121
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 49 points 23 hours ago

"Billionaires don't actually have cash."

"If you taxed them they'd have to sell stock and it would crash the market."

[-] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Musk doesn't have hundreds of billions in cash, but he does have hundreds of billions in buying power.

The way the CEO/elite stock-holding class does this is by borrowing against the stock as collateral. That way they incur zero tax for capital gains, have zero direct exposure, and since banks specially cater to the ultra-wealthy with relationship managers, they basically have concierge-like access to whatever funds they want correlated perfectly with that magical "imaginary" wealth valuation.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 6 points 19 hours ago

This is why I want to forcibly dissolve the stock market with no chance of liquidation. Imagine how many of these fuckwits would kill themselves if the stock market servers and it's backups were destroyed.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

Which means they could pay taxes using the same trick.

[-] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 11 points 22 hours ago

Right? "Only on paper" appears to be at least somewhat inaccurate.

[-] Klox@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Where is this guy supposed to come up with 5% of his wealth in the next 5 years?? He's clearly got huge ad buying bills to pay. Poor chap.

[-] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 31 points 1 day ago

5 years ago he reckoned he'd solve world hunger for the paltry sum of $6b.

Money is wasted on billionaires.

[-] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

Fortunately intelligence hasn't been wasted on them.

[-] Pegajace@lemmy.world 16 points 23 hours ago

If that sounds like a crazy amount, just remember that it's only 0.05% of his net worth. Proportionally it's the equivalent of me making a fifty-dollar donation.

[-] Duchess@piefed.linenoise.vip 11 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

And he’s gotten tens of billions in contracts from the government, left and right. He’s going to rake it in, investment spending when you have that much ill-gotten wealth.

[-] fartographer@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

Yup. It's practically his union dues

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

This is what always makes me scratch my head. If winning was that important to him, why not dump a cool 10 billion into winning?

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

Because it's all a game to him. Like golf. The lowest amount he can spend "wins". It won't really materialy affect him either way; it's just a fun little power trip.

[-] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 15 points 1 day ago

Sounds desperate.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Free Speech.

Anthony Kennedy, eat a big bag of dicks.

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2026
121 points (99.2% liked)

politics

31542 readers
2911 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS