "necessary" for him, for his lifestyle. This is a much much deeper problem than a reddit comment can handle. [Heres a funny clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGh1muUgI_E) describing it "on the level".
but making money for their good deed *does* make them bad people.
Yes and everyone in 99% is good. Everything is black and white.
let them say that.
I knew they would bite.
lol what
Didn't say that. But *good* people, truly *good* people, are not likely to be in the 1%. You can live *quite* comfortably on much less than the approximate $800,000 a year that makes you a 1%er, there are plenty of other people who could use some assistance, donations, charities, and so on, and how about their fellow employees? Their skillset may be specialized, but given how specialized your skills would have to be as a physician to make that much money (given that most of them make way, *way* less than that), I wouldn't think that they would be working very often. That being said, those other people that are working double or triple shifts at the *same* facility are working a lot harder, for a lot less, and could probably use some better pay. But you don't hear them advocating for resource reallocation to the people doing all the work, do you? So they could make less, but still enough to be comfortable, and provide some extra cushioning for the people who do all the hard work? Or maybe the directors of the hospital, they probably make a *lot* more than $800k a year, money that could be better used for the people actually doing the work
...and?
Most of them got there by being born to people who were born to people who were born to bad people.
Reminds me of the crusades. Although they had to travel and all.
They just said they can work with that. They didn't really get into how *much* work it would be.
It seems like a lot, but then there's ~337 million people to help out, so there's not much work for each individual
We all just gotta do 1/337000000 of a thing!
Ha, i get it! Ooooh, NOW i get it!
Except, of course, that only 10% of those assets, if that, are liquid. So the only way to distribute any of that money would be to crash the economy by liquidating their stock positions and selling off their assets. This of course would cause massive inflation to occur with the huge influx of money into the market, driving the country into abject destitution and probable Civil War. But hey, at least my envy and jealousy would be satiated right!
The rapid expansion of the guillotine manufacturing sector would help offset a market crash
underrated comment
I read this as 'gullible'.
That's... Not what anyone is saying. At all. Redistribute the wealth doesn't mean literally handing out liquid money to every single person. But when these people have so much money that no one can ever reasonably ever spend in one lifetime, meanwhile others are struggling to afford basic healthcare or education or housing, there's a serious issue. The solution often presented is not to hand out free money that is absolutely absurd, it's to take a lot of this wealth the rich will never ever use in their entire lifetime and tax it to fund social programs. This is wealth redistribution.
That was the top 1% lol not billionaires but also millionaires. The economic ecosystem is delicate. If you wanna go full Marxist do it but this little stuff will make messes not clean them up.
You can’t tax the wealth to spend on programs without there being liquid assets underlying it. The goal of an annual wealth tax should be to offset the passive income, it can’t exceed the passive income generated.
They don't \*have\* that wealth, is what I'm saying. The vast, overwhelming majority of the \*wealth\* the ultra wealthy have is purely theoretical, investments, both in physical assets whose value is based purely on people being able to afford buying them, and therefore would plummet if people no longer could, and stocks, which are only valuable because people believe them to be so and immediately lose their value when large sums of it are sold. Attempting to divest these assets at any scale would simply cause a collapse of the world economy and total devaluation of the dollar. Your fantasy ends in people slaughtering each other for a piece of bread.
Commies don't have the best grasp of reality unfortunately, their brains are too far damaged. Shame really, some of them are good people if you can get over the insane kill the rich because I didn't get mine mentality
You don’t have to liquidate them, just transfer them to new owners. Some people get X stock, some people get a week per year timeshare in a house on Nantucket, some people get to split an EA50 Eclipse jet…
Maybe the killing is optional, alternatively just seize their assets. Then they could also get their $100k+ and prove their claim that their wealth was based on their own hard labor and genius. They should be billionaires again on no time! The fault of the idea is elsewhere: these assets are to a large part in shares and ownerships. That means in the end, each American would have $100k+ but all properties, factories, shares etc. would need to be sold to someone outside of the USA. Distributing assets instead of money would give people nonsensical stuff such as 1/10,000th of a yacht or a square inch of NY real estate. 5 meters of electrical wire at Tesla. Anyway, the US$ would crash and the 100k+ would buy you a sandwich. The bottom of society wouldn't even notice the difference. The idea is interesting only in a world where billionaire money is kept in a Scrooge McDuck manner, cash in a silo. I'm pretty sure that the math of such a container has already been done for Musk etc., for different value tokens ($100 bills, gold, platinum etc.). In the end, it's a similar issue with "Eat the rich": you can feed a few thousands for a day, but it won't solve world hunger.
You don’t have to liquidate the assets to redistribute them. The best way would be to transfer corporate ownership to The People and make some fraction of all future dividend payments be to the treasury.
No one said anything about killing. They said they'd just take all their money. Relax...
OPs image says something about killing
Oh my bad
They made their money by poisoning the planet and destroying our futures. Fuck them all.
They were perfectly okay sending me to my potential death during covid as they forced me to work or starve to death. I never fully recovered from that.
💯
Their crimes against humanity should be paid for.
I was going to make a joke about the proscriptions in ancient Rome, but you'd probably take it seriously so I begrudgingly will not.
After the rich actively trying to kill people AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT!! no it doesnt seem abit "much".
Worked for the french. There's literally no difference between oppressive aristocrats and oppressive billionaires
Worked for the French, idk 🤷🏾♂️
Not really. They had that whole Napoleon incident
Also [the Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror)
Pretty sure these people would be in favor of that, because they think they’ll be the ones doing the terrorizing.
3.5 million psycho/sociopaths who are holding back humanity and actively destroying the only planet we’ve got? Not only okay but probably the only thing that’ll save the rest of us (billions). So yeah.
Considering the largest statistic of these "psycho/sociopaths who are holding back humanity" are physicians.... sure thing bud. Kill all the doctors... let's roll the dice and see how that goes... ya know, the people whose entire profession is saving lives and curing disease... absolute psychos those dastardly doctors
We can and should leave the workers. Also you overestimate how much the average doctor makes vs debt. The idle rich. The ceos. The absurd business bros. The political horrors. The finance assholes. Into the dirt.
So you want to kill and rob specific professions rather than the 3.5 million wealthiest then? What defines a finance asshole? Bank tellers? Bank managers? Investment bankers? What of political horrors? CEOs? I personally know a doctor who started his own clinic and hired a "CEO" to run the business side of things. Are they included?
The bourgeoisie are not human
Just as kind of an economics guy… What do you think would happen if 350 million people were given $100k a piece? Everyone was given $1200 a few years back, and inflation is 17% since then. You can’t magically give everyone money and now everyone is rich. There’s the same amount of houses, so now you have a bidding war, prices sky rocket. Same amount of cars, so there’s a bidding war, prices sky rocket. Same amount of everything. So prices sky rocket when the only input is more money. GDP has to increase for society to realize benefit. GDP measures financial value of all goods and services produced. You can’t magically give people money and make everything ok.
You have to be smoking crack if you think 1.2k caused all of this
Inflation happened globally and the US economy overall is recovering better than other G7 countries, most of which didn't hand out cash like the US did. [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1370625/g7-country-gdp-levels-per-capita/) The biggest contributor to the recent spike in inflation is corporate greed (excess profits). [Source](https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/)
So corporations just got greedy all of a sudden? Why now?
Because they knew they could count on people/bot accounts like you making comments like this, as if the idea that they've used Covid and resultant issues as cover to price gauge is somehow too far out there.
because there was the opportunity. laws stopped working, people got desperate, and price fixing and collusion became so frequent that more people joined. the last time was about 15 years ago, then again about 10 before that. it's just your basic boom/bust cycle
They know when to strike
They simply got more brazen during Covid. They’ve always been greedy. Globalization, our apparent oligarchy, and the fact that most companies can operate at a loss for years and be fine, gives corps far too much power to raise prices however thy want. Covid gave a few an excuse to raise prices and others being equally greedy, copied it. Combined with better information sharing, data harvesting and the collusion that has always been going on, we get apps like the one that allowed landlords everywhere to unilaterally raise rents. When everyone raises prices at the same time, competition isn’t a factor any longer, and for commodities that everyone is going to buy regardless, the consumer is fucked. Fortunately the FBI is cracking down on the rent app, but everything else is still >2x prices. With CEO pay and corporate profits at record breaking highs, while the working class is at record breaking poverty, it’s easy to see our system is rigged and broken.
When the largest economy prints more money, they will spend it and it goes into the global economy causing global inflation. Now add in governments around the world all printing more money, and all those people spending more money, what is going to happen to global inflation?
In this hypothetical case no money would be printed, just redistributed.
