• Chriskmee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most of their billions is ownership in companies they grew into what they are today. It’s not like they have billions to spend, it’s that their ownership is worth billions according to the market.

      • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So what? We should take away that ownership because they can leverage it? Also the same people suggesting we tax wealth like this want to also close those “loopholes” of low interest loans on shares.

            • Enma Ai@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Taking away (extreme) wealth. There’s no reason one person should have that much. There’s countless better ways to use that money/wealth than for one persons extravagant lifestyle. And even if they don’t have an extravagant lifestyle, what are they gonna do with it? Doubt they will build infrastructure out of good will with it.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                So take away ownership of a company just because it’s too successful? That wealth is mostly in company ownership, so are you really suggesting we steal away legitimate ownership in successful companies?

                • Enma Ai@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes. Fuck Capitalism.

                  It’s not stealing their legitimate ownership. They don’t have legitimate ownership.

    • MattsAlt [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could go to any bank and leverage that asset for a loan for more than everyone who posts on this platform will make in their lifetimes no problem. That is a nonsense talking point

      • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it’s worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

            • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

              Why do those employees get the bare minimum? Why are the working majority excluded from ownership and decision-making in the companies they run?

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What’s the problem ?

                • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. those shares don’t give you voting rights

                  2. those shares amount to a tiny fraction of the total value of the company

                  3. without the employees there would be no company

                  you try to square those three facts

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago
                    1. So all those times I’ve gotten mail about using my shares to vote, what was that about exactly?

                    2. Of course they do, I don’t expect a given employee who isn’t the owner or high level exec to have a larger fraction of ownership.

                    3. So what? What’s your point?