Maybe we collectively need to recognize billionaires like they recognize their workers. I propose the following:
“Becoming a billionaire” is still a thing that the most aggressive, ambitious sociopaths among us can aspire to. Because they and the broken people that idolize them will insist that great things cannot happen without the promise of great rewards. And obviously the only “reward” of any meaning to them is money.
Once you are a billionaire, you get a nationally broadcast pizza party on CSPAN and we engrave your name into a plaque in some “hall of smart winners” somewhere in DC. You are declared a champion of the economy and the President shakes your hand and declares a one-time national day to be in your honor. Or they read your name during the superbowl that year or whatever. Your place in history is locked in.
Assets and earnings in excess of 1 billion are seized and given to charity, or infrastructure, or healthcare or whatever. Used for the betterment of society. It should be done responsibly in a way that won’t ruin the assets, for example not liquidating billions in stock all at once.
The government publishes a leaderboard every year that shows which Champions of the Economy™️ gave the most back to society that year in the form of excess earnings. And we all pretend that we’re REALLY impressed.
They can have their on-paper status and their superficial adoration they hunger for. And they can even be stupidly rich by ANY standard.
Can anyone argue this is not a great idea? Even by being devil’s advocate, I genuinely can’t see any reasons why this would be worse than it currently is for anyone. 1 Billion still grants you A LOT of luxury and influence, just about as much as any single human should reasonably ever need or desire. And the best part is that we wouldn’t even need to pretend to be impressed! Imagine a parallel universe where Nole Ksum “contributed” 400 fucking billions to improving infrastructure, healthcare, and research. Wouldn’t you actually like the guy who has made the world, or at least your side of it, measurably better?
Usually when people are asked when America was Great™ they’ll point to the burgeoning middle class of the post-war economy of the 1950s. Sometimes they’ll point to separate drinking fountains however we’ll ignore racists for now. The economic nationalists won’t like it when you point out the thriving economy was partly the result of other economies still receiving from war, but more importantly for the middle class there was a 94% marginal tax rate for income over $200,000 in 1945, which meant dollars were circulating and demand was created for more jobs. The trickle-down clowns who insistent the rich getting richer is good for the economy would be slightly more credible, if they weren’t the very same people saying the poor demanding higher wages is bad for the economy. As Nick Hanauer put it:
We plutocrats need to get this trickle-down economics idea behind us; this idea that the better we do, the better everyone else will do. It’s not true. How could it be? I earn 1,000 times the media wage, but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff do I? I actually bought 2 pairs of these pants, what my partner Mike calls my manager pants. I could’ve bought 2,000 pairs, but what would I do with them? How many haircuts can I get? How often can I go out to dinner? No matter how wealthy a few plutocrats get, we can never drive a great national economy. Only a thriving middle class can do that.
1950s were also heavily unionized. Unions have declined by 80% since then, and “right to work” laws didn’t exist. (Also, the 40s were when unions began to realize they should be inclusive of marginalized groups. Not due to racism, but because those groups would be more likely to scab unless included)
Yep. I didn’t want to make the post much longer, but I almost went on about how this could easily be a win-win scenario.
The one speed bump I wonder about is that loss of shares means loss of control of the company and its board, which your “founder & CEO” types will not like.
…but I guess reasonable people may consider that a feature, not a bug.
Billionaire wealth tax. No one needs a a net worth over 1B. Tax any amount over 1B. There is an easy solution to the “next dollar” over 1B while the owner remains in control. Value the shares each quarter. Any amount over 1B is converted from a common share worth $XXX to a preferred voting share with a par value of $1. The difference in value is treated as income or a capital gain and subject to tax. The owner retains their vote/control.
Once you are a billionaire, you get a nationally broadcast pizza party on CSPAN and we engrave your name into a plaque in some “hall of smart winners” somewhere in DC. You are declared a champion of the economy and the President shakes your hand and declares a one-time national day to be in your honor. Or they read your name during the superbowl that year or whatever. Your place in history is locked in.
No, you’ve won the game so you start over with zero dollars on level 2 (someone breaks one of your legs to make it harder).
It might be neat to have the rich lean into their new admirable roles and directly support the schools and hospitals publicly. If they keep their net worth down, the government does not need to seize anything.
But then we run the risk of them pulling the shit where they donate to their own charities they control. But if we’re writing regulations to limit net worth like this, then writing the regulations about where they can send the money seems simple in comparison.
Maybe we collectively need to recognize billionaires like they recognize their workers. I propose the following:
“Becoming a billionaire” is still a thing that the most aggressive, ambitious sociopaths among us can aspire to. Because they and the broken people that idolize them will insist that great things cannot happen without the promise of great rewards. And obviously the only “reward” of any meaning to them is money.
Once you are a billionaire, you get a nationally broadcast pizza party on CSPAN and we engrave your name into a plaque in some “hall of smart winners” somewhere in DC. You are declared a champion of the economy and the President shakes your hand and declares a one-time national day to be in your honor. Or they read your name during the superbowl that year or whatever. Your place in history is locked in.
Assets and earnings in excess of 1 billion are seized and given to charity, or infrastructure, or healthcare or whatever. Used for the betterment of society. It should be done responsibly in a way that won’t ruin the assets, for example not liquidating billions in stock all at once.
The government publishes a leaderboard every year that shows which Champions of the Economy™️ gave the most back to society that year in the form of excess earnings. And we all pretend that we’re REALLY impressed.
They can have their on-paper status and their superficial adoration they hunger for. And they can even be stupidly rich by ANY standard.
Can anyone argue this is not a great idea? Even by being devil’s advocate, I genuinely can’t see any reasons why this would be worse than it currently is for anyone. 1 Billion still grants you A LOT of luxury and influence, just about as much as any single human should reasonably ever need or desire. And the best part is that we wouldn’t even need to pretend to be impressed! Imagine a parallel universe where Nole Ksum “contributed” 400 fucking billions to improving infrastructure, healthcare, and research. Wouldn’t you actually like the guy who has made the world, or at least your side of it, measurably better?
Usually when people are asked when America was Great™ they’ll point to the burgeoning middle class of the post-war economy of the 1950s. Sometimes they’ll point to separate drinking fountains however we’ll ignore racists for now. The economic nationalists won’t like it when you point out the thriving economy was partly the result of other economies still receiving from war, but more importantly for the middle class there was a 94% marginal tax rate for income over $200,000 in 1945, which meant dollars were circulating and demand was created for more jobs. The trickle-down clowns who insistent the rich getting richer is good for the economy would be slightly more credible, if they weren’t the very same people saying the poor demanding higher wages is bad for the economy. As Nick Hanauer put it:
1950s were also heavily unionized. Unions have declined by 80% since then, and “right to work” laws didn’t exist. (Also, the 40s were when unions began to realize they should be inclusive of marginalized groups. Not due to racism, but because those groups would be more likely to scab unless included)
Yep. I didn’t want to make the post much longer, but I almost went on about how this could easily be a win-win scenario.
The one speed bump I wonder about is that loss of shares means loss of control of the company and its board, which your “founder & CEO” types will not like.
…but I guess reasonable people may consider that a feature, not a bug.
And btw, thanks!
Billionaire wealth tax. No one needs a a net worth over 1B. Tax any amount over 1B. There is an easy solution to the “next dollar” over 1B while the owner remains in control. Value the shares each quarter. Any amount over 1B is converted from a common share worth $XXX to a preferred voting share with a par value of $1. The difference in value is treated as income or a capital gain and subject to tax. The owner retains their vote/control.
But I wanted to buy my own B2 Spirit Stealth Bomberrrrr! Mommmmmmmm!
No, you’ve won the game so you start over with zero dollars on level 2 (someone breaks one of your legs to make it harder).
The more you donate the more you’re celebrated. Our heros should be the people building schools and hospitals, not the people robbing them.
Hack yeah, rule #4!
It might be neat to have the rich lean into their new admirable roles and directly support the schools and hospitals publicly. If they keep their net worth down, the government does not need to seize anything.
But then we run the risk of them pulling the shit where they donate to their own charities they control. But if we’re writing regulations to limit net worth like this, then writing the regulations about where they can send the money seems simple in comparison.