We Need to Talk About Rich People

[Haggard Celine]

We have a billionaire President covering up for himself and other wealthy child molesters. We have people like Elon Musk and then we have Putin and MBS, all extremely wealthy and dangerous to common people everywhere. Wealth is a license for deplorable behavior. Do we need to limit how much a person can accumulate? Hoarding isn't good for anyone, not even the hoarder..

[wcmagumba]

1. I've had the same thought. Nobody needs millions or billions of dollars in cash or properties to live a good life...

[Haggard Celine]

2. I agree.

Elon Musk could've very comfortable on a small fraction of his assets. All that wealth gives him a lot of power to influence politicians and anyone else. What I'd really like to do is severely restrict how much influence these people have.

[TexasBushwhacker]

6. And get rid of stepped up basis

The vast majority of Musk's wealthy is from the value of Tesla stock going up. He pays no income tax unless he sells stock.

Let's just say, for arguments' sake, that his current holdings we valued at $1 billion when he acquired it. Now he's worth $850 Billion. When he dies, his heirs will get that previously untaxed stock, at the stepped up basis of $850 Billion. Uncle Sam doesn't get a dime until someone sells the stock. Then they are only taxed on the appreciation above the value when they inherit it.

[Haggard Celine]

10. They have it figured out, don't they?

That's another thing that excessive wealth causes, corruption.

[TexasBushwhacker]

11. And all that hoarding of capital

Is bad for the overall economy. The capital needs to circulate. That's why it hits so hard when a factory closes. Those employees lose their jobs, but the community loses their BUSINESS.

[Haggard Celine]

15. I think they're trying to fix the economy so that it runs on

rich people's spending. We can all build their yachts and be servants in their many houses. I can't find the figure now, but I saw the other day that a huge amount of overall spending is by the top 10%. They're trying to remake the economy and everything else to suit the very wealthy.

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. But that's not sustainable

The only thing that is sustainable is to have a large and healthy middle class, like we had post WWII.

[PeaceWave]

18. Texas, you have an answer for me regarding how much stepped up basis you're willing to exclude?

I'm curious.

[Haggard Celine]

19. I think that's what we should shoot for.

We need to finally stop it with the hate and bigotry and do the work we need to make good lives for ourselves. I hope people are seeing the misery and emptiness that comes from greed and hate. Donald Trump is a prime example.

[AZJonnie]

35. That's what I wonder about too.

I think they're out to steal as much as they can, and likely AI and Crypto are part of the billionaire's schemes.

[Stargazer99]

37. I often wonder how many of the common people do not understand this- no wonder the rich don't want

us to be educated-critical thinking is dangerous to the wealthy. Common sense would tell you tied up money does not help circulation

[PeaceWave]

12. ALL stepped up basis? Throwing the baby out with the bath water, isn't it?

Aren't we supposed to be targeting the most egregious concentrations of wealth? Or, are we also targeting relatively small accumulations of wealth by first generation immigrants and other historically less well off demographic groups?

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. Of course, and I have no problem with a spouse

benefitting from a stepped up basis because they are legally a partner in the business. Maybe not 50/50, but a marriage is a financial partnership as much as a romantic one.

I wouldn't even have an issue with a certain amount being allowed to be stepped up, but all of it? No fucking way. The United States should not be in the business of supporting dynasties. We all do better when we ALL do better.

[PeaceWave]

14. Okay, so you've already made an exception for a spouse. What about for children? And, how much?

[markodochartaigh]

29. Not only that,

but the very wealthy can borrow against the value of their assets (i.e. stock) for their living expenses or whatever and the interest is tax deductible.

[TexasBushwhacker]

44. Definitely a rigged system

The United States should not be in the business of establishing or perpetuating dynasties. We left that shit when we broke away from England.

[Marie Marie]

3. Let them earn (or steal) as much money as they want but

tax them at 90% on anything over 10 million (or whatever number we deem reasonable enough for them to live a life most of us can only dream of).

[Haggard Celine]

5. I think that's fair.

Ten million a year would be delightful for just about anybody but the greedy. They don't need billions of dollars. They do bad things with it that hurts everybody.

[CountAllVotes]

4. Makes me sick!

As of this moment, I'm trying to prove that my checking acct. drew .11 cents interest in January 2026.

The rich bastards want to know because of the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL!

[Haggard Celine]

8. They think it all should be theirs.

Somebody I know told me once that only the poor should pay taxes since they're the ones who benefit from it. I mean, these people will try to justify any way they can hold on to all their money and say fuck you to everyone else. They aren't nice people.

