this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
727 points (97.8% liked)
Liberty Hub
359 readers
1 users here now
- No Discrimination, this includes usage of slurs or other language intended to promote bigotry
- No defending oppressive systems or organizations
- No uncivil or rude comments to other users
- Discussion, not debate. This community is exclusively for genuine logical debate, any comments using whataboutism or similar will be removed.
- No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.
These guidelines are meant to allow open discussion and ensure leftists and post-leftists can have a voice. If you are here to learn, then welcome! Just remember that if you're not a part of the left (Liberals don't count) then you are a visitor, please do not speak over our members.
Matrix server: https://matrix.to/#/#libertyhub:matrix.org
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well yes, but unless you dismantle things it'll probably backfire. A ton of that wealth is in owning companies, and if that ownership transfered to the state, it would need to be liquidated by selling it to... someone. Which would tank stocks, which would then tank 401ks and IRAs and a lot of other retirement funds, etc.. It would get messy and a ton of non-billionares would be impacted.
Now you can argue that you then use your newfound government cash to pay a new universal social security, and that's possible but you'd need to design all that ahead of time. Plus if your goal is to not impact people with less than a billion... well, no dice. It's hard to target just the billionaires, basically.
Still, if we could at least start the process that'd be lovely. Dismantling the whole system is more effective and way better, but my money would be on gradual socialist improvements paid via higher taxes and not a system overhaul. As it is, we're going backwards, though, so meh.
If you're in this community, it's because you believe the system should be dismantled and replaced. I understand this post may be confusing because of that, but it's more of a thought experiment.
Idk, dismantling the system historically has had some bad outcomes.
Also true. Actually, humanity itself generally seems to lead to bad outcomes.
Yeah but all of the good stuff was because of thorough, complex, well planned collaborative efforts.
That fact of "eliminating hunger for 216" years is also very likely not taking into account how much devaluation will happen once you dump about 2 trillion stagnant dollars into the economy, Mansa Musa style. The actual dollar value that is given from Billionaires to everybody else won't matter so much on a global hunger logistics scale once every civilian has been paid out.
The fact is that straight up puncturing all of the money directly out of a BILLIONAIRE all at once won't entirely and suddenly solve all of the problems you can ponder. It will still take time, effort, and lots of work from everyone in the production/supply chain. Although that work we all need to do will be a lot less stressful with plenty of food on the table and cheap houses on the market.