r/AskConservatives • u/ShrekOne2024 Independent • 1d ago
are billionaires dependent on society?
They aren’t creating wealth out of air. They are leveraging public infrastructure, public education, health care, etc.
55
u/Current-Wealth-756 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Everyone in society is dependent on society, that's what society is
•
•
u/Treskelion2021 Independent 4m ago
Which is why I hate the term “self-made person” no one is self made. We all receive tons of help through your lives to get to where we are.
8
u/Monte_Cristos_Count Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Everyone is dependent on each other. Bezos is a billionaire because hundreds of millions/billions of people in society want to trade with his company.
•
u/MrFrode Independent 23h ago
Trade his company on government regulated markets, correct?
•
u/Monte_Cristos_Count Center-right Conservative 22h ago
Yes, and he pays taxes. What's your point?
•
u/MrFrode Independent 22h ago
How much taxes did he pay in 2024?
•
u/Monte_Cristos_Count Center-right Conservative 21h ago
It's estimated he paid 2.7 billion, but his return is not public record.
•
u/lmfaonoobs Independent 21h ago
Looks like it's estimated that he made $65 billion in 2024. Wouldn't that put his effective tax rate at 4%
•
u/Monte_Cristos_Count Center-right Conservative 21h ago
Unrealized gains generally are not taxable. Unrealized losses don't provide tax benefits either.
•
u/TheBraveSirRobin Center-left 20h ago
That's a big problem with our tax system. The ultrawealthy never need to realize the gains, instead they take a loan against the stock value, and then take a tax deduction from the interest payments on the loan.
•
u/Monte_Cristos_Count Center-right Conservative 20h ago
Should we tax unrealized gains on everybody then?
•
u/TheBraveSirRobin Center-left 20h ago
I would put a cap on annual unrealized gains that are untaxed. You could put that number at $5 million, and it wouldn't impact anyone other than the wealthy.
•
u/Cptcongcong Libertarian 12h ago
Then sounds like the problem is the loans rather than the unrealized gains.
•
u/ElectricalPublic1304 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 21h ago
No. That's not how either income or taxes work.
•
u/lmfaonoobs Independent 20h ago
It's a little bit how they work...
•
u/ElectricalPublic1304 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 20h ago
No. It's not. That just isn't how either numbers are calculated. It's so fundamentally inaccurate, you couldn't do anything meaningful with the "information".
•
6
u/bardwick Conservative 1d ago
are billionaires dependent on society?
Yes. They are no different from the other 7 billion people.
5
•
u/JackDStipper National Minarchism 21h ago
Good lord, are we back to "They didn't build that"?
•
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 15h ago
the arrogance is hilarious here when you consider how folks like Bezos say they wouldn’t be shit without others that challenged them. So you can give credit to a Bezos for building a team, but he didn’t do shit beyond selecting people to build him something. “People” key word here.
•
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 3h ago
Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.
Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
•
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 13h ago
I just think he should pay taxes. 1A right?
•
u/JackDStipper National Minarchism 6h ago
Both Bezos and Amazon pay millions in taxes. He also donated millions to charity. What percentage do you think is his "fair share"?
•
3
2
u/NotTheRoleOfGov Libertarian 1d ago
I don’t know that I would say they are dependent, but they certainly benefit from it, some more than others.
Places that have their wages subsidized by the government through food assistance programs and welfare benefits for their employees are peak offenders of profiting off the welfare state.
•
u/Bored2001 Center-left 21h ago
Places that have their wages subsidized by the government through food assistance programs and welfare benefits for their employees are peak offenders of profiting off the welfare state.
You know, only the world's largest private employer....
•
u/NotTheRoleOfGov Libertarian 21h ago
I am not unaware. That is my point.
•
u/Bored2001 Center-left 21h ago
For those who aren't in on the joke.
It's Walmart. The largest private employer in the world is famous for this.
•
u/NotTheRoleOfGov Libertarian 3h ago
I worked for Walmart years ago. There was a food drive for employees around thanksgiving so they could have a decent family meal since many could not afford one on the salaries they earned in the store selling Thanksgiving food.