[VanceFan]

7. Line em up

Billionaires are parasites. They need to be stripped of their wealth so it can actually be used to accomplish something useful.

[Haggard Celine]

9. A health care system would be a nice start.

Make it so that people aren't having to decide if they want medicine or heat this winter. A lot of us are barely getting by. It would be a good thing to make life a little easier for the common man. And free college. That would be nice.

[Mr.Bee]

17. Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Jobs

CEOs and billionaires are.
Since 1980.

[Haggard Celine]

22. He said he was going after criminals and

he's locking up children. I think that's what bothers Americans most. Most of us have at least one immigrant that we know, either from work or another business. And I'll bet most of the experiences with these people are positive. But ICE is too cowardly to go after the criminals, so they go after our co-workers and business people and laborers. It's wrong, and it needs to end.

[travelingthrulife]

45. ICE is hiring the criminals. Thus the need for masks.

[Figarosmom]

20. And it isn't capitalism

Without the cash in circulation.

[PeaceWave]

21. OP, I notice that you didn't define either "wealthy" or "rich." How do we know who to go after?

[Haggard Celine]

23. Just like everything else, the government would have to decide

who would pay what according to income. I didn't define those terms because it isn't really a specific number. I don't want to ruin their luxurious lifestyles. But they have a lot more than they need to maintain a fabulous lifestyle. I want to take the extra and do some good with it. If I trim the fat off my steak and give it to the dog, it doesn't ruin the taste of my steak.

[PeaceWave]

24. Eventually though, these kinds of suggestions must narrow down to a specific number...

When folks say things like let's eliminate stepped up basis, I don't think they fully realize the impact it would have on middle America. In California, the average home now costs approximately $1 million. Do we, as a Party, really want to advocate for forcing the sale of that family home (which may well have been in the family for generations) - in order to pay taxes - when Mom or Dad passes away? Clarification lets us know whether we, as a party, are declaring war on billionaires, multimillionaires or everyone who has even a fairly modest accumulation of wealth.

[Haggard Celine]

27. Well, any number is going to be

more or less arbitrary, but I would say that income of $10 million in a year is a gracious plenty for just about anyone. Maybe you can't have a house in every state and country and have a yacht, but you can have a great life.

As far as taxing assets goes, I'm not sure what to do about that. You don't want to take people's personal property, but if they have a lot of property that they aren't using anyway, why not take it and use it?

[PeaceWave]

28. Without actual numbers regarding the taxation of wealth, the discussion collapses into vaguery...

This is where we, as a party, lose voters. I sincerely look forward to furthering the discussion when you've thought it through a little more thoroughly. We're going to need a solid economic plan to present to voters in 2028. We can rail against Trump on social issues all we want, but reality is that he has ingratiated himself to voters with economic issues that should have belonged to Democrats (i.e., a doubling of the standard tax deduction, an increase in the tax exemption for Social Security income, tax exemptions on a portion of overtime, a $6,000 senior tax credit). These are kitchen economics issues that matter to average American households. When we present ourselves as a party wielding a cleaver instead of a scalpel, it does none of us any good.

[Haggard Celine]

31. I don't know all the laws about

taxes and Social Security and all of that. I'm just making general observations and talking about some things I would like to see change. The details can be worked out, but generally speaking, I think it would be a good thing to reduce excessive wealth. Pick a number, it will still be far above what will affect most people.

What I would like to see most of all right now is meaningful campaign finance reform. Without that, we'll never see real change. As long as the rich can buy politicians, we will continue the downward spiral.

[Puppyjive]

25. Found this book at the thriftstore

Richistan. A journey thru the American Wealth Boom and the Lives of the New Rich. So far so good. The rich can be deplorable too.

[live love laugh]

26. Reagan broke the guardrails that prevented this. I don't think

we will ever see a return to normal wealth distribution because the mega rich nowown the courts, politicians and the media.

[canetoad]

30. On limiting how much people can accumulate

It seems more productive to have the hard decision on value versus cost. When people are both earning and paying a fair price/wage there is hope of equity. And hopefully less plastic bling being trucked around to pollute the planet.

[Haggard Celine]

32. I just want to take a lot of the power

these wealthy people have. They literally get away with murder and child rape and a host of other things.

I understand that there will always be some people with more than others and some will have power while others won't. But we have startling wealth these days, and it's often being used for nefarious purposes. I don't know the mechanics of how to get the money and make it all fair. I'm just thinking that this is a problem with many different solutions, if we'll just entertain the idea.

