• EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I think part of it is the form that that wealth exists in. Not defending billionaires in any way, but they don’t have stacks of cash lying around. The way that they live is that their money is in various forms of equity that passively increase in value, like stocks and houses, which they take loans against in order to pay for things. Then, they take out more loans to pay off the previous and repeat until they die and the debt disappears due to legal loopholes.

    Stuff like the yachts and all the other crazy expensive stuff is one thing, but to redistribute the wealth, it’s not as simple as handing out cash to everybody (and I think turning all their mansions into subsidized housing instead of selling them would be more beneficial anyway).

    I think incentivizing them to do more useful things with that cash and disincentivize them from simply hoarding it in various forms would be a decent short-term solution to the issue without having to put in much effort on the government’s part, but I never expect to see that happen.

    • boogiebored@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      This is misinformation. It takes 2 years proof of income to buy a house a bank bets you can afford. Billionaires have more flexibility, access and leverage than this with finances.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      If they can leverage banks, and do all sorts of shit with their money (and debt) to make more money, then they can find ways to use it to benefit others.

      Incentivizing giving it away is what we do now by providing tax benefits. We have seen the limitations of that.

      • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        I mean incentivizing them to invest it into things like public works and other beneficial things, but I also expect that that would go about as well as the current tax incentives do. It would be the thing that requires the least effort possible from the government, though, which I think makes it the most likely to actually occur. Actually taxing them more is pretty much a pipe dream.