• herrcaptain
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I allowed for the possibility of a rare exception just in case. The two possibilities that come to mind are Notch (creator of Minecraft) and Taylor Swift. Both certainly depended on the work of others to become a billionaire, so there was likely some degree of exploitation (obviously in the Marxist sense there was) but maybe not at the scale of people like Bezos. I certainly haven’t heard of Taylor Swift’s employees pissing in jars on a warehouse floor.

    Swift had very wealthy parents from the outset so while she wasn’t billionaire-rich to start, she enjoyed huge advantages that most musically -inclined kids never would have. She certainly seems to enjoy the obscene wealth she has now, what with her disregard of the environment while jet setting around the world. I say all of this as a legit fan of her music, even though I hate that she isn’t massively donating her wealth.

    I’m less sure about Notch. It sounds like he’s a bit of an internet edgelord these days so I’m not super optimistic that he grew his wealth “fairly”.

    That said, I fundamentally do agree with you and strongly believe that billionaires should be taxed until they’re no longer billionaires.

    • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ll allow this much - Swift is better than Bezos and Musk. At least she pays her employees better than market value. But still, she could afford to double that for each employee, and she’d still be fine. She’d be fine with taking a tour bus across the states. She’d be fine not letting everyone random celeb who needs to be a town over use her jet, for which she probably makes a fair bit from.

      From what I recall with Notch, he kinda turned into a tool, no? For what it’s worth, he’s probably as close to a “respectable billionaire” in that he’s made his money and now I see him literally nowhere, so at least he got his and is now out of the way.