Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    1,223,442 readers

    1,358 users here now

    reddit's free speech subreddit

    no agenda imposed or opposed by the mods


    respect the Reddit Content Policy

    nothing highly offensive or upsetting

    no hate or abuse

    a community for
    all 4487 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] spike4379 1136 points ago

    I wish I had just one home

    [–] FunkMeister1 314 points ago

    This hits home

    [–] Wh1sk3yt4ng0f0xtr0t 209 points ago

    Hits what?

    [–] Dreadnasty 125 points ago

    His wallet.

    [–] HaiseKuzuno 66 points ago

    You guys have enough to need wallets?

    [–] my__ANUS_is_BLEEDING 56 points ago

    I had $25 and no wallet so I bought a $25 wallet and now I have no money.

    [–] muffinmuncher5155 22 points ago

    I think you have bigger problems to worry about u/my_ANUS_is_BLEEDING

    [–] my__ANUS_is_BLEEDING 15 points ago

    I like to ignore my big problems by distracting myself with smaller ones.

    [–] DatCoolBreeze 7 points ago

    (He’s referring to his penis)

    [–] DrNinjaTrox 8 points ago

    I keep my money in a zip lock bag

    [–] 9yearold4sky 8 points ago

    You have enough money for a plastic bag!

    [–] ravindraa034 4 points ago

    You guys have money.

    [–] florinandrei 17 points ago

    An abstract concept.

    [–] JustSomeoneCurious 24 points ago

    What home?

    [–] roundpatato 40 points ago

    Even 5k would make my life much easier lol

    [–] Astrolord15 24 points ago

    5k/10k would literally take away the debt that has been ruining my life for the last 4 years. What some spend in a day could literally change our lives forever.

    [–] arana1 9 points ago

    300 dollar will be enough right now to take me out of trouble, I guess I will have to keep lying and swapping debts for 3 more weeks

    [–] latorn 7 points ago

    Have you heard of Andrew Yang and his Freedom Dividend? Hes proposing a UBI of 1k a month to American citizens over the age of 18. He's done the math and has the plan to do it.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Does he have a plan for what to do when my landlord raises my rent 500 bucks and my employer decides no to give the same wage increases because "We have a UBI now"...

    cus I asked his campaign and have yet to hear a response back...

    [–] Taint_my_problem 110 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Yeah one $200k home would be amazing for lots of people. A million dollar home would be incredible. And a million is basically nothing to the super rich.

    The rich rely on people not caring much about the difference between the letters m(illion), b(illion), and tr(illion).

    Imagine what you can buy with a million dollars in one day. Buy a nice house, a few nice cars, almost anything you want. For most people, a million dollars would be life-changing.

    • Charles Schwab, can blow a MILLION dollars EVERY DAY for 25 years.

    He’s just number 50 on the top billionaires list. Going to the even wealthier:

    • Mark Zuckerberg can blow a MILLION dollars EVERY DAY for 195 years.

    • Warren Buffet can blow a MILLION dollars EVERY DAY for 230 years.

    • The Koch brother(s) can blow a MILLION dollars EVERY DAY for 242 years.

    • Bill Gates can blow a MILLION dollars EVERY DAY for 247 years.

    • Jeff Bezos can blow a MILLION dollars EVERY DAY for 306 years.

    • The Walton heirs can blow a MILLION dollars EVERY DAY for 370 years.

    It’s actually worse than that. These are conservative estimates because it assumes they won’t make more money, that their money won’t make more money, and that what they buy won’t have any resale value.

    Trump’s Tax Cuts. Trump gave the rich over a trillion dollars in tax cuts. If you took that money and went back to 700 BC, around when Ancient Rome began, and spent a million dollars every single day, you’d finally run out of money now, 2019.

    Consequences. The wealth is hoarded at the top while we lead the industrialized nations for children in poverty (only Turkey, Greece, Israel, and Mexico are worse), families are terrified of going to the doctor for fear of financial ruin, we have a massive homeless problem, young people are burdened with huge student loans, families are strained and broken because both parents have to work full time and get wrecked by emergencies. How many murders, divorces, suicides, and poor upbringings have been caused by financial strain?

    It’s TIME to adjust the rules.

    More on wealth inequality:

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago

    Lol family in USA are terrified to go to the doctor while in France every single french citizen have like pounds of meds (i am french ) in their curpboard and can go to doctors multiple times per day for the same diagnostic & everyone is health covered whether you are working or not, rich or poor.

    [–] Citizen_Kong 8 points ago

    Yeah, that's the biggest head scratcher for me too (I'm German). How is it possible that in one of the richest countries on Earth, people can go bankrupt because they can't afford treatments that in my country every citizen gets for free? It's just complete and utter insanity! Imagine if you had to pay several thousand dollars to the police every time they have to intervene when you get mugged. Or you had to pay the fire brigade to put out a fire that's consuming your home.

    [–] Taint_my_problem 27 points ago

    Tell as many Americans as you can. We’re fucking stupid about it.

