Abolish Billionaires

New York Times ^

[Sub-Driver]

Abolish Billionaires

A radical idea is gaining adherents on the left. It’s the perfect way to blunt tech-driven inequality. Farhad Manjoo

By Farhad Manjoo

Opinion Columnist

Feb. 6, 2019

Last fall, Tom Scocca, editor of the essential blog Hmm Daily, wrote a tiny, searing post that has been rattling around my head ever since.

“Some ideas about how to make the world better require careful, nuanced thinking about how best to balance competing interests,” he began. “Others don’t: Billionaires are bad. We should presumptively get rid of billionaires. All of them.”

Mr. Scocca — a longtime writer at Gawker until that site was muffled by a billionaire — offered a straightforward argument for kneecapping the wealthiest among us. A billion dollars is wildly more than anyone needs, even accounting for life’s most excessive lavishes. It’s far more than anyone might reasonably claim to deserve, however much he believes he has contributed to society.

At some level of extreme wealth, money inevitably corrupts. On the left and the right, it buys political power, it silences dissent, it serves primarily to perpetuate ever-greater wealth, often unrelated to any reciprocal social good. For Mr. Scocca, that level is self-evidently somewhere around one billion dollars; beyond that, you’re irredeemable.

I cover technology, an industry that belches up a murder of new billionaires annually, and much of my career has required a deep anthropological inquiry into billionairedom. But I’m embarrassed to say I had never before considered Mr. Scocca’s idea — that if we aimed, through public and social policy, simply to discourage people from attaining and possessing more than a billion in lucre, just about everyone would be better off.

[Sub-Driver]

Please, please mention this to AOC.

[Little Ray]

Democrats: the anti-achievement party.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

[jmcenanly]

How do his employers, the Sulzbergers, feel about this, or do they expect an exemption?

[dead]

At least Dillinger had the balls to pick up a gun and go steal other people's money himself. This Farhad Manjoo (isn't that a genie name?) and others like him hide behind their keyboard and beg the government to engage in the violent act of separating people from their wealth.

The Farhad Manjoos of the world actually believe that the crooks in government will then share the booty with them. Envious craven dumbasses.

[Vaquero]

Start with George Soros and sons, Get that done then we’ll see.

[from occupied ga]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill

Churchill nailed it like so many other things. Too bad the fools who vote democrat are too stupid to realize this.

[ClearCase_guy]

As a general rule, poor people do not take risks — they can’t afford to.
Also as a general rule, rich people do take risks. Jeff Bezos is pushing into space. Also Elon Musk. They can afford to take the risk.

Opportunity comes from risk-taking. If we get rid of the rich, we will be a more static society with less opportunity for poor people to profit from the opportunities made available by the risks taken by the rich.

[edwinland]

“I cover technology, an industry that belches up a murder of new billionaires annually, and ...”

I think he meant to write “number”. This is actually quite shocking for the New York Times and shows that they are not even doing any basic editing of this type of article.

[dead]

A murder is a group of grows.

[ealgeone]

A billion dollars is wildly more than anyone needs, even accounting for life’s most excessive lavishes. It’s far more than anyone might reasonably claim to deserve, however much he believes he has contributed to society.

If we're going to play this game then anyone in the US with assets over 250,000 are in trouble.

Someone in Venezuela might argue a different number.

[BitWielder1]

Why are there Chinese and Russian Billionaires then?

Communism is based on Envy. It's that simple.

[golux]

I think he meant to write “number”

Nevermore.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: This Farhad Manjoo (isn’t that a genie name?) ::

Billionaires are the Evil Djinn.

[LIConFem]

Abolish Billionaires, and the DNC loses most of its operating capital, not to mention 90% of its campaign $$$.

[marktwain]

Mr. Scocca — a longtime writer at Gawker until that site was muffled by a billionaire — offered a straightforward argument for kneecapping the wealthiest among us.

Gawker was not "muffled by a billionaire". They lost a lawsuit because of their editorial practices. The lawsuit was funded by a billionaire.

What this writer is contending, is that billionaires should be eliminated to prevent places like Gawker being held accountable.

[dead]

[Lurker]

“I think he meant to write “number”.

No, he’s actually literate. A murder is a large group of crows.

L

[antidemoncrat]

“Billionaires are bad. We should presumptively get rid of billionaires. All of them.”

The brain cancer that has consumed Occasional Cortex has started to spread. No cure for it yet.

[IronJack]

One must be careful to amass a worth of only $999,999,999.99 before putting the next penny in one’s wife’s name.

By the way, who is some jealous bolshevik to tell anyone how much he needs or deserves? And, by extension, how anything beyond that limit goes to someone who may NOT deserve it?

[Gay State Conservative]

I agree...to a degree.We can start with Soros,move on to Zuckerberg,Steyer and Gates.And then on to politicians.

Bella Pelosi,Dirty Harry,Feinstein,BillyBob and ILLary (his wide-bodied bride) and many others as well.

Then we can pass a law lowering Congressional salaries to $50K/yr and limit Congresscritters maximum net worth to $500K.