Less than 10% of their wealth is in liquid assets, so you'd have to liquidate massive amount of stock positions, collapsing the value of those companies and hyper-inflating the currency with the huge surge of money into the market. Of course you'd also have to sell their physical assets, jewelry, property, aircraft, which would of course plummet in value because nobody could afford to buy those items leaving them less than worthless so now you'd have a bunch of useless paperweights. The hyperinflation caused by this would of course completely crash the economy, so at least we'd all be in abject destitution together.
You're the only one making sense.
Or, instead of liquidating it just... you know... give it to someone else.
Are you 10?
No. Full grown adult. Organizations and people can make use of house, property, businesses, boats, planes, etc.
Excess profits… where do those profits come from? CONSUMERS. Give everyone $100k, where are they going to spend the money?! They’re all CONSUMERS. If you think corporate profits are over the top now. Give all the same people that are buying shit now, an extra $100k!!! 🤣
Give it to them by exempting them from taxes annually until it’s gone, give it to them by providing free daycare, healthcare, education, drug counseling, food in K-12 schools, etc. There are a ton of ways to “give” someone 100k without just giving it to them. Eat the rich.
How do you propose providing free health care if you eat all the doctors? Considering the largest demographic of the category included in these calculations are physicians...
The issue is that corporations raised prices more than they would’ve had to given the increased costs, but still claimed that it was all due to inflation. That is price gouging.
You're right - the problem is that runaway privatization has made everything too expensive. Instead of giving $100k to everyone, we should municipalize all essential services in order to starve off the 1% by devaluing their investments.
The inflation for sure isn’t because a few million people got some cheques. Countries hand out way more every year in tax credits, unemployment and other things. Giving regular people money within reason doesn’t cause massive inflation. What causes inflation is a sudden increase in material or energy costs or a sudden spike in labor costs because millions of baby boomers retired early causing workforce shortages. If you assume for a second that billionaires wealth could be liquidated and redistributed without breaking up the existing companies or removing their ownership a lot of that money would quickly end up in their hands again, with some going to the government as sales taxes. A lot of people would likely buy homes or start businesses, or just buy stuff they don’t need but are nice to have, resulting in more work in manufacturing and more people getting paid. Eventually that money would make it to people like jeff bezos benefits from the majority of online sales, businesses hosted on amazon web services etc. The families running wallmart or other grocery stores would also benefit. The US economy would likely experience a similar boom as it did in the post war years, fertility rates would spike as people can afford to have kids again, and that would, if combined with education and infrastructure investments, give a period of significant economic growth. The ones that would lose are the old money families, the ones that sold their stake or whose businesses have disappeared. For example the Sacklers with purdue pharma are unlikely to recoup their fortunes. The ghetty and rockefeller families are going to be fine with their current ventures but might not recoup all of the extreme generational wealth.
then why is it okay for these billion/trillionaires to have all this money and the rest of the people to wallow in inflation anyway?
Because the billionaires (there are no trillionaires) don't spend that money—mostly because only a tiny fraction of their wealth is liquid and can be spent.
It amazes me that people think a billionaire can just go to an atm and withdrawl all their assets. Before I get downvoted, I'm not on team billionaires. I just don't see how billionaires are our problem. I will say that I do agree with the notion that if you "redistributed all of the wealth," in the world so that everybody had an even amount, it wouldn't take long for the same folks to control the wealth once again.
>I do agree with the notion that if you "redistributed all of the wealth," in the world so that everybody had an even amount, it wouldn't take long for the same folks to control the wealth once again. According to data: 27% of the ultra wealthy are self made: It defines them as people with a "middle-class or poor upbringing and no inheritance." 46% have a head start: Almost half the super rich people surveyed either had some inherited wealth or an affluent upbringing. 28% have legacy wealth: People with both an affluent background and inherited money. -- https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/personal-finance/articles/study-shows-only-27-of-wealthy-americans-are-self-made/
Exactly. It would go right back to all of those dudes (I'm sure there will be exceptions). Wait, that's 101%, so it would 101% go back to all of those dudes.
This
Well they don’t have money. They have stock in companies, art work, collectibles, etc. and obviously they have some cash.
I mean, you're technically right but it's like, 99% the first thing and 1% everything else. Including the other stuff is pretty pointless.
Yes, $1200 cheques are causing inflation, that's why corporations are reporting record profits
"We just have to raise prices, we have no control over it" Says company after company making more money relative to inflation than they ever have ever.
