this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1325 points (97.4% liked)
Clever Comebacks
1188 readers
1 users here now
Posts of clever comebacks in response to someone.
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing is allowed but when used to insult someone.
- Discussion is encouraged, but only in good faith. No arguing for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor names/identifying info of everyone who isn’t a public figure.
- If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy this community in the light hearted manner it’s intended.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unless he's donating everything tomorrow, this is all bullshit.
First off he doesn't have 124 billion. He is WORTH 124 billion, the vast majority of it being the worth of his stakes in Amazon. If he sells all his stakes in it, the Amazon worth would plummet and he'd be worth a fraction of what he's worth today.
But lets say he has a 124 billion dollars. If he gives out 10 millions every day it will still take over 300 years. In that time his worth likely would.grow faster than he's spending it so in 300 years he'd still be worth more than he is today.
All this charity stuff is bullshit, TAX THE RICH. Taxes will give honest amounts of money to governments who can then use that money for universal healthcare, universal education, universal income...
Sacrifice the profits of parasitic shareholders for the good of society, returning America to the level of taxation when it's economy was great, putting the money back in the hands of the workers that keep the economy running? The workers that will spend their money, stimulating the economy (unlike shareholders)?
No - that's impossible! Pay no attention to the 90% top tax rate implemented by Eisenhower - a goddamn Republican.
I don't think your math adds up.
yeah spending 10 million a day would take 34 years to add up to 124 billion
I was a favor 10 off but that doesn't matter, the point still stands.
No single person should be ever control that much money
But while he gives away 3.65 billion a year, his remaining 120 billion appreciated to 130 billion or whatever. Then the next year he gives away 3.65 billion and his remaining 126 billion appreciated to 136 billion....
As long as he doesn't give away more than his principal gains, it's an indefinite loop.
Press X to doubt
Fun fact: we could having universal healthcare right now and both businesses and individuals would make more money. We don't because voters are dumb and can't do math.
Fun fact: it's not that easy. It's likely possible and likely great for everyone but it's also an enormous undertaking that you don't want to fail. It would take years if not decades to implement, don't ever think it's easy.
I'm all for it, but it's not a "we could do it now"
It's not that easy, which is why every comparable country does it 🤷🏻♂️
You're right though, it wouldn't be easy because we built a monster of a insurance industry that's in the way that nobody wants to dismantle because muh profit
I'm all for taxing the rich but the rest of this is just pure stupidity.
Like why did you cap how much he can give away at one time lol
Try to sell all your stocks at once if you own a big chunk of all available shares. The stock price would fall faster than you were able to sell your shares.
Bezos already engages in structured stock sell-offs worth vastly more than $10MM
I didn't cap anything. There are realistic limits to what you can give to charity. Give a charity that normally gets a few millions a billion and they won't be able to spend it in any normal way. Breeds corruption, etc.
Charity shouldn't even exist, as it is always this patch on holes left by governments. Tax the rich until they are "normal rich" and then use that money for projects that normally would require charity
Also, his wife actually had the exact same situation I just described. She spent millions over millions and once done she had more wealth than she started with
If only there were more than one charity, worldwide.
No.
If only governments would tax the rich properly they'd have enough money to put good social programs in place. We wouldn't need charity.
There will always be a use of some sort of charity until we live in a post-scarcity world.