• Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s not like they’re going to just give it up. Do you think that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people is a good thing? Is it a good thing that billionaires get to waste money shooting off rockets while so many people go without a roof over their head?

    • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Wealth in this case is ownership in companies that have a massive worldwide presence. If wealth is ownership in the companies you own, then yes, I don’t think they should be forced to give that up. What they decide to spend their wealth on is up to them.

      • Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        What they decide to spend their wealth on is up to them

        The only acceptable way to use that much money is to reinvest it in the society that enabled you to become a billionaire.

        It would cost around 20 billion dollars to end homelessness in the US, why should people be allowed to have net worths of 100 billion+ when it would only cost 1/5th of that to provide everyone with a home? Is stealing from one man to house hundreds of thousands of people a bad thing to do? Is personal ownership of wealth worth more than human life to you?

        • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          The only acceptable way to use that much money is to reinvest it in the society that enabled you to become a billionaire.

          Bill Gates seems to be doing a decent job of that, I’m glad he made the choices he has to redistribute his wealth, and I’m also glad it’s his choice.

          It would cost around 20 billion dollars to end homelessness in the US, why should people be allowed to have net worths of 100 billion+ when it would only cost 1/5th of that to provide everyone with a home?

          I really doubt it’s that simple. Where are these houses being built, in the middle of nowhere I suspect? How many homeless people want to move there? Will there be jobs out there? What about electricity, gas, and Internet?

          • Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Why would they need to be built in the middle of nowhere? We can build high density apartments if we need to, a roof over your head in a small apartment is better than the sidewalk.

            • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Because the price you quoted wouldn’t be nearly enough if we built in expensive cities, it has to be built in cheap to build areas for that number to make sense.