Should there be billionaires?

[steross]

Moved this here to not muck up the Epstein thread.

Serious question: do you think a billionaire actually provides a billion dollars worth of value themselves?

There is a lot of "it depends" in that question.

I think the big ones we know about-Musk, Gates, Bezos etc have certainly created more than a billion in value. Buffet has created other billionaires so has created more than a billion in value. The private equity guys, the ones that got really lucky on timing of their crypto companies etc, probably not.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Moved this here to not muck up the Epstein thread.


There is a lot of "it depends" in that question.

I think the big ones we know about-Musk, Gates, Bezos etc have certainly created more than a billion in value. Buffet has created other billionaires so has created more than a billion in value. The private equity guys, the ones that got really lucky on timing of their crypto companies etc, probably not.

See, I disagree. While they have created value, they could not have done it without other people. Other workers, other managers, other executives. They themselves did not produce that amoint of value. Other people did.

 

[steross]

See, I disagree. While they have created value, they could not have done it without other people. Other workers, other managers, other executives. They themselves did not produce that amoint of value. Other people did.

Of course. But, these billionaires did not take all the wealth they created. They created (or better said played the major part in creating) much more wealth than they took. Could the split with the other people you mentioned have been more equitable? Maybe, probably, I don't know each situation. But even if they doubled the pay of everyone else you mentioned (some of whom are also now billionaires) they would still be billionaires.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Of course. But, these billionaires did not take all the wealth they created. They created (or better said played the major part in creating) much more wealth than they took. Could the split with the other people you mentioned have been more equitable? Maybe, probably, I don't know each situation. But even if they doubled the pay of everyone else you mentioned (some of whom are also now billionaires) they would still be billionaires.

If you paid workers their fair contribution to the company, the CEO would not be a billionaire. Nobody provides many hundreds of times the value of another worker at anything. Much less millions of times.

Especially someone like Musk. The guy is not an engineer, does not know how anything works but gets compensated like he knows everything and does everything.

This is not to mention the reality that a democracy cannot exist with that much of a power discrepancy between a common person and what has essentially the new nobility. It should suprise no one that democracy is on the ropes with the largest wealth discrepancy in human history occuring.

There is a reason why people like Mitt Romney of all people saying that the wealthy need to pay more taxes or else. This is tracking toward either a new dark age or the french revolution 2.0.

I would prefer neither.

 

[steross]

If you paid workers their fair contribution to the company, the CEO would not be a billionaire. Nobody provides many hundreds of times the value of another worker at anything.

Especially someone like Musk. The guy is not an engineer, does not know how anything works but gets compensated like he does everything.

This is not to mention the reality that a democracy cannot exist with that much of a power discrepancy between a common person and what has essentially the new nobility. It should suprise no one that democracy is on the ropes with the largest wealth discrepancy in human history occuring.

There is a reason why people like Mitt Romney of all people saying that the wealthy need to pay more taxes or else.

I think we may be talking past each other. Musk is worth $835 billion. That is a problem. I don't think that means that with the several companies he runs that he should be worth less than one billion. I don't think that is realistic. I have advocated for a long time on here that the system is compromised and the amount of compensation that CEOs take is insane. But, we would have a better chance of reform without floating the idea that he should lose more than 99.89% of his net worth. That will lose many who would be on your side in general.

That said, I don't think comparing the person that put the company together and an engineer taking a salary are the same thing.

 

[GratefulPoke]

I think we may be talking past each other. Musk is worth $835 billion. That is a problem. I don't think that means that with the several companies he runs that he should be worth less than one billion. I don't think that is realistic. I have advocated for a long time on here that the system is compromised and the amount of compensation that CEOs take is insane. But, we would have a better chance of reform without floating the idea that he should lose more than 99.89% of his net worth. That will lose many who would be on your side in general.

That said, I don't think comparing the person that put the company together and an engineer taking a salary are the same thing.

I dont think we are talking past each other, I think we have a legitimate disagreement here.

Musk didn't put the company together. In fact, he has not put any of the companies he has together and he did not start them. Do you really think a guy who owns half a dozen companies does much of anything in any of them?

Other than inheriting capital, getting a record setting amount of government funding and being one of the better con artists in history, he has really done nothing of note. Who actually does the work?

53% of americans dont think anyone should be worth over $10 billion as of November 2025, and mark my words, that will be the low mark moving forward.

At his current net worth, Musk could light 1 million dollars on fire a day for 2333 years before he would run out of money. If he started this in 307 BC, he could still contine to do that through the end of this year (!!!).

He would be just fine and dandy of he lost 98% of his wealth. Sorry man, we demand far, far less than we should.

 

[steross]

I dont think we are talking past each other, I think we have a legitimate disagreement here.

Musk didn't put the company together. In fact, he has not put any of the companies he has together and he did not start them. Do you really think a guy who owns half a dozen companies does much of anything in any of them?

Other than inheriting capital, getting a record setting amount of government funding and being one of the better con artists in history, he has really done nothing of note. Who actually does the work?

53% of americans dont think anyone should be worth over $10 billion as of November 2025, and mark my words, that will be the low mark moving forward.

At his current net worth, Musk could light 1 million dollars on fire a day for 2333 years before he would run out of money. If he started this in 307 BC, he could still contine to do that through the end of this year (!!!).

He would be just fine and dandy of he lost 98% of his wealth. Sorry man, we demand far, far less than we should.

If it were that easy, why did some South African immigrant accomplish it and nobody else has?

And beyond Musk, there are 900 billionaires. Do we confiscate all their wealth? Is there some sort of test you have come up with to determine who has created that value and who hasn't? How does this idea work?

 

[GratefulPoke]

If it were that easy, why did some South African immigrant accomplish it and nobody else has?

And beyond Musk, there are 900 billionaires. Do we confiscate all their wealth? Is there some sort of test you have come up with to determine who has created that value and who hasn't? How does this idea work?

1) How many people are born into that much wealth? 2) How many people have gotten that amount of government subsidies? I think the answer is right there. 80% of wealth is inherited, so most wealth isnt earned in the first place.

If they are found to be sex offenders in the Epstein files I think we can and should. Many have gotten that wealthy from fraud can face financial penalties also. But otherwise, I think you can tax them out of existance. We can also tax the loans they take out against their stock holdings and end that loophole for good. That loophole is how many of them became billionaires in the first place.

What we really need to do is to revisit how ownership works in businesses to prevent this from happening in the first place. Long time employees should have a partial ownership stake in a business and they also should have voting rights, while we should consider not allowing outside shareholders to vote. Outside shareholders have passive ownership, why should they have an active voice over someone who is actively producing and creating wealth as an employee? It is not fair and does not make sense and that is coming from someone who is a shareholder in a number of companies.

 

[Stillwater Townie]

Yes, there should be billionaires, so they can be taxed good. Their income, including on interest, dividends and capital gains should be taxed by 49%. So, if they are worth $2 billion or more and taxed by 49%, they are still billionaires. Sounds like a good deal for everyone to me. A problem could be that as their stocks keep doubling in value, they are free of being taxed on the appreciation of it until they sell it. So, if they are not paying much more income tax than the average person, they could explain why. But I can't imagine a law being passed on taxing unrealized gains at the end of every year, unless it would only apply to rich people. But then if there was a tax on unrealized capital gains of billionairess it wouldn't make much difference it they get deductions when they do sell.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Yes, there should be billionaires, so they can be taxed good. Their income, including on interest, dividends and capital gains should be taxed by 49%. So, if they are worth $2 billion or more and taxed by 49%, they are still billionaires. Sounds like a good deal for everyone to me. A problem could be that as their stocks keep doubling in value, they are free of being taxed on the appreciation of it until they sell it. So, if they are not paying much more income tax than the average person, they could explain why. But I can't imagine a law being passed on taxing unrealized gains at the end of every year, unless it would only apply to rich people.

Taxing unrealized gains is very silly and would be a headache for everyone involved. If they are unrealized no one has access to them. Rich or not.

That is why I think taxes on loans taken out against stock holdings would be the way to close that loophole without making a lot of this very messy.

 

[Stillwaterman]

Yes, there should be billionaires, so they can be taxed good. Their income, including on interest, dividends and capital gains should be taxed by 49%. So, if they are worth $2 billion or more and taxed by 49%, they are still billionaires. Sounds like a good deal for everyone to me. A problem could be that as their stocks keep doubling in value, they are free of being taxed on the appreciation of it until they sell it. So, if they are not paying much more income tax than the average person, they could explain why. But I can't imagine a law being passed on taxing unrealized gains at the end of every year, unless it would only apply to rich people. But then if there was a tax on unrealized capital gains of billionairess it wouldn't make much difference it they get deductions when they do sell.

Now you are getting to the roots of all of this. A lot of these guys/gals just own controlling shares of large corporations. I'd be willing to bet a lot of them don't pay themselves extremely well. I would also bet the lot of them spend very little of their own $. Hell, that's true for small business owners. They will keep their salaries below the tax threshold and just buy everything they own on a company card and write it off as overhead.

If you want to fix the tax issue you are going to have to go after purchases in my opinion.

 

[cowboyinexile]

Now you are getting to the roots of all of this. A lot of these guys/gals just own controlling shares of large corporations. I'd be willing to bet a lot of them don't pay themselves extremely well. I would also bet the lot of them spend very little of their own $. Hell, that's true for small business owners. They will keep their salaries below the tax threshold and just buy everything they own on a company card and write it off as overhead.

If you want to fix the tax issue you are going to have to go after purchases in my opinion.

So something like a luxury tax?

Ive thought about things like this-what if instead of an income tax we adopt something like a consumption tax. Don't tax income but add something like a 5% (random number) tax on bars, restaurants, or anything where people spend money. The thought is everyone from drug dealers to people who take cash on the side don't report it as income but they do spend the money. The catch is it will disproportionately impact the poor. Adding 5% to a billionaires bill at French Laundry is a rounding error to them but 5% on a fixed income at McDonald's probably means alot. So I don't know what the answer here is but it seems like something can be worked out that is fairer than the middle class paying their fare share while billionaires take out non taxable loans against their stock portfolio to fund an extravagant lifestyle.

 

[steross]

So something like a luxury tax?

Ive thought about things like this-what if instead of an income tax we adopt something like a consumption tax. Don't tax income but add something like a 5% (random number) tax on bars, restaurants, or anything where people spend money. The thought is everyone from drug dealers to people who take cash on the side don't report it as income but they do spend the money. The catch is it will disproportionately impact the poor. Adding 5% to a billionaires bill at French Laundry is a rounding error to them but 5% on a fixed income at McDonald's probably means alot. So I don't know what the answer here is but it seems like something can be worked out that is fairer than the middle class paying their fare share while billionaires take out non taxable loans against their stock portfolio to fund an extravagant lifestyle.

This is basically what the "Fair Tax" was but the number as I recall was something like 30% not 5%. they did rebate or "prebate" up to the poverty level to avoid taxation of required things.

Billionaires escape this also as can do a lot of spending overseas or as @Stillwaterman mentioned, through the business.

 

[steross]

1) How many people are born into that much wealth? 2) How many people have gotten that amount of government subsidies? I think the answer is right there. 80% of wealth is inherited, so most wealth isnt earned in the first place.

If they are found to be sex offenders in the Epstein files I think we can and should. Many have gotten that wealthy from fraud can face financial penalties also. But otherwise, I think you can tax them out of existance. We can also tax the loans they take out against their stock holdings and end that loophole for good. That loophole is how many of them became billionaires in the first place.

What we really need to do is to revisit how ownership works in businesses to prevent this from happening in the first place. Long time employees should have a partial ownership stake in a business and they also should have voting rights, while we should consider not allowing outside shareholders to vote. Outside shareholders have passive ownership, why should they have an active voice over someone who is actively producing and creating wealth as an employee? It is not fair and does not make sense and that is coming from someone who is a shareholder in a number of companies.

I hear this "tax them out of existence" but not anything specific. Higher tax rates are one thing. Punitive tax rates to make sure they do not exist are another. I would have concerns that would drive entrepreneurship overseas. Is one billion the magic mark? Would someone who is only worth $120 million but has created a gold mine that is now bringing in $90 million a year also going to be kneecapped or not until the billion mark?

And even coming from wealth, they had to do something. Musk's wealth is not just growth of inheritance.

Long term employees often do have an ownership stake. If you can't vote, you are an investor, not an owner/shareholder. That change would require a complete overhaul of the system as the price paid to simply invest vs own would need to be far different. Employees are also passive ownership.* If employees are given ownership, that is essentially just taking a portion of their compensation and forcing them to buy company stock with it. I would guess there are studies of differences in those that give ownership for employees as part of compensation vs those that do not. If you work for NVDA over the past decade, it is a great idea. If you work for MSTR, what seemed like a great idea is now a horrible idea. Ownership has risks. I have been a full owner, shareholder, and employee of places I have worked. The mindset is completely different in each. Having the place run by an employee mindset would be a disaster. But, it would not matter as contrary to what you are saying, there is a lot of work and risk to setting up the company. The person/group that sets it up then if successful has to basically hand it off to others is not gonna work as a system.

 

[cowboyinexile]

This is basically what the "Fair Tax" was but the number as I recall was something like 30% not 5%. they did rebate or "prebate" up to the poverty level to avoid taxation of required things.

Billionaires escape this also as can do a lot of spending overseas or as @Stillwaterman mentioned, through the business.

So if we say dinners over $200 are taxed 30% they suddenly become business dinners?

 

[steross]

So if we say dinners over $200 are taxed 30% they suddenly become business dinners?

Exactly.

 

[steross]

1) How many people are born into that much wealth?

I think KSUpoke when he was here proposed a 100% death tax to replace the income tax. Other that me, everyone thought it was a horrible idea. Mainly the "they will take the family farm...." type replies. But, it would certainly level the playing field more than anything else.

Obviously there would need to be signficant taxation of gifts during lifetime also.

 

[JTOSU]

Obviously there would need to be signficant taxation of gifts during lifetime also.

There already is significant taxation on gifts. Both annually and lifetime.

Gifts annually are limited to ~$19k/year to a person before taxation. Lifetime limit is ~$15m.

 

[osuwhit]

Q: Should there be billionaires?

A: Yes.

Thoughts:
I want a billion dollars. I want my friends and family to have a billion dollars. Who would regulate how someone can't have a billion dollars and how could that end up corrupt? I think there should be billionaires and they should be taxed fairly. A flat tax rate for everyone would solve this. I'm sure you guys have good reasons for why I'm wrong and I will read those reasons.

 

[PF5]

simple answer is yes...the bigger question is should they be taxed like the 'normal' American is? (majority are not)...

if I were a billionaire, I would hope I would do my share in paying taxes, I'm sure I would bitch about it, but I do that already...I would also hope that I would take it upon myself to help others as much as I could...