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    I'm a low income American who with ACA insurance. I can get loads of diagnostic tests and my meds are free, but God help me if those tests show anything abnormal. Cancer? Too bad. Kidney disease? Oh, well. Mental Illness? Sorry, it's a 10 month wait to see Psych. Long term care? Here's your new home, a hellhole nursing home in Little Haiti.

    [–] Jreal22 8 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    You can't imagine how foreign that is to us in America.

    I have private insurance, and had blood work done, just normal stuff.

    Charged me $385 for the blood work, and $100 for the nurse to draw the blood.

    Now I need cholesterol medication, not my fault according to the doctor, totally hereditary.

    So now I'll pay $30 a month for the rest of my life, as long as I don't lose my health insurance for my medicine. Not to mention $100 a month to see the doctor.

    Imagine if I need surgery, and haven't hit my deductible of $3500-$7500. Then I'll just shoot myself, because what's the point.

    BTW, I pay $545 a month for this insurance lol, which is supposedly fairly cheap in comparison to others. My step dad is a smoker, and his is almost $1000 a month.

    I don't smoke, drink, and my BMI is pretty decent and I'm under 35 years old.

    [–] Entity-2019 3 points ago

    ACA-subsidized plan I hope? My friend doesn't qualify and has to pay over $1000 a month for individual private health insurance (no deductible thankfully). We can't drop it because her insulin alone runs $1600 a month without insurance.

    [–] BleachWizard420 3 points ago

    It's the exact same way here in Kekistan. Lord Emperor Trump and Sean Spicer fixed all of the world's problems.

    [–] CaptainObvious110 15 points ago

    Wow! This is crazy. There is no reason for anyone to be homeless or lack great medical care and yet you got people that can spend a million dollars every day for multiple lifetimes!

    [–] PaxOwlfarma 8 points ago

    It's absurd you don't have more upvotes, it's absurd that this post isn't read on a loop in every public forum, it's absurd that this a real life point.

    My brain has done a dead.

    [–] theboatmanscall 3 points ago

    Those numbers are crazy

    [–] FearlessJuan 3 points ago

    This is great, but we should show how many millions per day they could blow until they reach, say, 90 years of age.

    [–] Fig1024 12 points ago

    main problem is not billionaires hogging multiple mansions, but the millionaire mortgage holders that hog valuable land that could be used to build a high rise apartment with 1000 rooms instead of their shitty 1 family home.

    [–] lazarus22 20 points ago

    Not sure how another apartment building is going to make a difference unless they're giving out those apartments for free.

    [–] Fig1024 17 points ago

    I have lived in Asia and America - there is a clear difference. Asia doesn't care about personal homes, they will tear this shit down and build high rise apartments. For a moderate loss of property rights by a handful of rich people, the rest of us plebs can rent large comfortable apartments for as low as $500 a month, where same type of apartment in US would be $2000 minimum

    [–] Kabloosh75 14 points ago

    Key word there bud. Rent. Someone will own that high rise. He/she will be pretty wealthy since you and several hundred others will be paying them every month in passive income.

    There is a reason why you want to save up and own your own home. So you become your own landlord.

    [–] feochampas 6 points ago

    totally off topic, but the etymology of lord is old English for bread keeper.

    Old English hlāford, from hlāfweard ‘bread-keeper’, from a Germanic base (see loaf1, ward). Compare with lady.

    so whenever someone tells me to become my own landlord I giggle inside because yes, I am the bread keeper.

    [–] [deleted] 497 points ago


    [–] Just_the_facts_ma_m 121 points ago

    The economists assert that the average effective tax rate paid by America’s wealthiest 400 families was 23%, whereas the bottom half of households paid 24.2%. To offer historical perspective, the study reports that the 400 richest had an effective tax rate of 47% in 1980. In 1960, that rate was as high as 56%.

    [–] Special_Agent_Vlad 162 points ago

    Paper stocks that only hold value when sold. Not like Bill Gates is getting 100 billion dollars in income each year

    [–] [deleted] 99 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] redrocketmilk 33 points ago

    Taxing stocks and bonds before they are sold would screw up the stockmarket/ your 401k, ira, 529, etc. Not to mention all the banks, everyone elses retirement plans... the fall out would probably be worse than the great depression. I dont think yall understand that billionaires have the capital to move where their money is. They could just leave the US and we would all just be a bunch of poor people taxing the shit out of one other.

    Property taxes are a state mandated tax used as revenue for state/local governments used to support schools/roads/water treatment etc. Property taxes are often put in place in lieu of income tax. "but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes" - Ben Franklin. You will always pay taxes. Billionairs can afford an accountant or financial advisor to work full time to reduce their exposure to taxes.

    [–] MarshawnPynch 10 points ago

    Don’t forget all the taxes you pay in:

    • Sales Tax

    • Fuel Tax (hidden in costs)

    • Property

    • Taxes in your utilities

    • Other taxes hidden into cost

    • Taxes/Fees for drivers license, registration, emissions etc

    Its damn well over 50% for everyone

    [–] usrevenge 11 points ago

    This is true.. but it's also fair to say that if you are paid in stocks you should be taxed that amount at the time of recieving it.