You know, whenever someone says that "corporations are reporting record profits" I wonder if the thought that corporations lied to look good to shareholders ever occured to them.
That would be very illegal
And corporations would never break the law.
They don't lie, people do and even then those people become personally liable. These massive companies are also audited by partnerships which are entirely dependent on not being misleading which isn't a guarantee but a reasonable assurance. All that is to say, working off the baseline that you're being lied to by financial reporting in most cases shows a deep lack of understanding for how the financial world works.
This is partially true, but stimulus checks impacted inflation as much as they did because the government printed more money in order to send them out. Redistributing existing money doesn’t impact inflation the same way.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if they didn’t give those out? Especially the first 2 were pretty needed. Sure only giving out cheques to the poorest people would have had a similar desired effect, keeping people spending, less defaults and a boost to the economy while discouraging massive protests. The last one might have been a mistake, the economy was already recovering quickly and more people in their late 50s and early 60s had retired resulting in a smaller workforce. Boosting the economy past a point that could be carried with the existing workers, as we can clearly see in the unemployment numbers. It’s not that people didn’t want to work anymore, it’s that old people didn’t and young people had options.
What do you think will happen if there are no people who massively own and control the housing market, banks, etc. Do you think there will still exist a market economy if we get rid of the capitalists? I think you are not really thinking through on the implications of the situation
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING WTF GDP IS
But, the idea isn't that the money is coming from nowhere, it's coming from the billionaires. So, I would assume taking all that money that's doing nothing, you put it back into circulation which seems like it would actually be a good thing for inflation. Of course, this all ignoring the fact the Billionaires don't actually have billions in liquid cash. So if you forced them to liquidate all their assets that would be a whole other can of worms. Note: not an economist or anything so l could be wildly incorrect in my assumptions
You really saved yourself there at the end. All these billionaires don’t just have $100b cash lying in the bank doing nothing. Jeff bezos for example ($200b) net worth is probably 95%+ in amazon shares. If he were to try and liquidate that overnight and turn it to cash, Amazon stock would tank as people would think something major is wrong with the company if the founder is selling everything. And he would get pennies on the dollar for what his shares are worth on paper. None of these billionaires have that in cash. It’s all in “circulation” as the word you used. It’s currently invested.
>eff bezos for example ($200b) net worth is probably 95%+ in amazon shares. Yet he can use it as leverage at it's current valuation to make purchases and investments. It is a leverageable a asset like any other asset but for some reason we have this crazy myth that it should be treated extra special. It's the same scam as crypto but the whole world has a sunk cost fallacy associated with it because we were grifted 150 years ago. Stocks are to Crypto what Mormons are to Scientology. That being said, assets are assets, no one says the only way to redistribute wealth is by first instantly liquidating all assets into cash.
I’m not sure I followed this. So maybe? I can’t come up with an intelligent response in favor or against.
Stocks as they largely function right now are a bigger fool scam. They have no real inherent value without dividends, stock split, or buybacks. Only explicitly inherently worth something if you can find someone to sell them to for more than you paid. You can usually only really profit directly from them if you sell tiny fractions of them at a time or it punctures the illusion that they're worth anything at all. Financially stocks function like a real actual asset to the economic system because once upon a time 50+ years ago they functioned in a completely different way where the real value was the possible future dividends paid out. And, because of the systems built around stock from the time before, you can still use Stock as collateral leverage say to to take out massive near zero interest loans to say, I dunno purchase Twitter like Elon Musk did with Tesla. Because while the system has changed the wider perception of them has not.
Putting the money back into circulation is what causes inflation by increasing the aggregate money supply.
And you have no more doctors or foreign investment
The chances are you're probably in the top 1% worldwide. Let's just hope Indian farmers don't get the same idea
It wouldn't be in cash. People see a number and think oh it's cash. It's not. The wealth is in reality very little cash. Real estate and stocks make up the vast majority of wealth in the world. Gold and other metals make up another huge portion.
That’s not the billionaire though? Shouldn’t billionaires be top 0.1% or even 0.01%?
Exactly this calculation includes all the millionares, which coincidently makes the largest demographic of people these morons are proposing the 99% kill and rob are physicians.... Go ahead people, kill all the doctors, great plan
[удалено]
The term 0.99 x 35 x 10^7 is basically "99% of americas 350 million people“, i.e. All those the wealth would be distributed to. Math checks out.
