Cool, as long as we’re moving away from one person, one vote, I say we should give billionaires zero and everyone else a hundred. Or we could do it by net worth (ending at 0, no fuckery with debt so that millionaires are poorer than hobos) so that the people the most fucked over get the most say on what should change.

[–] CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

I like how you think. Have an upvote.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I say we make it a felony with a mandatory minimum 20 year sentence to even be a billionaire.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Or we could, hear me out here, just have a sensible tax code?

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is my vote. I don't know why the tax rate stops at 50%. Making your second million is easier than your first million, you should take home less of it. IMHO it should approach 100% as you make more and more. And the more money that you have the less valuable it is to you so we can put it to better uses for the society.

[–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Because the majority of wealth in the wealthy, is not derived by income, but by equity.

We need tax reform, not fiddling with the rates, so schemes like buy, borrow, die don't allow them to bypass taxes altogether.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Nah, addicts shouldn't be put in jail. Billionaires are just addicted to money hoarding and should go to mandatory rehab.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

At a cost of 15% of their net worth per day, 1 week minimum stay. At day 7 they'd still have $320M left if they started with exactly $1B. Probation is your net worth must not climb more than 10% higher than it was when you were released or else another 7 days. If you can maintain <$100M for 10 years your probation is lifted, but your record stays. Future convictions increase the minimum rehab stay by 7 days each.

Rehab is them having to watch shows all day about all the poor people getting their money and what they're doing with it. They can even sit in a comfy chair and be served nice food while they do it.

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This isnt going to work out like you imagine....

One billionaire with zero votes can just post some AI disinfo and sway 100 idiots who now have 100 votes...

People routinely vote against their own interests, and poor people hurt themselves the most...

I mean, temporarily embarrassed millionaires....

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So? That already exists in the one person, one vote system. You think giving billionaires one less vote will make them not do AI propaganda?

Note: I think the one person, one vote system is best. I’m saying if we move away from it then billionaires should have significantly less say than they already do, not more.

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So? That already exists in the one person, one vote system.

You're literally proposing to give 100x more voting power to the people being influenced by billionaire propaganda.... that is absolutely NOT what already exists today

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

If everyone except billionaires has 100 votes, then everyone (except billionaires) has an equally weighted vote.

Again, this is not the system I want. I think one person, one vote is best. But if we’re altering the deal, fuck billionaires, you get no vote.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If everyone except billionaires has 100 votes, then everyone (except billionaires) has an equally weighted vote.

Again, this is not the system I want. I think one person, one vote is best. But if we’re altering the deal, fuck billionaires, you get no vote.

E: sorry for the comment spam, I was getting errors that said the comment wasn’t made when it actually was.