Not promoting violence in any way. Just kind of a thought exercise.

  • village604@adultswim.fan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    It wouldn’t. The wealth the billionaires have is imaginary, not a checking account with lots of zeros. It’s in assets that people speculate is worth a specific amount.

    That’s why it’s always estimated net worth. To get the wealth from their assets you’d have to find enough people to buy them.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      “Imaginary” is one way to put it.

      I like to think of it as a number reflecting how much of our labour they have reserved for themselves. When that wealth “disappears”, it basically means that we get that labour back for ourselves. So in a way, it actually gets split evenly amongst all of us.

      • village604@adultswim.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You might see it that way, but it’s not the way it works. A company’s valuation isn’t directly tied to labor output, and the wealth doesn’t just disappear. It’s not something that can be redistributed without nationalizing a publicly traded company (there are pros and cons to this).

      • village604@adultswim.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It’s not a poor understanding, just simplified.

        The major problem is that banks will give them loans using speculative assets as collateral. Easy fix is to both tax the collateral as a realized gain, and the loan as income.

        But their wealth is mostly in non-liquid assets, not a bank account.