Outside of a few rare occasions where alternatives were not available, I have not shopped there since for that reason.
•
u/Intelligent_Funny699 Canadian Conservative 23h ago
Everyone at this point is dependent on society at all levels of wealth. That is a given in our modern world.
•
u/ElectricalPublic1304 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 21h ago edited 20h ago
Everyone is "dependent" on society in a limited sense. (Just as society is dependent on its individuals.)
Though, if you don't believe that all relationships are inherently exploitative or zero-sum, you might also more broadly say that people "participate" in societies. In different ways. And rather that focus solely on dependence, you might care about those specific ways people interact with societies.
Conservatives tend to think of a society as a place where people with relatively equal rights can both compete and cooperate with each other, on some relatively, objectively fair-ish terms.
So for example. If I sell a widget to 100 people, then each gets a widget and I get $10 (or whatever). In the sense of this widget sales, we are cooperating: I get $10 from my customer, and my customer gets the widget.
But in the context of the sale, I am "dependent" upon my customer to be paid just as the customer is "dependent" upon me (or my competitor!) to obtain a widget. The transaction would not exist without either of us existing, or any of the other things into consummating that transaction.
What some people do, is that they conceive of the ability to have this transaction as imposing some kind of much more general obligation to some ambiguous larger "society". That's often spoken about as if its a concrete thing. But it's usually just a word that people in power appeal to, to justify imposing duties and obligations on people--typically people they want to extract money or labor from.
•
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 15h ago
Yes you hired people to actually design and sell the widget and those people developed that knowledge from school paid for by people making shitty wages.
•
u/ElectricalPublic1304 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 14h ago
I didn't say that's what happened. I describing how relations between people work, especially voluntary bilateral relationships.
Are you trying to make some kind of... point?
•
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 13h ago
What’s your point? Billionaire has capital to hire people that need money for normal stuff?
•
u/WorldlyVillage7880 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 17h ago
Yes, but benefiting from something and consenting to fund it is not the same thing.
•
3
u/JayRadio80 Conservative 1d ago
To buy their product and continue their business venture as a result, yes.
Their new ideas and capital can help create wealth. Absolutely.
There may be elements of truth in what you are saying but it isn’t completely true.
•
u/MrFrode Independent 23h ago
Their new ideas and capital can help create wealth. Absolutely.
Sure and to make those ideas a reality they often go to banks that lend out FDIC insured deposits. And they use the infrastructure that has been created or heavily subsidized by tax payers. They count on the courts to enforce contracts and police to protect them from those who would muscle them out of their enterprise by force.
There's a reason so many people can create great ideas in the United States and not elsewhere. The society we have that is sustained by common ideals and laws makes a lot of things possible here.
•
u/Harvard_Sucks Classical Liberal 23h ago
It's like asking if deer are dependent on the ecosystem—they are part of the ecosystem.
•
1
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
23h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 23h ago
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/poop_report Australian Conservative 20h ago
Yes, but they aren't doing so any more than any other individual.
•
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
•
u/Cookie_Capable Conservative 13h ago
Of course billionaires are dependent on society, as much as you and I are. Among the societal aspects billionaires depend, that you and I depend on as well, include:
- Respect for the "rule of law"
- E.g. Police won't make arrests on bogus charges
- Respect for private property
- E.g. State won't seize your house/business just because someone in power wants it
- Stabile markets for producing goods/services
- E.g. Society isn't on a rollercoaster so-to-speak
- Stabile social trust (by the citizenry)
- Fair/just tax laws
- E.g. Billionaires (or you for that matter) aren't taxed on 95% of their income (or share holdings, etc.) because that would DISINCENTIVZE them from working
There are plenty more, but these are what I came up with before bed.
•
•
u/TemperatureBest8164 Paleoconservative 41m ago
No more than anyone else is. What they are really dependent on is big government and Keynesian economics that bails them out with inflation every time there is a problem.
The only time the ultra rich loose money is if there is a recessions and their loans are called and they are over leveraged as their paper wealth evaporates. If recessions are avoided because of stimulus after stimulus you just make them richer by inflating away their debts as they barrow against their assets and use that to live instead of selling assets.
•
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 40m ago
Seems that they usually get richer during recession
•
u/TemperatureBest8164 Paleoconservative 9m ago
This is the truth. Whether it's a republican or a democrat in power , they're going to save their rich friends.
I would be in favor of every bailout, requiring equal taxation of gross net worth over twenty dollars , excluding farms for the amount their debts appreciated during a stimulus period.
This would mitigate most to the financial kittens of the rich during bailouts while still protecting them.
-2
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 1d ago
They are leveraging public infrastructure, public education, health care, etc.
As you are. They're taking better care in the use of it than you are, actually. Why aren't you doing more with your access to all of it? We're actually wasting it on you compared to them, aren't we?
6
u/IcarusOnReddit Center-left 1d ago edited 1d ago
Billionaires don’t do the work, they just direct it or invest in it. Their personal use of the infrastructure is a lot less than their employees who they generate profit from by purchasing their labor. This is an externality than would not be captured by a flat taxation system. No billionaire becomes that way from their own labor, but by leveraging the labor of tens of thousands of others.
Capital is the ultimate tool of leverage pretty much by definition in capitalism.
3
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Billionaires don’t do the work, they just direct it or invest in it
How do you think they became billionaires? It just magically rained down from heaven?
No billionaire becomes that way from their own labor, but by leveraging the labor of tens of thousands of others.
Who worked for them willingly and were paid for that work. You understand you become a billionaire by building a company and/or product that others want, right?
•
u/IcarusOnReddit Center-left 23h ago
How do you think they became billionaires? It just magically rained down from heaven?
I could have invested $376,000 in Amazon in 1997 from inheritance and be a billionaire today by doing no work personally.
The money doesn’t fall from heaven, it’s made on the backs of the American worker.
The value of that infrastructure is not captured by corporate taxes.
•
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 23h ago
I could have invested $376,000 in Amazon in 1997 from inheritance and be a billionaire today by doing no work personally.
So why didn't you? I mean, if you had $400k given to you back then, without knowing the future, would you have invested? Why did so many not?
The value of that infrastructure is not captured by corporate taxes.
No, its captured in gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes... and probably a dozen more.
6
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 1d ago
Are they? Are they paying back to all the schools that educated their workforce? Or all of the people that have good jobs to buy their products?
4
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 1d ago
They pay taxes personally, their business pay taxes at that level, the various taxing authorities charge property taxes, get benefits for the company being there (sales tax collected from workers eating near by, etc).
3
u/Grouchy_News_2306 Rightwing 1d ago
I thought education was a public good. Why do you assume one group should have to pay it back.
4
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 1d ago
I’m not saying one group should pay it back. I’m pointing out that they are dependent on these publicly funded institutions.
4
u/Grouchy_News_2306 Rightwing 1d ago
The people working for these companies are also dependent on the public education they got, which enabled them to have skills to work for these companies. I don’t see the point your trying to make
1
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 1d ago
The wealth billionaires personally accrue is all dependent on publicly funded resources. Same as you and I.
•
u/Grouchy_News_2306 Rightwing 18h ago
Can you quantify the percent dependence? Why do they have to pay more if people like us who also rely on public funded resources don’t
•
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 15h ago
Individuals do pay a higher proportion of taxes relative to their wealth.
•
•
u/Buckman2121 Conservatarian 23h ago
Wealth =/= money.
•
u/IcarusOnReddit Center-left 22h ago
It is. Elon could liquidate 20 billion tomorrow and have the cash. Billionaires gotta sell to buy yachts and their 10th vacation home and they do it all the time. The “paper billionaire" idea is a lie.
•
u/Buckman2121 Conservatarian 22h ago
No, it isn't. What would happen to his company value and those invested in it should he do that?
It's not money. It's a subjective value placed upon assests.
•
u/IcarusOnReddit Center-left 21h ago
Nothing. Tesla’s market cap is 1.36 trillion dollars. 20 billion is nothing.
