#you don't lose power but at some point gaining more profit doesn't net you the same gains in power as it used to

[classicintp]

It 100% has never ever been about productivity or efficiency, it's about normalizing a manufactured, emotionally pre-occupying misery so that you do not have the energy or determination to fight against the corporations exploiting you and your resources as a form of control. If you were well-rested and content you'd fight for a bigger share of the profit you labor for, you'd have the energy and determination to fight against the system that keeps corporations in power over your politicians. They hide behind the idea of efficiency and productivity as conceptual measures of profit but you know better, studies like this have been done over and over by various entities in various capacities since the 60s, the result is always the same: the studies say productivity and efficiency improve with rest, fewer working hours, and more personal time, and then corporations work to normalize longer hours per day + lowering the legal age of workforce entry and extending the age of retirement. Work dominates the majority of your waking hours for most of your life wrapped in a frame of personal morality not because it's the most profitable, profit is just a useful by-product.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

You have no reading comprehension and no understanding of tax brackets. The article does NOT say that when you hit 1 billion buckaroos in net worth you get fined 99%. It says that once you're at 1 billion net worth you're going to be taxed for anything more than that, and that only, so if you have a company at 999 million net worth you better start splitting it up and money laundering if you want to keep profiting. A wealth cap of 999 million is not a big imposition by any standards.

You don't seem to understand the context of the article and what Sanders is saying. So it seems the person lacking reading comprehension is you.

Fact of the matter is I fully explained why almost no "Billionaire" on the planet has access to a billion dollars. At all. And the fact is that even looking at modern taxes, the Top 5% pay almost 80% + of the taxes in this country. Likely the percentage is higher. And they end up paying it, "Depending on where they live" on money they don't have.

THAT "MONEY" doesn't exist. It's called unrealized gains. Meaning you are actually "fined" on my that potentially exists at any point in time.

And to your last point, it's not a wealth cap. It's a "You are not allowed to grow past this point" imposed by the government. Which last time I checked isn't a good thing. Maybe you need to do a little more reading yourself. Bernie is a moron who's complimented regimes that have committed mass murder of their populaces. Including the USSR. He's even praised bread lines. It would not shock me at all if he said what he said as stupid as it was.

And the reason why it was stupid is because the people making that money are not "living off 999,000,000 dollars". 80% of that money is speculative at best. Which if you had read what I wrote rather than skipping 80% of it after I criticized your lord and savior Millionaire Sanders, You'd have retorted with something other than what you did. My entire point to the post was that what he said was not only stupid but made no sense at all. More so given the difference between liquid assets and solid assets. And given inflation, those things don't have absolute values. A Dollar is always worth a dollar but the buying power behind it isn't always the same. Unrealized gains is actually worse because your company could be worth $500B one day and then $2B a month from now. And you get charged PERSONAL taxes based on the 500? That's F*cked.

And again. Where does that money go? The government. The people who continue to enrich themselves off of our division, and people like you's stupidity.

And here's the thing. ASSUME for a second that I agreed with the idea of eat the rich, (A talking point made by morons that don't understand economics at all), Who get's that money exactly?

Ukraine? Pakistan? Brazil? China? Joe and Hunter Biden? Mitch McConnel? Faucci? Organizations giving monkeys hard drugs? Banks that keep screwing up their own finances? The CIA so they can lose Billions more through "Accounting errors"? Charities that don't do anything other than enrich themselves?

If I had to pick, I'd say let the rich guy keep his money because he's likely to either spend it, or reinvest it in other places, or start new businesses that will give people jobs that NEED jobs. I'd love that over Nancy Pelosi's husband and her profiting more off insider trading frankly.

You need to do that math and look into all of this logically. Because fact is one of the last things I mentioned is that Tax laws here could well make it so those people want to leave the US. Meaning that a lot of the money they spend here goes with them. And other countries that have lax tax laws WILL not change those laws because they want the rich living there. Because it brings more money into their countries. Why do you think states give some businesses tax breaks to set up shop? That exact reason. It bring money into the state.

Besides. It's always super well off people that scream eat the rich and a lot of the time they are the rich. The only difference? They only say it. And ONLY mean people more well off than them. 30K a year is rich to a person who lives in some places in Africa and South America. Should we eat those "rich". What about movie stars? Athletes? Doctors? Lawyers? Politicians? Business owners? And why do we cut off where we do? Or are most of these ok because they are attainable and like Hasan Piker it's not about eating the rich. It's about becoming rich, and then pretending anyone that makes more than you are able to should be eaten?

What you suffer from is jealousy. And lack of understanding. And it is plain as day.

@capitalism-and-analytics can you please weigh in on this.