The overall average median lifetime earnings of $1,850,000 for men and $1,100,200 for women. Let's just take the average and say an average American earns $1,475,100 in their lifetime.
The important thing to remember is, in an unequal system where workers have most of the value of their work taken by a single person who the system disproportionately favors, that value is translatable to literal life. They are directly, inexorably going to die having had that value simply transferred to the other person or people who collect that value. Or put succinctly, they are giving up life, and the "owner" of the business is gaining the value of their life.
Another note is that even though most valuations are stock, stock valuations do not exist in a vacuum. The stock market is the realizable increase in productivity value that we all collectively have caused.
So based on that principle, just for fun, let's convert these fortunes to human lives, to better understand just how much (economically-valued) life force these people have taken from people:
Elon Musk: $262,000,000,000 = 176,259 American lives.
Jeff Bezos: $208,000,000,000 = 141,007 American lives.
Mark Zuckerberg: $203,000,000,000 = 137,617 American lives.
If my math is correct and we taxed everything over 100 billion at 100% we'd get over 900 billion in taxes. Nearly a trillion bucks if we limited these assholes to a measly 100 billion.
1% tax on all registered securities, payable in shares of those securities. The SEC just confiscates 1% of every position, and conveys them to an IRS liquidator. The liquidator sells them off in small lots over time, comprising no more than 1% of total traded shares. Securities with negative values are returned.
Once completely phased in, natural persons will be exempt on their first $10 million in registered securities. Corporate-owned securities will not be exempt: the are taxed from their first share.
We tax only the problematic portion of their wealth: their wealth-generating assets. We auction those assets off to the general public.
If only we could combine Jim, Alice and Rob into a single entity called The Waltronzoid, we could easily defeat all the other billionaires by creating a bazillionaire.
Utter ignorance is how we find ourselves with so many morons admiring the thistle in the garden for its pretty purple flower. While economists stand around debating the merits of these weeds by divining dogma to give meaning to weeds natural stubborn deep roots.
This is a list of people who's creations I'd like to avoid, if at all possible.
It's obvious for several people on this list, but how do I boycott someone like the Oracle guy? As a non-tech guy, it just seems impossible. I don't even recognize several of these people, tbh.
Looks like Sam Walton would be atop the list had he figured out immortality.
Probably would top this list as the most decent person of the bunch too. He wasn't a saint, but I haven't seen evidence that he was rotten to the core, either.
If you're a successful businessman and you want to contribute, perhaps you could lower the prices of your products, perhaps you could give shares to your employees who do all the work. Not only is it efficient for them to have a stake in the company, it's also only fair. Not doing so is unfair. We won't celebrate your 'success', a successful thief is a thief nonetheless. You doing so-called 'philanthropy' won't do any good either. Money is power, you exerting your power over us isn't the moral thing to do. It's still wrong to the core. Sure, people voluntarily giving money to all sorts of causes is a beautiful thing, but only if money is reasonably distributed among people in the first place. If you take money from society on a large scale and then exert this power, than undoubtedly your views and interests are disproportionately represented. Your intentions are dubious, because if you intended well, why did you keep all the money and power for yourself in the first place? It's likely that you're a power hungry maniac. But even if you're somehow naively unaware of this and truly have the noblest of intentions with your philanthropy, then it's still a ludicrous idea that this would be an efficient way to distribute money. It's quite obvious that if everyone got a say in where the money goes, that the distribution of assets would better represent what society deems important. It's only logical that if you get to distribute the money, it will go to things you deem important. If you think that makes sense, it can only mean that you deem yourself wiser, more moral, than all of humanity combined. It means you are a narcissist. It's not unlikely that you are, people who are successful money-wise, often think that life it a money-game and they're the winning players. And they have won because they work hard and are clever. The thing is, life isn't a money-game, people have moral compasses and strive towards others goals than making money. And even if it was a money-game, you've not won because you're so smart and hard-working, it is in a very large part due to your luck. That's not an allegation, it's a logical fact. People don't have the same starting positions. Being a billionaire is morally wrong, even if you give all of it away later in life.
Pardon my ignorance. I dont follow these kind of news. BUT, why the hell is musk is no 1? What has he done? Last i heard this manchild is running down twitter, tesla with cybertruck fiasco. Is it from spacex?
I mean, zuckerberg and bezos basically create meta and amazon.
Yes, there is a huge problem of equality in societies around the world.
I even posted an article here that was talking about how the difference in distribution of wealth among families in USA is huge.
Yet the existence of billionaires alone is not something surprising considering factors affecting the means of production, inflation and many other factors.
In order to be a boring dystopia, you need to list the top earners from the middle class or the poor to demonstrate your point.
Otherwise, this post is kind of meaningless, in my opinion.