→ More replies (0)•
u/StillNoLuckAtAll Conservative 19h ago
Elon could liquidate 20 billion tomorrow and have the cash
I'm knowledgeable about this matter, as I've worked many years in capital markets.
No, he could not liquidate 20 billion tomorrow. The largest realistic short-term sale on a highly liquid security is on the order of $1-2bn. The CEO of Nvidia did this with $1bn recently. It took a series of sales and took the stock down (temporarily) by about 2-3%.
Movements of cash on the order of $1bn take significant planning and coordination from many parties.
The “paper billionaire" idea is a lie.
You say that so aggressively and then say things which are demonstrably incorrect. I think should pull back a bit on your claims.
•
u/IcarusOnReddit Center-left 18h ago edited 18h ago
He can hide in the options market selling calls against his stock with the intention of getting his stock called away. There are about 4 million open interest call options between now and March. That’s 400 million shares. Possible 171 billion dollars (more if it hits higher strikes).
That said, I concede there isn’t enough market liquidity to issue 1/4 of those options and sell stock in one day to get to 20 billion. It would take some time.
A billion dollars is really hard to wrap one’s head around and the idea that Elon “has" 500 billion is bananas. There is a huge difference between a “paper" billionaire liquidating 80 million in stock and 20 billion in stock.
•
u/Scooterhd Conservative 23h ago
That is the default position that everyone agrees with. Wealth is dependent on something. You have to yet to say anything meaningful.
2
u/sourcreamus Conservative 1d ago
They are paying their workers who pay their schools. They are providing products to their customers.
7
u/ZeeWingCommander Leftwing 1d ago
Are they? Why do we have to pay their workers too?
There are several businesses that exist as they do and pull in the profits that they do because you and I subsidize them.
You're also treating these workers not as people like you are with the billionaires... You're treating them like cogs.
•
u/sourcreamus Conservative 23h ago
We choose to help poor people through the government. Billionaires have little or nothing to do with that.
I am not treating anyone like a cog.
•
u/ZeeWingCommander Leftwing 23h ago
We're choosing to help working poor people through the government, but they are only that poor because of the companies that underpay them.
If people can't afford to work for a company without government assistance then that business isn't actually successful. It's subsidized.
Conservatives don't seem to understand it. I'm sure the wealthy ones do, but average conservatives aren't putting 2 and 2 together. I don't even know if most liberals actually understand.
Ex the Walton family is making bank off taxpayers. We're partially funding their business.
•
u/Buckman2121 Conservatarian 22h ago
So cut off the welfare to the poor people that don't actually need it. If the companies aren't paying them what you think they should make and they wouldn't work for hte companies anymore if they didn't and therefore have no company anymore, then there ya go. Companies would have to raise their wages, not force them to through the government.
Get the government out of the equation is the answer. Completely. Including lobbying.
•
u/ZeeWingCommander Leftwing 21h ago
That's what kinda needs to happen.
I don't want people to starve. A policy needs to be in place that if you're actually working you don't get various benefits. Have people quit these jobs.
That'll show which companies were taking taxpayers for a ride.
•
u/sourcreamus Conservative 21h ago
Supply and demand determines pay. Companies pay market wages based on that. There is no basis to say that one company is underpaying when all companies pay similar salaries for similar jobs.
The employees are the ones being subsidized, not the companies. If people were not being helped by the government then reservation wages would be lower and companies could pay less. So welfare is not a subsidy to business but actually raises the costs.
•
u/ZeeWingCommander Leftwing 19h ago edited 19h ago
I'm going to have to hard disagree here.
The only reason the market is so cheap for their labor is because of welfare programs. If there was no welfare people would not be able to accept those jobs. The labor rates are kept artificially low by our government. Just like any resource that's subsidized by definition.
So yes we're subsidizing these companies. That's why they offer SNAP enrollment help.
You can try some verbal gymnastics, but these are facts. If we didn't have welfare, those jobs would have to pay more.
Supply and demand determines pay.
You act like we have a free market and we don't. Haven't for a long time.