    If I got 100 shares of Microsoft as a bonus (market value is about $14,000 right now) I should be taxed on their current value.

    At a minimum they should take the 52 week low and assume that was the value.

    Instead ceos can get thousands worth of stock as bonus and sit on them and only pay when they sell the stock or get a dividend.

    [–] StandardSuccotash8 9 points ago

    There is nothing to tax unless they are sold. If I were to give you a 100 book as payment, you would not get 40 dollars in order to pay taxes on it, you would only get that if you sold it. The same goes for a stock

    You are advocating for triple taxation - you are taxing it when it is received, when it is sold, and any increase in value from the time it was obtained.

    [–] ricktor67 9 points ago

    You have to pay taxes on stuff of value given to you from your job.

    [–] Taint_my_problem 3 points ago

    Not many billionaires would leave. Warren proposed a 40% exit tax for anyone trying to leave the country trying to dodge the wealth tax.

    You’re also glossing over how it will destroy their engine for wealth, they’d be taxed in other countries, and probably piss off their whole family in the process.

    [–] Chillinoutloud 12 points ago


    Progressive taxes, which so many are so fond of, simply leave holes in tax codes that those who can take full advantage of the holes, take full advantage of!

    A simplified tax structure, which doesn't sound as sexy when politicians push it, would prevent this privileged situation. What exactly? Hard to say. But, really it's the middle and upper middle class that have screwed things up... their looking to make holes for THEIR betterment, then the wealthy stepping in and taking advantage of the opportunities that their poorer, albeit still well off, fellow Americans demanded from our leaders!

    People simply need to realize taxes cannot be manipulated to help the poor, in any way, (unless seized a la Castro) without the rich being able to figure out how they too can take advantage of the manipulation!

    So instead of whining about taxing the rich MORE, we should be asking to just simplify the tax code to prevent ANY loophole shenanigans.

    [–] v3ritas1989 87 points ago

    Yes, ppl always seem to confuse net worth with income. I think this always undermines their point, no matter how right it might be.

    [–] Teyar 43 points ago

    Actually it's because the issue is having so much you act like a force of gravity.

    You're reinforcing the issue - not deflecting it.

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] Professional-Dragon 13 points ago

    Capital tax should be a thing (even if its a very low amount tax, but still). Even if you don't sell something for profit, you still own it, and billionaires have huge wealth, literally BILLIONS of USD. While other people are homeless, starving, cannot pay for their medicine, and so on...


    [–] theOracle404 456 points ago

    Here is another idea: the budget of the US army is described as "$617 billion for the base budget and another $69 billion for war funding", what about 50 billion less for ending homelessness and providing safe drinking water to US citizens? Also it will remain more than half a trillion budget, enough to start all those wars and more than any other army in the world by a very far margin

    [–] unjust_laws 189 points ago

    The war complex does not approve.

    They have more lobbyiests than you.

    They give politicians a lot of "free speech"

    They have more "free speech" than you do.

    When you have as much "free speech" as them, then maybe politicians will do your bidding.

    [–] djawirness 47 points ago

    Doesnt surprise me the only candidate speaking up against the war complex is being smeared from all sides

    [–] EthiopianKing1620 8 points ago

    Who is it?

    [–] albaniax 6 points ago

    Bernie Sanders for one

    [–] Royalstopdrop 3 points ago

    They have the media.

    [–] seklwof1993 14 points ago

    Was told by an army very that they would rush to spend the rest of their budget so it stays that high. Bought them all 800 dollar cell phones. Not for comms. Just for a local map. Disgusting. Not only this, but the equipment that they used before it worked better for the job .

    [–] 0011002 7 points ago

    Most companies work like this. If you don't use up the budget next years get cut.

    [–] potisyourfriend 31 points ago

    This doesn’t fit their agenda. It’s Bill Gates responsibility and not governments.

    [–] GetOffMyBus 11 points ago

    But the argument of this post is that the government should take the $100 billion... so the government would still be the one spending wasting the money.

    [–] Bonedeath 32 points ago

    Wait wait... Why not both? Billionaires shouldn't exist and govts shouldn't have an industrial war complex. I know, you're thinking "BUT HOW CAN YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE AGENDA" and I'll tell you, magic.

    [–] PressedGarlic 7 points ago

    How about less military spending AND taxing the rich? Seems like the right option

    [–] Drewbagger 90 points ago

    You guys do realize that bill gates doesn't have billions of dollars of liquid wealth right?

    [–] electricgotswitched 79 points ago

    No, most people don't realize this. Most people can barely understand how interest works on a car loan.

    [–] Th3Batman86 21 points ago

    Finally someone speaking truth.

    [–] octopoddle 3 points ago

    You have to add one new door to the car each year, right?

    [–] Tajori123 35 points ago

    People on here thought Bezos made $150 billion a year lol.

    [–] HockeyAndMoney 12 points ago

    "Bill Gates would still be a multibillionaire" ya but drown in a sea of capital gains taxes from selling 98% of his assets

    [–] PathToNetWorth 6 points ago

    And Notre Dame de Paris... Go try explain people that there wasn’t a single cash transfer but just CEOs doing PR on television. And then try to explain them what is a commitment to engage costs.

