Yes. Billionaires are, in fact, inherently bad. There is no reason for billionaires to exist. As wealth increases, taxes should increase - not to banktupt them, but to limit the massive amounts of wealth any one person can control.
They make their wealth on the backs of the public good - on the backs of the rest of us. Corporations steal our wages, and I don’t mean just actively, but by paying us less than we should be paid. Wealth inequality is unconsciable. Especially when people are dying because our social safety nets have been plundered for decades.-
Billionaires benefit from government and society - that’s how they became billionaires. They should pay back their fair share in the form of taxes, and taxes should fund things that benefit the people and society.
Wow what an original thought. Its always important to lump everyone into a stereotype, that is the best way to talk about people, right?
But in general I agree, there should be a limit to how much wealth people can accumulate. It just shouldn’t be possible. But who let that happen? People.
You make that sound like billionaires aren’t fighting tooth and nail to keep their fortunes. Gabe could pay his employees more, he could donate his money, he could do a myriad of different things with it, but no he chooses to keep it and buy yachts. Does that make him evil? I’d sure as hell argue that it does.
Again, this is literally one dimensional thinking.
Instead of imagining bad <-> good as… a number line, -10 to 10, or whatever…
Imagine bad as x, good as y, and an x y graph.
Some actions can cause some bad, much good.
Some actions can cause much bad, little good.
No bad, much good, or no good, much bad.
In the real world, which is quite complex, there are very rarely actions or situations that are purely good, or purely bad. More often, it is a mixture of both, and everyone has their own moral scales for judging the magnitude of ‘bad’ and ‘good’… many likely have even more than just two dimensions to their ‘moral model’.
This is part of why, in English, we have the phrase ‘moral calculus’. The phrase itself implies that trying to ‘compute’ morality is not straightforward, it is complex, with different approaches to reaching a ‘solution’.
My billionaire is better then your billionaire because he owns something I like.
well yeah. Do you have a point?
billionaires bad.
Yes. Billionaires are, in fact, inherently bad. There is no reason for billionaires to exist. As wealth increases, taxes should increase - not to banktupt them, but to limit the massive amounts of wealth any one person can control.
They make their wealth on the backs of the public good - on the backs of the rest of us. Corporations steal our wages, and I don’t mean just actively, but by paying us less than we should be paid. Wealth inequality is unconsciable. Especially when people are dying because our social safety nets have been plundered for decades.-
Billionaires benefit from government and society - that’s how they became billionaires. They should pay back their fair share in the form of taxes, and taxes should fund things that benefit the people and society.
So yes. Billionaires bad. Inherently so.
Wow what an original thought. Its always important to lump everyone into a stereotype, that is the best way to talk about people, right?
But in general I agree, there should be a limit to how much wealth people can accumulate. It just shouldn’t be possible. But who let that happen? People.
So in the end: people are bad.
You make that sound like billionaires aren’t fighting tooth and nail to keep their fortunes. Gabe could pay his employees more, he could donate his money, he could do a myriad of different things with it, but no he chooses to keep it and buy yachts. Does that make him evil? I’d sure as hell argue that it does.
people bad.
Less bad != better
That is literally the definition
Only if you think in one dimension, absolutes.
No, it is simple math.
If something has more bad things, it is worse than something that does not.
If something has less bad things, it is better than something that does not.
Is English not your first language? Because it isn’t mine either.
Again, this is literally one dimensional thinking.
Instead of imagining bad <-> good as… a number line, -10 to 10, or whatever…
Imagine bad as x, good as y, and an x y graph.
Some actions can cause some bad, much good.
Some actions can cause much bad, little good.
No bad, much good, or no good, much bad.
In the real world, which is quite complex, there are very rarely actions or situations that are purely good, or purely bad. More often, it is a mixture of both, and everyone has their own moral scales for judging the magnitude of ‘bad’ and ‘good’… many likely have even more than just two dimensions to their ‘moral model’.
This is part of why, in English, we have the phrase ‘moral calculus’. The phrase itself implies that trying to ‘compute’ morality is not straightforward, it is complex, with different approaches to reaching a ‘solution’.