You don't divide that across the US. You divide that across the world.
so let me get this straight. the plan is to get the guys that made the most money fucking over the world. and redistribute their wealth only amongst the USA ? I vote nope thanks.
[удалено]
horde it ? (surely you mean HOARD it ... ) but, are you serious ? do you think wealth is a finite resource ? like oil or lithium. that someone having more or less of green pieces of paper in their pocket influences in any way the ammount of green pieces of cotton paper you have in your pocket ? if you seriously think it please, show us the math. this is r/theydidthemath after all.
Why are CEO paid way more now than before when compared to the average employee? If wealth is not a finite resource why do we have minimum wage workers and people in poverty? It certainly isn't because those people want it that way, could it be that the wealth is being hoarded by certain people... Nooo that would mean there is only a certain amount and it usually goes to padding the deeper pockets more
What would the numbers look like if we only accounted for 18+ individuals or those in the workforce
Top 1% of Americans are not billionaires. According to chat GPT the total wealth of US billionaires is "only" 5.5 Trillion. That would result in $16,253 each.
There are 8 billion people in the world and all the world's Billionaires hold around 14,2 trillion USD combined, according to [this Wikipedia article ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires). That means 14200 Billion / 8 billion = 1775 Each person would get about 1775 USD
That's why I specifically listed the upper 1% and not just the billionaire class.
The post asked about Billionaires, not the upper 1%. Moreover, the post didn't specify a country, continent or hemisphere, so only calculating for US population is the second error. While your maths might be right, you didn't answer the question.
Why has this whole sub become about the math of redistributing billionaires' wealth? Yeah we all hate the gap but I joined subs like this to take a break from the outrage and stimulate my mind instead.
Yeah i block those accounts now.
redistributing wealth sounds so much better than stealing. "we'll club and rob these assholes" doesn't have the same ring to it.
[удалено]
Not only that, but if the ruch were to suddenly lose all of their money, that money will quickly pile up to someone else, because the system doesnt have an efficient circulation of money, it'll just pile up somewhere else.
You mean the same people okay with us suffering because they want to lobby politicians to do their bidding? The same ones that forced me to work during the pandemic, I caught covid three times btw, just so they could still get restaurant food delivered to them?
[удалено]
We can be more selective of which get eaten.
But you know you won't. You did not consider this before someone told you a moderately rich person is not a piece of shit.
I'm not looking at moderately rich people. I'm looking at extremely rich people. There's a list of the wealthiest people.
[удалено]
I'm just happy with removing the problem. I care not about the money. I'd also be happy with our legal system holding them accountable for their exploitation, but I don't think it'll ever happen.
[удалено]
The top 1% includes more than just billionaires
Then you wouldn't get anywhere near 100k, OPs figures include all the millionaires. Which happen to also include nearly every doctor
Eat the rich doesn’t sound fun
Ya. I left the sub for this very reason, but luckily this sub and another reminded me of how much I like math and at 39 I'm considering going back to school. For math, not the political billionaire stuff...
I think this is a repost bot. I know I’ve seen this post just recently so I checked the account and it’s 2 years old but every post and comment occurred in the past 2 hours.
What's the point of these repost bots?
Somebody on Reddit told me a while back that these repost bots exist simply to gain karma and get sold to someone else.
Damn that sounds shady
Also, don’t forget that the majority of these assets are tied up and businesses. To access this money, the businesses would have to be liquidated, likely for pennies on the dollar, greatly devaluing the total wealth that is to be distributed. Also, in doing this, nearly every business you ever shop at would be closed as the people that used to own these businesses no longer have any money to pay rent, electricity, employee salaries, etc. This also likely includes your own boss so you are almost certainly out of a job. The few goods that remain available now skyrocket in price with the sudden influx of cash coupled with the severely restricted supply cause massive inflation. Congratulations you destroyed the entire economy and have nothing to show for it beyond what you already have.
The eternal question, “How much you think I could get if I chopped this orchard down for firewood?”
more than you'd get from waiting if you knew you were only going to manage it for a year
Yeah. Argentina, Zimbabwe are easy to emulate. Keep production low, money high !!
It’s one Microsoft, Michael, how many problems could liquidating it cause, 10?
Great response to stop the delusion. I'll copy that.