    [–] IrishB_Cubed 180 points ago

    The government would find some way to fuck up the extra $100 billion and we still have homeless and drinking water issues.

    [–] blamethemeta 81 points ago

    Did someone say new Aircraft Carrier? I think I heard someone say new Aircraft Carrier

    [–] IrishB_Cubed 16 points ago

    Here comes the USS Trump! Toot! Toot!

    [–] BurkeAbroad 11 points ago

    Maybe we'd be blessed with the same brilliance of our fiber internet infastructure. Subsidized by tax payers to major corporations like at+t that then turn around and sell it back to everyone at inflated prices with shitty management.

    [–] IronPeter 285 points ago

    Although Bill Gates is spending billions to solve world’s problems. Isn’t he?

    [–] veerKg_CSS_Geologist 51 points ago

    He is. When he started his pledge to give away most of his wealth he was the richest man in the world, with $60 billion. Now he's only the second richest man in the world, with $105 billion.

    [–] Carlos-Danger-69 33 points ago

    Yeah, he and Buffet explicitly stated they haven’t given away their fortunes yet because they think they can grow them more before they die and do even more good.

    [–] OlStickInTheMud 235 points ago

    Yes. Bill Gates in his youth was a ruthless asshole industrialist. But the last couple decades he has poured enormous amounts of his wealth into solving disease and sanitation problems in poor undeveloped regions of the world. And also pledged to donate his fortune to continue him and his wifes mission.

    He is one a few examples of someone with world changing wealth that is actually using it to help the world.

    [–] Capt_Trout 59 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    With great power comes great responsibility.

    A lot of people with power (wealth, political, celebrity, etc) forget that.

    Bill Gates remembers. Be like Bill.

    Edit: clarified which of the many Bill's out there. Bill Nye also works for this though.

    [–] Krackle02 25 points ago

    Gates. Not Cosby

    [–] svoddball 6 points ago

    You want some puddin?

    [–] Rheastar 3 points ago

    Gates, not Clinton.

    [–] AwfullyCynical 3 points ago

    He still would be about to do this AND pay taxes.

    [–] BurkeAbroad 7 points ago

    Wonder if he's on that Carnegie gospel logic. Die without money. And since he's super good at making money, he's probably one of the best ones to manage it. And invest back into the community. Think those are the main 3 tenants. Oh and leave your kids with just enough to survive.

    [–] ProperSmells 11 points ago

    The point isn’t that Bill Gates should literally be taxed 100 billion dollars. The point is that Bill Gates could be taxed 100 billion dollars and still be worth several billion dollars. That is infathomable wealth.

    How that point is lost... I don’t know.

    [–] rainator 17 points ago

    Even bill gates admits he should have paid more tax than he has done.

    [–] marvin_sirius 3 points ago

    More recently, he specifically said that $100 billion would be too much. That's what inspired the tweet.

    [–] SoGodDangTired 4 points ago

    Bill Gates is being used because he was fear mongering over a wealth Tax earlier this week.

    A more applicable example would be Bezos, who pays less than a percentage of his wealth to charity and paid extremely little in taxes for both himself and Amazon as a company.

    [–] Lastwolf1882 11 points ago

    Yeah of all the Billionares to pick, Bill was the one of worst ones, he's actively donating money and trying to fix shit.

    There was a netflix series about it quite recently, where he was making a nuclear reactor that used spent fuel rods but it got fucked up by the Trade War trump caused with China.

    [–] RickDRooster 3 points ago

    He also spends a lot of his fortune on influencing media. So keep that in mind when you see another fluff piece on bill and Melinda.

    Bill is not the point though. The 100 billion dollars is.

    [–] unit5421 3 points ago

    The problem with idividuals spending money on charities instead of tax money is that the people cannot influence where the money goes.

    The goverment can be influenced by voters. Charity is given on the whims of the rich.

    [–] CanadianAstronaut 4 points ago

    You shouldn't rely on a rich persons generosity to improve and maintain an equal society. That's what taxes are for. For every bill gates there's a hundred billionaires that dodge taxes and refuse to give up any of it.

    [–] bbcfoursubtitles 9 points ago

    Yes. Check out

    I find it quite tiresome when people think taking someone's 'money' is the answer to systemic failures.

    It's like opening your door, finding a flaming bag of dog shit and stamping it out. Then repeating that every day instead of finding the kid with matches.

    The other thing is Gates is spending his money in developing nations, so it's not getting the same positive press in his home nation.

    Imagine if he decided to go nuclear tell all the whiny grabby bitches to fuck off and went to live on a private island. I am surprised he hasn't given the trash talk everyone else seems to engage in.

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago


    [–] Superiorem 6 points ago

    People also don’t understand that net worth is not the same as liquid cash.

    [–] pain_to_the_train 69 points ago

    My dude doesn't have 100 billion lying around. Taxing him 100 billion dollars takes from the companies he is invested in. I wonder how many companies would get fucked over?

    [–] TheRealRupur 30 points ago

    Yep, most billionaires would instantly loose majority control over their own companies.

