• HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I sorta get you but I do think a soft cap is the way to go. those pyschopaths will literally just go underground. hiding wealth, capping all family and such. I mean they do this anyway basically but with a soft cap it just makes it harder for them to decide which is worse. working more or finding a better system to get more or working more or finding a better way to circumvent the system.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      There are ways around this. For example, let’s say you set the wealth cap at 10 million. You write a law that says, “anyone that reports an illegal fortune larger than this will receive half of the money confiscated from this illegal fortune to divide tax-free among yourself, friends, and family.”

      Billionaires don’t know how to manage their own money. They hire accountants. So you make it so any random accountant can rat out an illegal billionaire and get paid enough to not only max out their own lifetime allowable fortune, but those of all their friends and family.

      Sure, the billionaire could avoid this by just dividing up his wealth among his own friends and family. But in that case, he’s still losing control. And that’s ultimately the point of this. Thousands of low-digit millionaires are infinitely superior to one billionaire.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        thats an interesting take. problem is we are already dealing with tens of billions which is closing in on hundreds to likely some of these finance guys are already pulling in hundreds of mil. Might have to start that cap at a billion and titer it down.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Good luck going underground.

      How are you going to drive your third lambourghini around without alerting authorities that you’ve been stealing from everybody? How are you going to live in your mega stupid mansion without very quickly getting a knock on the door from the tax man?

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        because you don’t own the lambourghini or the mansions. you just use them time to time. its not has hard as you make it. I mean its happening right now. Many rich people have property owned by corps that are owned by trusts. there is this whole specific thing because the company owns thing liability wise but the trust does ownership wise. its a crazy rabbit hole if you ever want to go down it.

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Then we need to seriously rewrite corporate charter law. For example, maybe it shouldn’t even be legal for corporations to own other corporations. Limited liability as a concept has some value, in terms of encouraging investment. So there is value in LLCs existing. But we don’t need the free-for-all we have now. We could move corporate governance to a white list model, where there are only a set series of structures you’re allowed to use to organize a company.

          Among these are the regulations would be restrictions on the forms of compensation you’re allowed to provide high-value employees. Maybe the only legal form of pay for executives should be salary.

          And again, you can enforce this by relying on the little people that the executives don’t even recognize as human. Does a CEO formally have $10 million to their name, but they have exclusive use of a $100 million mansion provided by their company? Fine, let the janitor rat him out, and in turn the janitor will end up owning that mansion.

          • HubertManne@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I do feel like we should not allow logical entities to own other logical entities. you can have a wrap something up to allow for pooling assets with individuals but it does seem like allowing multi levels like this causes all sorts of shenanigans. so yeah you can have a trust but no owning companies and if a company buys a company it becomes a combined company or the sale is not allowed.