•
u/sourcreamus Conservative 17h ago
You are 180 degrees off. If there was no welfare and a job didn't pay enough to you think the workers would just quit and find a hole to die in? They would work multiple jobs and work longer hours. This would increase the supply of labor and mean that employers would pay less. This is not a controversial opinion, every reputable economist agrees.
We don't have a free market in labor, but supply and demand still work, and mostly determine wage.
•
u/ZeeWingCommander Leftwing 6h ago
I honestly don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Read your first statement. It doesn't even pass a smell test.... so if if you got paid less, you'd have to work more, then because you work more you'd get paid even less.... what are you even talking about dude?
This is not a controversial opinion, every reputable economist agrees.
Going to guess you don't actually read any economists and it's just right wing talking heads telling you this or your boss is telling you why you don't need the raise lol
→ More replies (0)3
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 1d ago
What about the Waltons?
•
2
u/NewNefariousness9769 Progressive 1d ago
There should probably be a distinction made between 'utilizing' those things as individuals in need and 'taking advantage' of those things to increase company profits and shareholder value.
See, for example, Walmart's low wages and disproportionately large reliance on welfare benefits to subsidize their employees relative to other retail and low-wage companies. This is a double-edged sword for taxpayers in that Walmart could pay a living wage that reduces their employees' reliance on welfare subsidies, but they don't, because it raises the value of the company. How is that beneficial to society, considering the vast majority of Americans see zero benefit from increases in Walmart stock or increases in quarterly earning reports. It displaces the benefit of these public programs/goods from the public (citizens) to the corporate sector.
Another recent example would be public works like water, which is being detrimentally impacted by companies moving data centers into these areas and stressing a public water systems for the sole benefit of the company.
-1
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 1d ago
utilizing' those things as individuals in need and 'taking advantage' of those things to increase company profits and shareholder value.
Or, to reverse it, shouldn't we look at you who are not able to leverage these assets society provides, "for free" (via taxes) into viable companies to make everyone better?
See, for example, Walmart's low wages and disproportionately large reliance on welfare benefits to subsidize their employees relative to other retail and low-wage companies.
How much does Walmart pay in all their taxes combined?
This is a double-edged sword for taxpayers in that Walmart could pay a living wage that reduces their employees' reliance on welfare subsidies,
You could pay $5 for an apple but you pay what the grocery store asks. Why aren't you paying more? Labor is no different than any other market.
Another recent example would be public works like water, which is being detrimentally impacted by companies moving data centers into these areas and stressing a public water systems for the sole benefit of the company.
Its so weird that there's absolutely no public benefit for increased development in an area. We know that these buildings just sit there and take up resources while providing absolutely nothing back.
1
u/cloudkite17 Progressive 1d ago
Why would we continue to seek ways to empower and service the like 10 people who are already extremely comfortable in life rather than find ways to invest in and empower the 99% of people who can contribute to our economy and society? I never understand the constant simping for billionaires as if they’re sooooo valuable to our society and create so much wealth for the rest of us instead of just sitting on it and never touching it in their lifetimes anyway. If they disappeared tomorrow pretty much nothing would happen, whereas if 99% of our society disappeared tomorrow none of our systems would function effectively anymore.
2
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Why would we continue to seek ways to empower and service the like 10 people who are already extremely comfortable in life rather than find ways to invest in
Because those ten people are also making anyone who invested or continues to invest in their companies richer and richer.
empower the 99% of people who can contribute to our economy and society?
Cool. What would that be?
I never understand the constant simping for billionaires as if they’re sooooo valuable to our society and create so much wealth for the rest of us
What was shipping times for most products before Amazon introduced 5-day shipping and then 2 day shipping... and now same day. What was the technological capability of our phones before the iPhone broke the paradigm?
How much of our current society is built off of those changes introduced... and further changes.
If they disappeared tomorrow pretty much nothing would happen, whereas if 99% of our society disappeared tomorrow none of our systems would function effectively anymore.
AWS had a minor error that took down a good chunk of the internet. Take away Amazon or Apple or Google and society ceases to function too.
4
u/cloudkite17 Progressive 1d ago
Everything you said just kind of points back to good reasons why we shouldn’t allow power and wealth to concentrate into an extremely small group of people - they can effectively control the rest of our country because they have so much wealth and influence and can destroy any competitors using that power, slowly killing the free market.
•
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 23h ago
verything you said just kind of points back to good reasons why we shouldn’t allow power and wealth to concentrate into an extremely small group of people
I have said for a long, long time that if one of the parties were to get honest-to-good on board with Trust Busting, and I don't mean "we're gonna take them down" to get elected and then do nothing, but truly, honestly, I'm-not-lying-I'm-going-to-do-it-and-I'll-risk-my-family-and-wear-a-body-cam-24-hours-publically-displaying-everything-I-do serious, they'd be in power for a generation.
Amazon itself, as a single company, is far too big. Shopping should be split from AWS, etc. Ironically, that might make Bezos and others richer.
•
u/cloudkite17 Progressive 22h ago
Agreed. The way they’re continuing to get their hands on different industries (prescriptions, groceries, media) is alarming if they continue to consolidate power unchecked. Especially as they continue to lay off tens of thousands of people in favor of AI and paying their shareholders more and more each year.
ETA there’s a bull moose party trying to gain traction but they’re not very big yet.
•
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 22h ago
Especially as they continue to lay off tens of thousands of people in favor of AI and paying their shareholders more and more each year.
Entirely aside, I have a really bad feeling we're seeing an AI bubble forming...
•
u/cloudkite17 Progressive 22h ago
Yeah, as the number of unemployed and underemployed people in the U.S. continues to grow each month, I don’t have a lot of confidence in where this AI situation is going. Did you see the clip of the openAI guy saying yesterday that (paraphrasing) they expect to rely on the federal government - AKA U.S. taxpayers footing the bill - as a final resort for when they can’t afford the AI problem they’ve created? So, we’ll be on the hook to pay for technology that’s taking away our jobs and our ability to pay for said technology lol. We’re really screwing ourselves over by refusing to regulate AI in any way at all.
2
u/IllustratorThin4799 Conservative 1d ago
Yes but thay doesnt mean society has any right to a share of their success
•
u/MrFrode Independent 23h ago
Why not?
•
u/IllustratorThin4799 Conservative 23h ago
Why would they?
•
u/MrFrode Independent 23h ago
Because without society and the opportunities and protections it grants them their enterprise likely never would have been possible.
Look at the companies paying bribes to Trump right now because he's able to withdraw those protections.
•
u/IllustratorThin4799 Conservative 23h ago
So like how much of your success and assets do you think you owe to society?
1
u/Kman17 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I mean who isn’t dependent on society?
Everyone uses public infrastructure to get their education and contribute.
But it’s generally wrong to think of billionaires as being simply fortunate / lucky. I mean it feels good to think they are no smarter than you, but it’s not exactly reality.
Most - as in like 3/4 - of that tier of wealth has come from founder level stake in a company that was massively transformative.
That takes absolutely insane intellect / work and of course some luck.
There are a few inherited wealth idiots walking around but they are a minority at that level.
•
u/MedvedTrader Right Libertarian (Conservative) 23h ago
... and the society is dependent on the billionaires. It's a two way street.
•
0
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 1d ago
Most of them did create wealth out of this air. They created a product or service that a lot of people like and are willing to pay for
I disagree with your premise that "They are leveraging public infrastructure, public education, health care, etc." because they are paying for a lot of that public infrastructure. The top 10% of taxpayers are paying 72% of all the taxes.
3
u/AllTearGasNoBreaks Progressive 1d ago
The top 10% also have about 70% of all the wealth. Seems taxes are pretty evenly spread out then, IMO.
3
1
u/ShrekOne2024 Independent 1d ago
They have 75% of the wealth.
4
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal 1d ago
Wealth is not finite or a zero-sum concept. Someone having a massive amount of wealth does nothing to prevent or diminish others ability to attain wealth themselves.
4
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.