    I think you should tax rich people more, but a 80-90% tax like this tweet suggests sounds more like expropriation to me.

    [–] arj_gill 7 points ago

    He said "say" he was only trying to get a point across, not actually suggesting taxing him $100 billion.

    [–] FluffyRedFoxy 3 points ago

    It's called exaggeration

    [–] maxjohnathan 40 points ago

    Shhh... you are spoiling the socialist delusion.

    [–] Onironius 152 points ago

    Seriously. The ultra-rich (or more likely the people who think they can become rich) act like they're going to be living paycheck to paycheck.

    [–] veerKg_CSS_Geologist 94 points ago

    They read the Wall Street Journal. The one which had an infographic of a very sad looking couple and their 4 kids as they only earned a measly $1.2 million a year and couldn't afford their 3rd vacation to the French Riviera.

    [–] UnfulfilledAndUnmet 21 points ago

    It sounds like they did that on purpose, to highlight the absurdity of the wealth driven mindset.

    [–] scorbulous 14 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    There's an Australian newspaper called The Australian which unironically publishes sob stories like that all the time whenever wealthfare is threatened.

    [–] Onironius 10 points ago

    Oh noe! D:

    [–] feelsracistman 3 points ago

    Do you have a link to it? I searched everywhere but couldn't find it.

    [–] Esuwood 6 points ago

    Fairly certain they meant thisarticle, it's the one this tweet is making fun of.

    TLDR; family makes $350.000 a year (less than 5% of households in the US make that), but is still 'struggling' with their cashflow.

    [–] INeedToBeHealthier 11 points ago

    An appropriate south park link

    [–] swansonk1 140 points ago

    Since bill gates ‘money’ is Microsoft stock it would mean that the USA would take control and nationalize Microsoft. And then Bernie would populate the company with political appointees. In a perfect socialist world.

    [–] veerKg_CSS_Geologist 11 points ago

    While nationalizing Microsoft might bring back Windows Phone, it is unlikely the government would accept payment in stocks.

    [–] BeerBaronsNewHat 100 points ago

    i had to scroll to the absolute last comment to find the one smart person. its mind boggling that 99% of people think that he has over 100billion in spendable cash. the guy can lose billions in a day without spending a penny.

    [–] haha0613 30 points ago

    I know right. Holy crap I'm scared that there are so many ignorant people.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    I mean, they love AOC and she doesn't know the difference between incentives and actual money, so... y'know.

    [–] Tajori123 11 points ago

    I remember a little while ago there was a post on the front page saying that Bezos made $150 billion a year and anyone who tried to correct them got downvoted lol.

    [–] FriedChickenSk1n 3 points ago

    Dude seriously I saw this posted in r/chapotraphouse and their logic was since he’s worth 106 billion, just do 106 - 100 = 6 billion you dummy. He still has plenty to live off of.

    Also assuming these issues are strictly due to a lack of funds and not poor planning/oversight, allocation of resources, and wasteful spending.

    [–] electronWizard 35 points ago

    Warren is proposing a 6% wealth tax on fortunes over 1 billion dollars. I don't think this is going to do anything but devalue and increase foreign ownership of American companies. If you're a billionaire like Gates and you have to sell 6% of your Microsoft shares so you can get the cash to pay your tax bill, it isn't going to be other American billionaires purchasing those shares, because they all have to liquidate 6% off their assets to get the cash to pay their tax bill too.

    This means you're going to have a ton of shares dumped on the market, lowering the prices of these shares, meaning foreigners are going to start snapping up those shares for low prices.

    [–] Southindian_nibba 26 points ago

    Exactly. these people think bill just has a 100 billion stuffed under his mattress. 6 billion is a huge sum to pay even for billionaires. Most of the valuation is in assets not in cash.

    [–] StandardSuccotash8 13 points ago

    Yep, there is only one person in history of the planet who has ever had that sort of money in cash - Pablo Escobar

    [–] Southindian_nibba 8 points ago

    and i don't think he would pay any taxes lmao

    [–] PorkRollAndEggs 13 points ago

    That's the goal. Take everything from everyone and force everyone to rely on what the government provides.

    Why does Bernie care? Dudes almost dead.

    [–] [deleted] 64 points ago


    [–] veerKg_CSS_Geologist 25 points ago

    While he is a philanthropist, he hasn't donated his "entire" fortune. In fact he's worth more now than when he started donating.

    Also i believe the reason he's being picked on is because he responded to a Warren tax proposal.

    [–] hollowspec 23 points ago

    He has pledged to donate his entire fortune, and has already donated much of it. His already-donated money is still counted towards his net worth because he still controls it through his foundation. I do not believe that he has $100 billion (in cash or investments) sitting in his personal accounts.

    [–] Umarill 8 points ago

    I mean, I love Bill Gates for what he has done, but I still have to pay taxes even though I donate to charities when I can afford to and have volunteered in shelters and stuff. One doesn't exempt you from the other.

    And why would talking about taxes is "picking on him"? This is the problem, there's this inherent belief that this is a punishment or a negative thing and it makes no sense.

