Assuming your conclusion.

How?

We are trying to determine whether it's rightly his money or not. Obviously he can do whatever he wants with money that is rightfully his.

Incorrect. The assumption is that it's his money, and the question is:

"Does Bezos have a moral responsibility to use his wealth to help others?"

That's an assumption that is also your conclusion. That's why you are assuming your conclusion.

plenty lack these things and that is terrible. However, it doesn't mean we should punish success through forcefully taking someone's stake in a company they founded and built. If you want to tax his income at higher rates then that is reasonable, but taking someone's ownership stake from them is no more morally acceptable than taking their ownership stake in their house or car or groceries in their refrigerator. These are things they own.

Assuming you forcefully distribute this luck globally as seems to be your premise, what would incentivize someone like Bezos to keep pushing forward? What would incentivize me or you or other posters in this thread to work beyond whatever the minimum is to live comfortably given we know that if we push through that level of professional success we don't reap any of the benefits ourselves?

I'd argue that a connected society is a positive and isolated communities are net negatives in that it costs more to provide resources or public goods to those in smaller communities than people in large cities. Thus, anything that brings people into more densely populated areas is good even if it is the brain drain that has seen people flee rural America for better opportunities in bigger cities.

CDL,

Is it your contention that bezos would not have created Amazon if he knew his maximum possible upside was say $1 billion?

lol.

It's obvious to any non idiot that I understand the difference between median and mean because you know I explicitly state that as much in my post....just more flailing from you.

Amazon only had ~175 billion in revenue last year, the majority of which is from retail operations; read: low margin. You're range is completely detached from reality.

Yet again, you declare victory in the face of overwhelming evidence you're wrong.

Take a look at Max's response to his original post that started this all....1.) he admitted his mistake 2.) and this is important so pay attention; he showed his work explaining how he made the mistake.

No company in the world can pay 83 billion in wages or whatever your upper bound was on 175 billion in revenue. No retail company can pay your lower bound either for that matter, and that's where the majority of Amazon's revenue is generated. I'd go further and say the fact you think any company in the world can pay 83 billion in wages just shows how you don't know fundamental facts about the world that would otherwise constrain your thinking. I know, I know....teh Googles sez so.

You are a textbook example of why nuanced discussion is beyond hopeless on this forum. Not unlike Trump you are immune to facts and logic when the situation is black and white.....forget about debating gray areas.

Newsy

In context this post was just right. That range is what was available. Using that broad range was better than trying to calculate it based on whatever you're doing. Using median would have been wrong.

I'm going to put this gently. You're a *ucking idiot.

Also I think many itt are conflating what is essentially an accounting fiction, Jeff Bezo's 'net worth', with real wealth.

When people say...well why doesn't he just [insert preference here] with like 100+ billion dollars they are implicitly conflating virtual wealth with real wealth. Things like eradicating poverty, or building housing, eradicating cancer, or whatever require real resources and are sources of real wealth.

It's like when there is a large stock market drop and some stenographer announces in the most serious tone ever.... 5 trillion dollars worth of wealth evaporated today...No, it didn't.

And while I am of the opinion widening inequality in the West has potentially disastrous consequences, and Jeff Bezos is a soulless dbag imo, the premise of the thread misses the point entirely.

This is a work of art. Quoted for posterity.

Of course.

Pretty much all of human history has been a march to improved quality of life obtained by forcing the pirates and kings to give up some of their wealth and power, so this doesn't seem at all obvious.

I can't speak for Bezos, but my contention is that many people are money motivated and their business achievements would not be so substantial had the monetary reward been hard capped.

Separately, investment is a much less appealing option when you know you can't get a return beyond a certain amount. Why would someone continue to invest their money in companies, real estate, or whatever else if they are not allowed to make money off those investments? They would prefer to frivolously spend it instead of invest it when there is only downside risk in those instances.

very little of human history has been driven by capitalistic societies. In reality it has been literal slave labor and physical violence that advanced society technologically for many thousands of years.

What about taking an empirical look? Taxes on the highest incomes and wealth were much higher in the 50's and 60's. At the very least it's clear that the taxes didn't kill growth.

If you are not allowed to have a net worth of over $X then as people approach $X they will cease investment as they would only be able to lose money from there. Capital investment in unarguably needed for economic growth to reach its potential.

When talking about Bezos specifically, almost his entire net worth is tied up in capital investment at the current time. Its not liquid dollars that he has packed in a vault.

I'm not suggesting taxing his unrealized gains in Amazon's stock. I already agreed with you specifically about that itt.

Long term capital gains tax rates were never astronomical, but in the 50's and 60's they were still 65% higher than they are now.

Whether there are other harms caused by such massive concentration of power in one person's hands is another issue though.

We had wealth taxes?

I never once said that income taxes should be lower. In fact, I have argued elsewhere on 2p2 that they should be higher. I have even said that if you want to raise income taxes then that is fine IN THIS VERY THREAD.

Income taxes are not wealth taxes. Income taxes are not only fine, but I believe also necessary. Higher income taxes are fine.

Wealth taxes are problematic because they tax success in a particular venture which is by definition still ongoing (if it hasn't been liquidated into income) or are taxation on the same money on a perpetual basis which discourages saving and investing in favor of immediate consumption as your power to consume later decreases over time. Investment is driven by the idea that by delaying gratification now you can capture returns and have more buying power later. If you tax wealth then that erodes the investment return and any meaningful wealth tax would pull consumption forward to a degree that is significant enough to deter capital investment (as most capital investment, in dollars, is controlled by people or entities that would be considered wealthy).

Bezos' net worth is not built off on income. It is built off of the stock returns of AMZN. This is wealth not income. When he sells stock he should absolutely be taxed on it. My personal belief is that he should be taxed at a higher rate than the current statutory rates in the US. However, I think it should be his decision as to when to sell rather than being forced to sell by the government by the implementation of a wealth tax.

then we're on the same page. There are other people itt that think his stake in AMZN should be taken through violence though ("at guillotine point").

I certainly don't think that but I do think democratic society will break down if inequality isn't tackled.

I assume that's generally what meant by 'chop his head off'. It's not an aspiration.

And If Bezos uses his wealth to help others he’s just being a middleman anyway. He gets cash from other people in exchange for Amazon shares then gives the cash away. If Bezos is a bad seed and doesn’t do that, the people who would buy Bezos’ shares if they were for sale should just directly give that money away.

I think it’s close to the opposite. For like 500k years humans lived all over world but had horrendous lives because there wasn’t even enough wealth for anybody to be rich. Only in the last 10k years has even just the concept of a King been feasible.