It’s Shopify’s Tobi Lutke.

A reminder that he’s behind Build Canada and Build Toronto, and that Build Toronto’s Eric Lombardi is running for the Ontario Librral Party leadership as we speak.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    I just want world wide wealth caps. 10 million is the max that any person canboen or control. Any additional income after that goes 100% straight to taxes.

    This simple rule has wide spread implications from ending poverty to likely ending wars, removing power from narcissist politicians, and souch more

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      On it’s own that won’t end poverty, but coupled with something like a basic income it could. It would definitely end all the extreme wealth stupidity, and if it was retroactive nobody could really flee with their wealth, like they might manage to with a lesser wealth tax.

      You might want to go up to 15, though. There’s bound to be some sympathetic retiree couple with a house in inner Vancouver.

    • WasabiWabbit@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes. but corruption always exists. Caps just push that wealth underground. There are no simple answers like that.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That won’t be as easy as you think. Again, how would you do that if monetary incentives are mostly gone? If nobody is poor enough to help with evil plans, evil plans become really hard.

        Heck, add in another simple rule: make all wealth information public. If nobody is poor and nobody really rich, there won’t be much incentives to abuse that information and if we know peoples worth, it will be glaringly obvious that somebody is cheating

        I know that this is an obvious oversimplification bit small changes like these areuch easier to implement than say "let’s all become anarchist and the world will be fine!’ because that will never happen.

        These small changes keep everything else the same and at least it solves a huge list of problems from people dying from hunger to most crime to most wars to climate change. All of these mentioned are mostly only possible because we allow extreme wealth.

        Take extreme wealth away and the world would be so much better

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why?

        Why 100 million?

        I get that the number of 10 million is arbitrary, hell, I just semi randomly picked it, but a 10 million net worth gets you A LOT more than you actually need.

        Why allow 100 million, though? 10 million is more than any person would need to love an actually full life with travel and plenty of whatever, and you could still invest some money in a small company. Want a bigger one? Join a bunch of people and make a bigger one.

        100 million gets into the range where youncan project power over others and that is the entire thing that got us where we are. No person should hold large amounts of power, humanity has shown over and over that that is a very bad idea.

    • definitemaybe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      A 100% income tax means there’s no incentive to remove profits from a business beyond that income, since you can’t spend any of it, so it will just encourage increased accounting trickery to justify “business expenses” for things like purchasing private islands, sports cars, and luxury vacations.

      80% is high enough; for every $10 million they withdraw for personal spending, they keep 2, and the other $8 million would go to pay for the services requested to run the rest of the country that enables them to produce their wealth. (Including all their employees and customers.)

      Then we still benefit from the efficiencies inherent in the profit motive while having the ultra wealthy pay their fair share.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That was a wealth tax, not a tax on income. So, nobody would be worth more than 10 million, and earning 10 million is almost out of the question. That means you can’t own a huge business by yourself, to start with.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Well, the “get a high salary” part is definitely doing most of the hard work.

            That being said, yes, there’d still be a way, if you’re patient, have the income and don’t care about legality. There’d be a risk of getting caught, which always scales with the amount you’ve hidden. But, maybe you’re smarter than the next white-collar criminal.

            If the point is to flatten out the class system, this policy would do it, though.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I might argue that if any single individual is in the position to collect $10M+/year, the economic system is already dysfunctional. That individual is operating as a gatekeeper rather than a value center and the position they occupy needs to be broken up and reorganized.