Arguing that some people demand aspirational goals as high as that in order to do what they do begs many questions: Not that their demand is invalid (as demands go, I've never found bargaining very easy, arguing for billions is beyond my comprehension) but I seriously doubt the ability to add that much value is a skill distinct enough that it can command that rate of return, against all other choices.
Not "they can't generate the ROI" as much as "others can generate that ROI just as well, it's contestable".
Fund managers (for example) vary in costs, and returns, in ways which I think undermine the proposition here.
Many people take remarkably "fundamentalist" views of peoples rights to limitless potential. "it's my right to accumulate billions if I want" is very strong in opposition to this, aside from the people who may plausibly earn billions who have an entirely rational reason to disclaim alignment here. We experienced this 6 orders of magnitude down the tree in an australian election around tax concepts called "franking credits" which were proposed to be ended by the labor party. Large number of pensioners voted against it, despite being repeatedly told they had none, and would lose none: The meme of "Labor is coming for your franking credits" was unstoppable.
Many people who will fail to become millionaires, will oppose constraint on becoming Billionaires.
A parallel but unrelated case: Tax on lottery winnings. Fair or unfair?
It's certainly true that capital flight is a risk which has to be assessed, but at that point, we really can say (to re-enter the political domain) that the super rich are holding the rest of the economy to ransom.
Apple sitting on $1T of funds deciding how to spend it best in apple shareholder interests needs to be set against apple re-distributing $1T to shareholders, who then incur tax consequences with capital gain, and the rest of the world gets to move on with things that tax can do. Keeping the money inside Apples safe harbour isn't actually useful.
Remember, money is meant to be useful. Hoarding it, is not always helpful.
In this case rich people will simply pack up and leave NYC, depriving the city of their tax revenue.
Rich people have been threatening to leave higher tax desirable locations for ages and they never do it. Has Trump sold his tower in NYC because he has lower tax rates in Florida? No, of course not.
Why is billionaires row in Manhattan instead of Jacksonville Florida? After all, taxes are lower in Jacksonville.
Billionaires need New York more than New York needs billionaires.
There is an abusive relationship, but it is one perpetrated by high-tax states against their constituents. Voting with one's feet and dollars is the solution to rid oneself of the abuse.
Everytime someone or some organization is able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth relative to others, it’s indicative of some barrier to entry into the field that ideally we would ruthlessly innovate away.
If he meant “billionaires shouldn’t” exist as in “punish people for success” then that’s just dumb imo
Nice, but one time.
However, as many economists may observe - prominently the 2024 Nobel prize laureate, Daron Acemoglu, markets are only accretive to prosperity where they enable economic participation (where capital is widely distributed) and choice among the highest number of people. This is a tenant of advanced democracies and arguably why they become wealthy nations.
Unregulated markets, where capital becomes narrowly distributed, form a more extractive economy where firms can seek rents on their market positions. This is inherently minimizes the prosperity formed by supply and demand. Examples are, suppressing output, limiting innovation and limiting wages/ working conditions. Innovation in an extractive economy becomes undesirable as it undermines the capital holder's ability to extract rent from their market position. In pragmatic terms, these capital holders are the billionare's discussed. There is no socially useful reason for a wealth to be derived from suppressing wages, share buybacks or regulatory capture etc - all forms of wealth creation in an extractive economy rather than a participatory one.
Aurornis•3h ago
dangus•2h ago
Just because a politician uses simple and catchy language doesn’t mean there isn’t policy substance behind it. Democrats have been losing for years trying to explain complicated macroeconomics to their voting base, Mamdani is one of the young democratic candidates who is a breath of fresh air.
garbagecoder•1h ago
Cuomo was a terrible candidate.
yostrovs•1h ago
AnimalMuppet•1h ago
Democrats have also been losing on social justice issues while ignoring the actual economic concerns of the poor. Well, is "there shouldn't be billionaires" a social justice slogan, or is it going to actually help the poor in some way? I think it's more a social justice slogan.