Bondi Attorney General

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 11:13 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
I said we should lock them up (or the wood chipper), so it's not me who makes those kinds of decisions.

I simply noted that the government has already made those types of morally questionable trade-off calculations in the past.

Our rocket programs were developed by Nazi scientists who were given a pass on their past crimes against humanity in order for the US to expedite it's rocket programs in the lead up to the cold war era.

In the case of the former SS scientists and engineers, not only did they get a pass on their previous crimes, they got high paying government jobs from the US.

I'm not here to defend past moral compromises of the government.

ThatRobGuy said:
Apple would be good example (though they made a comeback)

When Steve Jobs got pushed out in the 80's, the company spent a decade in virtual irrelevance and decline and almost went out of business. When they brought him (and his vision) back to the company in the 90's, it rose back to the status of being one of the most influential companies on the planet.

And that should've kept him out of jail if he was a criminal?

I can guarantee you a judge would not have cared.

RDKirk · Tuesday at 11:25 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
If you're referring strictly to billionaires, then I'd suggest that our Tech billionaires are pretty integral.

I don't think there are any rocket scientists who are billionaires.

And the tech billionaires had pretty much made all their technical contributions before they became billionaires. Is Zuckerberg still producing unique and vital new concepts? Probably not. He's hired people to do that. He's just making top-level business decisions based on a lot of advice. He's not coming up with unique technical innovations out of his own brain.

ThatRobGuy said:
If they were all removed (for some criminal infraction) tomorrow, it would drastically destabilize markets and give foreign companies a more competitive edge.

If they all disappeared in one instantaneous puff of smoke, maybe so.

But prosecutions would take years, maybe decades, and the market would continually repair the pinholes as they occur.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 11:44 PM

The Barbarian said:
Sounds very much like some terrified rich people are trying to convince us that we can't hold them accountable because something awful will happen to us.

Sounds like another good reason to ban billionaires.

askesis · 2026-02-18T00:00:32-0600

ViaCrucis said:
Sounds like another good reason to ban billionaires.

But we need them to help us become rich, right?

Pommer · 2026-02-18T00:07:18-0600

ViaCrucis said:
Sounds like another good reason to ban billionaires.

No, don’t “ban” them…don’t try to use Governemnt policy to enforce a value that is better dealt with at a societal-level.
Only the people who accumulate vast sums of money aren’t seen as “odd” for this talent, unlike, say with cats.

Jesus’ admonition of how we’ll always “have the poor” assumes that this is because there’s “rich” people (always) too.
How well the rich treat the poor hasn’t always been the harbinger of how a “just” society makes its way their their generation’s “life”, except that it’s an excellent indicator of just that.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-02-18T15:16:53-0600

ViaCrucis said:
Sounds like another good reason to ban billionaires.

That wouldn't produce any sort of spectacular outcomes, and I can explain why.

I've heard people pitch the idea along the idea of using some sort of taxation mechanisms.

As of 2025, the U.S. has roughly 800 billionaires with a combined total wealth of over $6.2 trillion.

If we subtract $1 billion per person (since this is their money that's in excess of that $1 billion mark). With roughly 800 billionaires, that's about $800 billion to subtract, which leave about $5.4 billion in money that billionaires currently have that's in excess of $1 billion.

Even if you pooled that money together and gave everyone in the US an equal share, it doesn't doesn't equate to a life changing amount of money for the majority of the population (and it would ultimately get spent in a matter of mere months and eventually find it's way back into the pockets of rich people)

Secondly, while Billionaires certainly throw around their money to influence politics, so do multi-millionaires. Of the $20 Billion that got thrown at federal elections in 2024, about 11% of that came from Billionaire donor families, the rest came from multi-millionaires and corporate entities. Meaning, the positive impact of keeping moneyed influence out of politics would be lackluster.

Thirdly, how would it be handled for people who only have their billionaire status as a result of investments and/or other non liquid assets that are subject fluctuation?

I assume you were being somewhat facetious in your post, but I have heard people actually pitch that idea and were serious about it. There's a reason why even some of the more egalitarian societies in places like the Nordic region haven't gone as far as "banning billionaires"

ViaCrucis · 2026-02-18T15:39:41-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
That wouldn't produce any sort of spectacular outcomes, and I can explain why.

I've heard people pitch the idea along the idea of using some sort of taxation mechanisms.

As of 2025, the U.S. has roughly 800 billionaires with a combined total wealth of over $6.2 trillion.

If we subtract $1 billion per person (since this is their money that's in excess of that $1 billion mark). With roughly 800 billionaires, that's about $800 billion to subtract, which leave about $5.4 billion in money that billionaires currently have that's in excess of $1 billion.

Even if you pooled that money together and gave everyone in the US an equal share, it doesn't doesn't equate to a life changing amount of money for the majority of the population (and it would ultimately get spent in a matter of mere months and eventually find it's way back into the pockets of rich people)

Secondly, while Billionaires certainly throw around their money to influence politics, so do multi-millionaires. Of the $20 Billion that got thrown at federal elections in 2024, about 11% of that came from Billionaire donor families, the rest came from multi-millionaires and corporate entities. Meaning, the positive impact of keeping moneyed influence out of politics would be lackluster.

Thirdly, how would it be handled for people who only have their billionaire status as a result of investments and/or other non liquid assets that are subject fluctuation?

I assume you were being somewhat facetious in your post, but I have heard people actually pitch that idea and were serious about it. There's a reason why even some of the more egalitarian societies in places like the Nordic region haven't gone as far as "banning billionaires"

You're right, I was being somewhat facetious.

I don't see a meaningful way to actually "ban" billionaires.

That said, I do subscribe to the position that being a billionaire is inherently unethical. I do not believe there is an ethical means for acquiring--and hoarding--that much wealth.

But that's a moral issue, not a legislative one.

Search

Search

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Bondi Attorney General

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al

More options

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

More options

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran

More options

askesis

Active Member

More options

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

More options

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

More options

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran

More options

Need help?

Similar threads