this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
1805 points (98.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

7275 readers
2833 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 81 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I'm a centrist. I think we should have a maximum wealth cap set at 1000x the median household income. I am willing to do this via tax policy instead of the guillotine.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I was curious what the number would be. That's $80,000,000 (fixed) in wealth. Seems pretty reasonable tbh.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The median household income is about $80k in the US. 1000x is $80 million.

I like this ratio because it both indexes things to inflation but also ties the allowable wealth of the wealthiest to the well being of the average family. Also, it's still a very high amount. $80 million is still a ton of money.

Consider the highest paid salary workers, not CEOs, but actual workers. Think the most well paid doctors, lawyers, and other professional classes. Even if the best paid doctor in the country kept living like a college student their whole career. They make $1 million a year but live like a monk, saving and investing everything they can. And they do this from the time they graduate until they die of old age.

They would still struggle to hit a $80 million net worth by the time they die.

It is impossible to make that level of wealth by your own work alone. The only way you accrue a fortune greater than this is if you're in the business of labor arbitrage - you are hiring people and siphoning off a large portion of the wealth they generate for yourself. A "doctor" who works a practice with 30 doctors underneath them isn't really a doctor, they're a business owner just like any other.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In my defense, I went to an American public school

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

A major problem, if not THE major problem, with vast accumulations of wealth in the hands of a few is the vast political power such wealth gives.

[–] AlienContact2049@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

There really should be a wealth cap. If you have more then 1000x the median income to your personal net worth then you don’t need it. Sorry not sorry.

They would likely find loops holes like they already do though….. le sigh…

They would likely find loops holes like they already do though…… le sigh…

there's two big problems, either you find loopholes, or you just leave the country.

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

None the less, we need to do something about wealth hoarding if we want to have even a semblance of a democracy.

[–] AlienContact2049@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

It might be too late for that. I hope not and if it is not, I don’t think we have long to turn it around before there is no way out.

[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Gonna build banks and, since corpos are people, they'll have a net worth. When they reach the cap build another.

[–] Fillicia@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

2 propositions. 1, making lawmakers job a minimum wage job so they have an incentive to raise it and feel the effect their policies have on the population. 2, capping a ~~PDG~~ CEO salary to ~20x the lowest salary of his company.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

1 makes lawmakers more susceptible to corruption.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I see where you're coming from, but it's not as though refusing to implement #1 has done much for us so far. Trump and Elon are running around doing whatever they please already, and nobody who is actually capable of holding them accountable is willing to do it.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but you don't want to make things even worse.

High salary (and as lawmaker you have a fairly high degree of responsibility so I think it's fair) + very tight rules on accepting any kind of money, services, favours, etc... seems to work best.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well if we're talking about shit that will never pass... Then we should ban most instances of lawmakers who have business interests, ban working as a lobbyist, ban insider trading.

Then we could make their salary a multiple of the median wage of whatever district or state they represent.

[–] sporkler@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

and tie their retirement to social security instead of a separate fund.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

1 means only the wealthy can become politicians.

[–] sporkler@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

congressional appointment should be handled like jury duty. "Dammit, I pulled congressional duty again." the certainty of having to return to your old life would encourage you to make it better for non-politicians as well.

[–] cooperativesrock@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

I disagree on that. Part of our problem is that those in government don't really understand governance and the sustem is complex. That takes time and mentorship, a jury duty like system might make bribing harder, but it would make a functional government next to impossible. Age limits, I'm all for that - give em until they're 70 (or something close) then no more government offices - congress, senate, pres, judgeships, etc. That and have fully publicly-funded elections with limited campaigning windows. No more 2-year presidential runs or congresspeople needing to fundraise and run for their entire term.

[–] undefinedValue@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How would you go about enforcing it? What happens to the ceo whose wealth ticks about your 1000x threshold due to a good day on the stock market?

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Those are policy details. A common fatal flaw among the left is obsessing over details and trying to pick apart any good idea. The wealth cap is philosophy statement. Obviously any policy needs rules to implement it. But that's for legislators, not people discussing the idea itself. You shouldn't attack a broad policy by getting lost in the minutia.

This happened in the 2020 Democratic Primary. All the candidates had these pointlessly elaborate policy documents and white papers that were immediately forgotten after the election.

Politics is not about obsessing over minutia. It's unproductive to engage in such nit picking of something that is simply a broad policy vision.

I'm sure if you wanted to, you could answer your own question. How would YOU implement this wealth cap while addressing asset swings?

Hah, my question isn’t because I’m a fatally flawed leftist, it’s because I’m a programmer and weekly I get requests from executives that simply aren’t possible or at least feasible to implement.

Your entire comment sounds exactly like one of these hand wavy requests from the heavens where details don’t matter. The cherry on top was you flipping it back at me so that I’d attempt to expand on your ill thought through plan and make it work. I’m sure you do well in the corporate landscape.

[–] Thteven@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Sounds reasonable to me.