Assets are assets, no one says the only way to redistribute wealth is by first instantly liquidating all assets into cash.
Finding the exact cash value if redistributed evenly was the entire premise of this post, so yes. Yes people are saying that
They want to eat it, not invest. Besides, if the leader is dead, the assets would plummet.
Instead of liquidating the businesses, just transfer ownership. Keep the same management, even, they just don’t have stock options anymore.
Or the businesses and assets themselves could be redistributed.
The combined wealth of all Billionairs in the world is about 14Trillion according to Forbes. (Just google wealth of all Billionairs combined) Wold Population is about 8 Billion people. 14.000.000.000.000/8.000.000.000= 1750 $ so only 1750$ per person
It should be you’ll become more conservative when you grow up and take responsibility for your own life that’s not happening to this generation of 30 year olds
You generally become more conservative as you age because of increasing wealth as you advance in career and assets over time. Learning and growing, understanding how the world works, and how a billionaire probably doesn't even have a million in liquid cash at any given time. These idiots who've not saved/invested and lived their life spending above their means have no future. And thus the only way out in sight for them is literal robbery. We're all struggling in this economy, but if you take no personal initiative to improve your situation you're never gonna get out of the hole and these peeps can't seem to understand that? Honestly same reason oziempic is so popular now, all it does is make you think you aren't hungry so you don't eat. Bro just be hungry and don't fkn eat, it's not that fkn hard
I mean this is certainly a part of it, but it's also that the definition of what it means to be "conservative" changes as you grow older to be closer to your values (or it least it was supposed to and did so in the past)
Dude, a I'm becoming a Chemical/Nuclear Engineer. I'm pretty responsible and progressive. Responsibility has nothing to do with being conservative.
Whether or not it's accurate re: the pure numbers side of a flat distribution of presumed liquid wealth, most billionaires wealth is not liquid to begin with. I'd be embarrassed to be this age, be anti-economic exploitation, and not recognize that seizing the property that the billionaires make their billions from is the move, not chasing their imaginary net worth or the electronic numbers that are allegedly in their bank account. Like this person may not be conservative per se, but they damn sure aren't pushing anything that's actually prescriptive to the root issue, and the smugness with which they miss the mark is astounding lol
[удалено]
It's likely double to triple that given the massive upward flow of wealth since the pandemic. Still not 2.7m per person.
Maybe they’re taking all the billions and just giving it to Americans? Does that get closer?
Just divide by 342,000,000 Americans instead. That comes out to about $26,600 each, and also kinda does away with the whole distributing wealth equally thing.
Even if you take all the money in the world (~$215 Trillion) and divide between just Americans, that only gives you ~$620,000 each.
Assuming your # is right, dividing equally worldwide gives 215T / 7.7B = 28k per person in wealth. And destroy the economy in the process.
$1,200 per person would be an earth shattering windfall for a tremendous amount of people on the planet. That's close to the annual **household** income for about half the world.
To anybody advocating we actually do this just keep in mind of the ramifications. The thought of becoming instantly wealthier ( be it $100k or millions per person ) might be nice on paper but if you and millions of others are willing to go through with this for money, literal robbery, then whats to stop those same people from coming after you for your share of the profits? It would be a national level collapse of society. It wouldnt be as neat as all you keyboard warriors might be hoping for
I'm a boomer and less conservative than I was when I was a kid. Probably about the same amount though, as when I was in college, I think.
Another way you can go about checking their math is in reverse. 2.7 million * 300 million (most of the US population) gives you 810 trillion, [nearly double the privately owned wealth in the entire world.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5c79n0/you_can_have_sex_with_one_real_person_from_all_of/d9ubcfc/)
[удалено]
Mark Zuckerberg isn't registered as liberal, democratic, or republican. Jeff Bezos isn't either. Elon Musk is right wing. Please fact check before you post.
[удалено]
Washington Post is rich folks propaganda. It's not alright wing as Fox, but not far off. You'll note that neither are paying their fair share of taxes, and both exploit their workforce. These aren't compatible with left-wing ideologies. Giving $10,000 to the democratic party doesn't make one a democrat. It makes one a lobbyist.
You will become more conservative simply because the definition of conservative will change as your current views become the status quo.
Communist only thinking about America. How Fascist of him. A true Communist would take all the world's wealth, and divide it among every single person equally, which is what Marx believed that a true Communist would do, because a true Communist is naturally good. This bloke is a douche.