The whole premise boils down to "are billionaires bad for us? i.e those who make most of their money from capital gains and pay lower % tax compared to the average job who works a job?".
Obviously capitalism is this ruthless engine that incentivizes monopolization and winner take all due to global trade. They played the game by the rules.
Even a wealth tax of 0.1% means Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg will still keep on getting rich, just not at the same rate. That 0.1% could fund a lot of things for the greater public, even letting them amass even greater wealth with the new infrastructure.
The other big question is "Are governments better at spending money or billionaires through donations?"
The answer is most people only donate when it benefits them or as a feel good measure. Some problems can't be solved via feel good measures.
That much wealth brings, a ton of influence and power (Bezos is Seattle's emperor in disguise). Google/Facebook can shape elections and public opinions.
How much power are the top allowed to amass and invoke?
Obviously capitalism is this ruthless engine that incentivizes monopolization and winner take all due to global trade. They played the game by the rules.
Even a wealth tax of 0.1% means Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg will still keep on getting rich, just not at the same rate. That 0.1% could fund a lot of things for the greater public, even letting them amass even greater wealth with the new infrastructure.
The other big question is "Are governments better at spending money or billionaires through donations?"
The answer is most people only donate when it benefits them or as a feel good measure. Some problems can't be solved via feel good measures.
That much wealth brings, a ton of influence and power (Bezos is Seattle's emperor in disguise). Google/Facebook can shape elections and public opinions.
How much power are the top allowed to amass and invoke?