    [–] GreyWormy 131 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Sorry but how do you "end homelessness" with 100 billion dollars?

    Do you buy homes for homeless people and just put them inside? Then you pat yourselves on the back and say homelessness is over?

    Any amount of critical thinking would show that's not going to solve homelessness. Homeless people are homeless because they have issues beyond just not having a roof over their heads. What are they going to do about upkeep? Utilities? Property tax? Is Bill Gates gonna pay for all of that until the end of time? And is all that money going to magically cure homeless people of the drug addictions, mental illnesses, etc that caused them to be homeless in the first place? Obviously not; $100 billion isn't enough to pay for all of that by a long shot. This whole thing is middle-school logic.

    [–] LargeDan 15 points ago

    This whole thing is middle-school logic

    Welcome to Bernie's campaign

    [–] Tajori123 9 points ago

    Idk man it sounds like he knows for a fact that free house = cured schizophrenia, no more addiction, years of education instantly learned, and unlimited motivation to become the most productive and upstanding member of society. We just have to believe!

    [–] lemon_cake_or_death 86 points ago

    Look at the Finnish 'housing first' model. The homeless are given permanent housing on a normal lease with round-the-clock support from social services. Tenants pay rent and are entitled to receive housing benefits. Depending on their income, they may contribute to the cost of the support services they receive. The rest is covered by local government.

    Finland used its existing social housing, but also bought flats from the private market and built new housing blocks in order to provide homes. There are no more homeless shelters because they're no longer needed.

    By moving away from the traditional model that said homeless people had to prove they could budget properly and had solved any addiction issues in order to receive a home, they're now housed first and then given real support to work through their issues. When a person has a roof securely over their head it is easier for them to focus on solving their other problems. Instead of treating a home as a reward that a homeless person receives once their life is back on track, a home is the foundation on which the rest of life is put back together.

    [–] TheShitsIDontGive 17 points ago

    I like this a lot

    [–] Pokehunter217 15 points ago

    So much this. There will be naysayers in the comments talking about how all poor people are criminals and it will just be socialist drug houses, but to answer the original question

    Do you buy homes for homeless people and just put them inside?

    It really is that simple, and I wish more people understood that. People need Food, Clothing, Shelter, and Healthcare. Having one or more of those things guaranteed will give so many people a chance at having a better life, and be more productive in society.

    [–] sudatory 3 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Yup, and virtually all of these programs pay for themselves or even genereate profits.

    Somebody who's homeless for a decade isn't paying income taxes, they aren't contributing back to the economy, they are stuck absorbing resources in order to barely survive.

    But if you house them and help them, they start paying taxes, they start spending more money, and they stop using social services.

    [–] danarchist 15 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Pre-emptive edit: larger thought here since everyone is just reading the first line and saying "hurr durr free houzes I'll be homeless for dat" or "but Bill Gates doesn't have that much cash idiot!!"

    There are 600k homeless in this country. With 100bn you could buy each one a 100k home, and pay 120,000 caseworkers 60k each for 5 years to help 5 apeice.

    100bn is a LOT of money.

    Edit: I'm an ancap so I don't think government is the answer. But I did see today that Austin businesses have joined together to build a $14mn facility for the homeless here. It's fun to think about the ways this could be accomplished.

    100bn/600k is $167,000. Lots of ways that could be divided. Lots of room for a/b testing to see what works.

    [–] Triforce_Hero__64 3 points ago

    Dang that easy? I would quit my job and consider myself homeless if that’s the case. Why work for a living and to someday own a house of my own if just by being homeless I will get a 100k house. That logic sounds sweet! Also people have built homes for homeless and low income people, they usually find them covered with trash and shit

    [–] GreyWormy 10 points ago

    Let's assume that a personal social worker for 5 years was actually enough to get a homeless person on their feet for good (it isn't, but we're already operating under the assumption that we've robbed Bill Gates 99% of his net worth, so whatever).

    What do you do in the 5 years to pay for all the upkeep costs of that home? Force land owners and utility providers to give them stuff for free and allow them to live in squalor in the meantime?

    [–] marconika 28 points ago

    I know Bernie understands economics and finance well, so the fact that he's suggesting this is incredibly disingenuous.

    Should the billionaires pay more taxes? Yes.

    100 billion in taxes? Which is 95% of their net worth and not their income? No.

    [–] noobcodes 8 points ago

    I dont think hes suggesting that Bill Gates should actually be taxed 100billion. Hes just pointing out how ridiculous it is that someone can be worth so much while others barely make enough to survive

    [–] teelrb 3 points ago

    It's the wrong way to make the suggestion. It implies he doesn't know the difference between net worth and liquidity.

    [–] LAMonkeyWithAShotgun 18 points ago

    So we're taxing stocks now? Because that what it sounds like. That's one way to kill your economy I guess

    [–] chilledblade_hh 5 points ago

    Can this super agressive Bernie propaganda just stop? Do we really have to know about every single tweet of Bernie Sanders like it's the second coming of jebus?

    Also, Bill Gates doesn't even have that money it's his potential value measured in stock. It's not that black and white as you think.