[canetoad]

33. Elon Musk

Is reported to earn $700 - $800 million a day depending on where you look.
That's a million dollars a hour. No human should be raking in that amount of money when folk are working their guts out for $15 an hour or less. But the rich folk don't see it like that. It's become an admirable thing to scam, cheat, minimize tax, rip off workers.....and so on.

Billionaires shouldn't be paid more than the politicians they are buying!

[Haggard Celine]

34. Well said!

[AZJonnie]

36. The most doable thing with the best bang for buck is to invalidate Citizens United and force public funding of elections

To do that though, Democrats would need to have power for a sustained period, which we've not proven we can pull off for more than 2 year periods once or twice a decade if we're lucky. We'll need to replace two SCOTUS judges with good liberals, which means we must have the POTUS and the Senate at the same time, at just the right time.

So even these two things are unlikely to happen anytime soon. And the rest of the ideas people are talking about on this thread are even more improbable, no offense to my friends here. They're good ideas, but likely impossible lifts

[Scrivener7]

39. It all goes back to that. And that goes back to the complete corruption of the Supreme Court under Roberts.

[Scrivener7]

38. I was just thinking this morning that we didn't use to be so dependent on giant privately owned corporations.

Amazon, Microsoft, etc.

We think life is impossible without them, but only a few years ago they didn't exist and we did fine.

We do need to talk about rich people, and that conversation needs to include an overhaul of how we think about anti-trust and an enforcement of the notion that no one person should control so much of our access to information and products and services.

[Haggard Celine]

41. Well said.

If the rich stayed on vacation and amused themselves all the time, maybe we wouldn't have these problems. But they buy politicians and rig things so that they continue to gain even more. They have too much influence over the decisions our government makes and it's harming the rest of the country. We're probably going to have to pack the Supreme Court in order to get anything done finally on this matter.

[OldBaldy1701E]

40. You want them taken down a notch?

Devalue the dollar.

Better yet, just let the whole thing collapse. Without their tweaking and corruption of laws and social norms, they would have no power at all.

So, stop giving it to them. Remove that which gives them that power. You don't have to 'take it' from them. Just remove the illusion that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Stop with the favoritism. Quit giving in to them when they expect preferential treatment.

Just stop saying that what they have is worth more than the rest of us. Their power is pretty much derived from our acquiescence.

Without it, they really don't have anything.

[Scrivener7]

42. Yes! AND stop giving them your money! I don't get why people won't do this.

[OldBaldy1701E]

43. Programming, my friend... programming.

They won, for all intents and purposes. We will not dare to challenge their social positions and that is because they spent decades programming us to believe that they were anointed by a supreme being. We also know deep down inside that this would affect everyone who has made strides in our society. That effort and positioning would no longer have the worth it once did. They see it as a bad thing.

I don't.

But, the programming worked. I suppose the first thing we need to address is that elephant in the room. Our society has been manipulated to the point of distortion, and, we don't care because we have been programmed to not see it.

Or, in some cases, to cheer it on.

You are correct. Stop giving them money.

[KS Toronado]

47. bye bye

[BannonsLiver]

48. And?

So what?

Aren’t you the one who had the silly beef about Bruce Springsteen a while back?

[TBF]

49. Well, perhaps we can narrow the scope to wealth inequality

which helps folks understand why it's an issue

great article from CBS giving recent info --

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-wealth-gap-widest-in-three-decades-federal-reserve/

Collectively, the wealthiest 1% held about $55 trillion in assets in the third quarter of 2025 — roughly equal to the wealth held by the bottom 90% of Americans combined.

"Household wealth is highly concentrated and becoming steadily more concentrated," Mark Zandi, chief economist at financial research firm Moody's Analytics, told CBS News.

[TBF]

50. It is immoral to have folks starving in the streets

Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2026, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

while others inherit wealth beyond their wildest dreams.

Beyond that, the folks that currently have the billions (and even multi-millions), while so many others struggle daily, is that it is affecting our form of government.

Billionaires now own our press, so that nothing negative is ever said about our president (who has on occasion declared himself a king). The extreme gap in wealth leads to the extreme gap in power as most are just struggling to get by as the very wealthy dominate the political systems, the press, the universities, the churches, the corporations, etc.

Most people in this country at this point in time have little hope of bettering their conditions, as they are locked into poverty from birth. It is always more likely that the children of the extremely wealthy are going to have extreme advantage in their own lives because they have so many advantages - they are not hungry and their foods are nutritious, they are clothed and have (magnificent) dwellings to live in, they receive the best education, the opportunities for enrichment and growth; the list goes on and on.

The real question is why we are standing for this. There are so many more of us than there are of them.