• RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Billionaires should not exist. You don’t get to be a billionaire without exploiting people - for that matter once you get over about 10M you’re probably stepping on people, or exploiting systems, in order to continue growing your wealth. And why, exactly? It’s a sickness that gets worse the richer someone gets. It’s been studied and confirmed that people who have excessive wealth convince themselves that they deserve it, they earned it individually, and that they are special and more valuable than others. So instead of riding off into the sunset, they feed their addiction by buying outsized and unearned power in order to shape the laws so that they can make more money. Just fuck off already - you won at capitalism, now get the fuck out of the way and stop screwing over everyone else and making our lives miserable.

    Beyond 100M we should just take it all for the state. 100% tax rate. If you want to keep earning beyond that, then great, you will have the glory of contributing to the public good.

    But since billionaires have convinced idiots to advocate against the idiots’ own interest, and argue that the billionaires can’t be constrained in any way, then this will never happen in the current social context. So next best thing is to do as Bill says. Put the fear of God into them.

  • MithranArkanere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    192
    ·
    5 days ago

    Well, that is a bit excessive.
    Rabid dogs are put down because there is no cure for their disease, and they cannot be controlled, and their very existence will bring harm to others and…

    Nevermind.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Yah this is really hyperbolic, the reason we “put down” vicious or dangerous animals is because we’ve accepted that they are what they are and we’ve all collectively agreed that they cannot change their nature and will always be a danger to every- …oh. Okay, yeah I see.

  • deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    4 days ago

    Not the first nor the last time Burr has made similar comments on the billionaires place in American politics. He is right though.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Maybe we should put him in charge. It’d be better than trump AND principled leadership. Probably also entertaining. Theres nothing more American than that.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 days ago

          …I never understood that line. Like, why wouldn’t the people deserve a hero?

          Of coarse, that’s assuming you take the movies POV, and think of Batman as the hero.

          I mean, I don’t. But if you think he’s the hero of the movie, why would gotham not deserve him?

          And in Luigis case, I DO think of him as the hero of the story. But I also think we deserve him.

          So, I never got that phrase.

          • MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            5 days ago

            “Because he’s the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now”

            Because the hero Gotham needed was Harvey Dent. Gotham needed hope, which Harvey represented. If Gotham knew that Harvey went evil, then it would have shown that the Joker was right. It would have shaken peoples faith and motivation to do good.

            The line never said people didn’t deserve a hero.

          • daltotron@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            It’s because the movies are written by christopher nolan, and that guy does not have good politics. The other guy is right with their explanation, but the underlying message is, as you say, pretty much total nonsense.

    • quink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      And to avoid that, all they have to do is became big damn heroes by giving their money in charity, or tax, or fund a research lab or whatever way of throwing their money back out there that they choose.

      Astounding that they’d find it so detestable that they’d rather risk death in the hands of a class revolution than see their money feed kids or cure cancer or whatnot.

  • schizolol9@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 days ago

    Billionaire dont deserve our respect nor loyalty. They can go fuck themselves for all I care. Dogs however are loyal and love us unconditionally.😂

      • schizolol9@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        so fucking true which is why we as humans need to increase funding for a crew to help more humans and animals alike.😭

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          Billionaires also suffer. It’s an unrecognised mental illness. They sacrifice everything for the pursuit of money, friends, family, happiness. They are a danger to themselves and others. The problem is the illness enables them to buy off any legal or medical consequences. Money is power, but in this case that means power goes to the insanitarium.

          • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Theres actually some interesting research on how billies and some politicians typically have actual psychopathy amd sociopathy. Amygdyla has left the chat

  • Dezzillion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    4 days ago

    CEOs could maintain control of society while avoiding bad press simply by providing people with what they need—living wages, healthcare, and secure retirement plans. They could still rule while ensuring a fairer system. BUT THEY WONT.

    • aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      No, any CEO that tried to do this would get eaten alive, if not immediately by their board/investors then a bit later by competition from more ruthless ceos. In a capitalist system they literally have no other choice.

      I don’t really see any way to fix it from the inside. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and not by methods they’re going to like. I’m with bill burr here

      • unphazed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Worked for Rockefeller. Dude was probably richer than Musk with inflation considered, and practically threw money towards charities (admittedly, using that money to improve cost of living and wages would have been better, but the rich gotta make their hoard still)

    • commander@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 days ago

      living wages

      We should start saying respectable wages instead of living wages.

      Nobody should be living off of beans and rice while there are billionaires in the world.

    • Darkblue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      They won’t, because greed doesn’t get punished. Even worse, the law protects money. And the sociopaths/narcissists/psychos are the ones getting rich (of course) and the don’t have empathy, care, or believe in ‘fair’.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    4 days ago

    Maybe we collectively need to recognize billionaires like they recognize their workers. I propose the following:

    1. “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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      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?

      • CouncilOfFriends@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        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.

        • unphazed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          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)

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        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!

        • metaldwarf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.

    • zarathustra0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      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).

    • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      The more you donate the more you’re celebrated. Our heros should be the people building schools and hospitals, not the people robbing them.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

    • oyo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I used to like him. Then I saw his post-election SNL monologue, which was dog shit. Now I think he’s ok, sometimes.

  • Noxy@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    4 days ago

    Disagree. Rabid dogs who must be euthanized deserve care, compassion, and respect when doing so. Rabies isn’t a life choice a dog makes.

    Billionaires deserve no such care, compassion, or respect.

    also did Bill Burr ever apologize for all the transphobic shit he’s said recently? Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with anyone of any walk of life gaining class consciousness, especially if they talk about it. But it’d be even better if he’s stopped being transphobic on top of that.

    • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’m pretty sure the only anti lgbtq comments bill burr has ever made was a bit about how when you watch something intimate the mind tries to place you in the scenario and when it’s two guys kissing it’s really hard to stomach, but Bill Burr has always leaned left and I honestly doubt he cares in the slightest about other people’s gender or sexuality