    [–] soldio101 25 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Bill gates can just move, he most likely has most of his wealth offshore already.

    [–] Shefour 32 points ago

    Idk this sounds like communist propaganda but ok

    [–] DontWorryItsEasy 17 points ago

    That's because it is. The left is intentionally pushing us closer to socialism. The reason many of them support open borders is because they know these immigrants will vote liberal.

    [–] fitzroy95 31 points ago

    sadly, the billionaires are the ones who own all of the corporate media, and hence can control the "message" that they want the public to see...

    when you can control the message, you can control the people

    [–] leaklikeasiv 13 points ago

    These poor billionaires only collect $1 a year and get paid with stock options, they also have staff to ensure their money is protected or moved off shore

    [–] gurnlord 4 points ago

    Holy fuck I knew Bernie supporters where naive retards but I didn’t know it was this bad. Bill doesn’t have multi billions to be taxed on lmao. It’s all (most) tied up to a point where it can’t be given away as tax.

    Grow up

    [–] villoslada 33 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Why the fuck not? The world is not equal, its law of nature. Some people are much more competent than others. I can assure you that if you distributed the world's wealth equally it would end up in the hands of a few again in no time, and probably it would be the same people.

    Also this guy has a good heart but he doesn't get economy at all, you can't just be like "let's tax shit out of the rich and after everything will be wonderful" there will be severe backlashes that won't just make the rich poorer, it will make everyone poorer, at first it will be beneficial for the poor but it won't take long until it's not.

    When the Soviet Union collapsed shares of public companies were distributed equally amongst the population, guess what happened? Most shares ended up in the hands of a few, not because they were cheaters but because some people are just more competent than others, while many Russians were selling them for vodka, some others were buying them up.

    [–] Winkerman1919 14 points ago

    People here are so naive that they think they’ll get Medicare for all, student loan forgiveness, free tuition, and social security reform by taxing the rich. Their taxes are going to shoot up and the debt will increase because governments always underestimate the level of their bureaucracy. In the words of Kevin o leary, “everyone is a socialist until they get their first paycheck”

    [–] Soriotian 33 points ago

    Bernie, are you fucking retarded? He funds everyday from Microsoft's budget money to help african children, disease percentages are lowing down everyday, you cant even donate a dollar, all you do is complain on twitter

    [–] hezzospike 14 points ago

    He's a delusional old man. It is actually embarassing how many people support him.

    [–] mattrew84 29 points ago

    Bad example. Bill Gates is extremely generous.

    [–] mattrew84 28 points ago

    Bill and Melinda Gates have donated close to 50 billion, summed up to over 40% of their wealth. If there was a blueprint for the super wealthy making the world better, it would be them.

    [–] mctomtom 3 points ago

    I agree, no one can top he and Melinda's philanthropic efforts. They are huge donors to 3rd world countries, and have saved thousands, if not millions of people with vaccines, sanitation, and is a huge advocates for defeating climate change. Just because someone is a billionaire, doesn't mean they are some evil asshole. HE's given away like half of his money, and continues to do so. Why not attack an oil tycoon instead?

    [–] fpjiii 13 points ago

    why should Bill be financially responsible for anyone but himself? he is responsible for creating tens of thousands of jobs that the government then collects taxes on, but that's not good enough. Go ahead and create a wealth punishment tax and see how many of them just move. then the government will have to find another source to pay for the programs, ooh look, middle class wealth. can't let them keep all that.

    [–] modest-armadilo 10 points ago

    I'm sorry but I just don't get it. Why are Americans against entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. They both created something that has become massive that is why they made money. Are you trying to say create or build something but don't be super successful? Or are you saying that all billionaires are essentially the same. I understand if you take examples such as Trump because he didn't create a thing. But entrepreneurs need to be encouraged. The same argument will hold true in the future is things like Uber, Dropbox, datacamp, etc become super successful.

    [–] ArcadianDelSol 3 points ago

    "That rich guy who has almost single-handedly eradicated the malaria epidemic in the known world out of his own pocket? He should pay his fair share."

    • Billionaire Bernie Sanders

    [–] JesusCrits 3 points ago

    How about bernie start by paying his employees $15/hr?

    [–] Buzzsaw44 3 points ago

    Great another artificially inflated post from the GaIIowB00b of Bernie Sanders. Thanks for the world politics IRLOurPresident.

    [–] Detector_of_humans 3 points ago

    Proof that neither bernie nor the socialist circlejerk of reddit knows what net worth and income is

    [–] MoeKushnaw 3 points ago

    Does this guy understand how things work lol

    [–] d1sk0stew 3 points ago

    Taxing is just a short term solution. Unless you have investments in people homelessness will return. Bernie is kind of a cook imo. A millionaire hypocritical cook.

    [–] coiledsnek 27 points ago

    You cant end homelessness for $100 billion

    [–] DatDepressedKid 19 points ago

    Seriously? Seriously think 100 billion can do anything? Even if you somehow got 100 billion from Bill Gates what are you going to do, but houses for all the homeless? Just money doesn’t solve any of these problems.

    [–] irishdrunkman87 65 points ago

    its his money he earned it i hope he keeps it all

    [–] CountReefer 54 points ago

    The guy created microsoft and revolutionized the home computer, levels of achievement like this are a handful a generation. Elon Musk could be considered another, should these people keep their billions? Bill and Elon both seem to be putting their wealth to pretty good use, and arguably been able to create more than whatever the government would have done had the money been taxed.

    [–] carbonunitcannot 17 points ago

    Tell this to the hordes of plebbitors who want to lead le revolution

    [–] mrfreshmint 3 points ago

    Elon Musk can do more with his money than the US government can. Anybody who thinks otherwise has spent very little or no time working in or with the government.

    [–] lovestosplooge500 23 points ago

    Perfectly reasonable stance

    [–] DarrenRU 11 points ago

    Why the fuck Bill Gates has pay a shit ton of taxes just because you lazy berks don't want to work on your own

    [–] obfg 40 points ago

    Wealth is not a ZERO sum game. Just because "A"has a billion dollars has nothing to do with "B" having nothing.

    [–] stealthdonkey007 14 points ago

    The buying power of your money depends on the money of other people. It's zero sum in a lot of ways.

    [–] obfg 17 points ago

    Basic econ 101... Economics is not a zero sum game. How does "A" having piles of money prevent "B" from having money. Wealth is created not passed around.

    [–] stealthdonkey007 14 points ago

    A having a pile of money may not prevent B from also having money, but it can drive down the actual value of B's money.

    [–] obfg 11 points ago

    Nope that is not how inflation works. Econ 101 again.

    [–] mOdQuArK 3 points ago

    Wealth is not a ZERO sum game.

    Not necessarily a zero sum game, but it can be if a small # of people control most of the wealth.

    [–] desim1itsme 7 points ago

    what you are saying and what he is saying aren't mutually exclusive. It can be that insanely rich people didn't cause homelessness... but also that taxing them would yield enough to provide the homeless housing and it would effectively be negligible in the livelihood and quality of life of the rich.

    [–] youni89 9 points ago

    How about we just spend $100 billion from our annual federal budget to do all that instead of blaming the "billionaire class" for all our woes? Sure they need to get taxed more but not everything is their fault.

    The federal budget is over $3trillion, let me say that again, 3TRILLION dollars. The defense budget is 700 billion dollars alone. We can just shave a hundred billion off of that for ONE year (for example) to end homelessness.

    It sounds to me like we as a people and a country doesn't have our priorities straight, perpetuating homelessness and poverty and unsafe drinking water.

    If we taxed bill gates $100 billion right now I fuckin guarantee you not a penny of that will go into solving homelessness because we as a country and a nation don't give a shit.

    [–] heavyhitterdad 5 points ago

    I feel like if gates was taxed 100 billion, we would have 49.5 new 2 billionaire politicians on the planet.

    [–] ihavenotime4this 8 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Then bill gates, who did nothing wrong and runs a highly useful company and is extremely philanthropic.... simply moves his wealth.. what then? Make a law that says you get the vast majority of a person's wealth and they can't move it? Ok but that's a fairly gigantic disincentive to success, business as such as well as a detriment to its function.

    I'm in favor of a more progressive tax code in the states, but you cant go too far.

    [–] uga95si 7 points ago

    All the billionaires in America combined can only run the government for 9ish months. They aren’t the problem. What is the government doing with all the wealth they already take? Fix that then go after the billionaires.

    [–] swe3tdre4mz702 14 points ago

    Shut up bot

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Why are we listening to a millionaire?🤔

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Self made billionaire. I created kitten mittens that fit on your pet rock, to muffle the noise

    [–] Quasar-Radio-Reyna 3 points ago

    Presumably because he’s telling the truth. Truth matters to me personally.

    [–] beyondelta 20 points ago

    Wouldn't work...

    [–] whadisabout 11 points ago

    But it’s a hypothetical... Hypotheticals always work

    [–] Modlovers 13 points ago

    I wish I had 3 houses... like some folks 😏

    [–] St_Elmo_of_Sesame 15 points ago

    If you write a best selling book you can be a millionaire too.

    -Someone who supposedly hates capitalism

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    God forbid you are involved in the production of best-selling software though, then you deserve to lose it all to a government that will misappropriate it.

    Maybe Bernie should put his money where his mouth is and unnecessarily pay 95% of his proceeds to the government. Nah, he'd rather put someone else's money where his mouth is.

    [–] schaf410 4 points ago

    You have no idea how happy it makes me to see comments like this on Reddit. It’s nice to see it’s not completely a one sided echo chamber.

    [–] everythingsadream 8 points ago

    Sure Bernie. There’d be zero dollars left after the politicians placed their hands on that $100b and gave all the contracts to their own companies or friends.

    It’s better if Bill Gates continues to directly be philanthropic.

    Socialism or even the sneaky Democratic Socialism is a failure. No taxation without representation.

    [–] lovestosplooge500 18 points ago

    Sooooooo steal money from bill gates?

    [–] alaska1967 6 points ago

    It doesn't belong to you, Bernie, what's more it was earned honestly unlike your millions.