Do you have any idea how much wealth 80 Billion dollars actually is? He makes more than 1% in profits and he doesn't pay an effective rate of 1% of that but 80 billion dollars worth of wealth costs an enormous amount of public money to maintain, including the clean air and water required by him a portion of that required by everyone employed by the companies where that wealth rests. But if he did pay your 1% $8 million dollars wouldn't even fund the police and emergency services that cover his personal use and tangible assets let alone all of that.
"Mar 20, 2017 - Last year, Warren Buffett reported about $11.6 million in gross income on his tax return, and paid $1.85 million in federal income taxes."
He reported to the news seeing $21 billion in net wealth growth due to tax cuts alone. $11.6 million is a joke as a starting figure, so it doesn't really matter what percent of it he paid.
"To say that the minimum wage and this are unrelated is clearly nonsense since both are intended to improve the wage of the lowest earners"
On the contrary, that is a motivation you read in to this. Others could see this as a way to reduce the amount of taxes paid by others for corporations abusing welfare. For those who believe in the free market the practice of using welfare to subsidize a below market wage is a significant obstacle to workers demanding a market wage.
A minimum wage would impede small startup businesses like lawn services and teenage/college operated babysitting services which don't even make enough to replace the owners day job but with enough scale could eventually do so. These types of businesses could employ teenagers saving for cars but simply couldn't exist and provide service to any significant number of people if they had to pay a high minimum wage. In fact they often can't pay the current minimum wage and operate under the table.
That said, if you believe a minimum wage is appropriate, there is no reason you can't have BOTH pieces of legislation at some point. So no, the two are separate and unrelated. Are you just a shill trying to divide people or what? Are you trying to make those who oppose a minimum wage fight against something obviously in line with their beliefs and those who support a minimum wage think they that somehow cancels out that possibility? Or are you really just so wrapped up in politics you are desperately grasping to find a way to reject a proposal you know the other side would support rather than coming together?
"I do not know how large companies will react to this legislation but if you do believe that this potentially motivates them to make the life of their lowest earners even worse then it would certainy be ethical to oppose it."
They'll react in one of the ways that makes sense for employers who suddenly can't find employees at the rates they currently pay. Corporations aren't evil just for the hell of it, they are trying to make a profit. These corporations are currently receiving a government subsidy and using it to support a below market wage, the employees won't be able to work for them at those wages without the subsidy.
Top.01% really, if you go 1% you suddenly group in a bunch of people who earned success by becoming doctors, lawyers, and engineers. The top 1% are high income, the problem is those with high wealth. That high wealth largely takes the form of stock and interest in corporations. While they don't control the majority of corporate stock they do stock the executive ranks/boards, the controlling positions in banks and mutual funds, and often control the stock that matters.
Of course these people have so much influence the government won't give you the finer breakdowns but I use a simple rule of thumb, if you have so much wealth that putting it all in the S&P 500 would provide enough dividend output to put you in the top 1% by income, you are the wealthy we are talking about.
"Thirdly chances are the government isn't going to be so granular as to tell big corporations which employees are claiming benefits, they just get a tax bill for the totals."
Which becomes the basis for the objections. They have no way to anticipate what the bill will be.
Yes, no doubt he uses the buffet loophole. He just cashes out what he spends which is only a few million of the billions a year of gain, probably as dividends, then makes a donation to "charity" probably a church which turns around and provides entertainment to his kids in the form of stock and so never realizes gains on it and only a charitable contribution that eliminates most of the tiny fraction of his gains he pays taxes on. The final result after that and other tax loopholes is paying taxes at the lowest rate on a few million dollars less 30% of a charity hammer. He'd probably end up with an effective rate of 9% or so but that is 9% of what he actually extracted, the other several billions dollars is left to compound interest tax free the next year. The cost to society to make him all that money and support his workers is undoubtedly higher than what he actually pays. Hell, just the cost for infrastructure use and security staff probably cost more than Buffet taxes.
I couldn't. People who don't need those benefits won't take employment at these wages, people taking employment at these wages by definition are going to require these benefits.
The only exception I can think of are retirees who can work a certain number of hours a week without losing benefits but they amount they earn is docked from their benefits now anyway.
You make it sound like it is possible to work at these wages and not claim benefits. That honestly isn't one of the options these people have with the exception of a handful of people doing a "side hussle".
To suggest that it is this OR a minimum wage is false, logically, neither impacts the other. This shouldn't change your opinion on a minimum wage or oppose it. The danger is people saying things like you just did and presenting that false dilemma. There is no reason anyone should oppose this unless they are completely void of ethics AND a major stakeholder in a company like this (if you aren't a major stakeholder and have no ethics this is a freebie for creating the impression you do and milking it for profit on something that matters later).
"That would alarm me if it were true. Hitler blamed the Jews for secretly eroding society. But white males have been abusing their position of privilege right out in the open where everyone can see that it's actually true. That's fundamentally different."
Okay, show me all the white males abusing their privilege amongst the poor children in rural midwest and among the white people who constitute most of the staff at walmarts, truck stops, and fast food restaurants across the nation. Remind me again why hiring people of their skin color is beneficial aside from PR and what their kids did wrong and so shouldn't receive equal access to an opportunity in which success should be entirely based on merit, achievement, and colorblind. Remind me again why the ones randomly born with a vagina should be given superior access vs the ones born with a penis? Granted, there are more vaginas than penises born into the world but last I checked there is no evidence to support the idea that a penis is a karmic reward that should be punished.
Right, you will dismiss those individuals because of some other individual who shares a meaningless genetic trait on par with eye color happens to have wealth/power and abuse it. Or because you can name a few hypothetical purpose built scenarios like the viral "step forward if" video with cooked candidate selection.
Sorry, the world is filled with individuals and none of them deserve understanding and opportunity more than others. I will oppose you if you try to create conditions which provide exclusive opportunity to the wealthy (to a point, we do need there to be enough reason that people keep making and doing amazing things trying to achieve that) and I will oppose you if you try to create disproportionate access to opportunities to individuals for reasons that aren't based on merit.
I'm sorry, with regard to race and gender you have no leg to stand on. With regard to class you have to think further... someone facing an abusive family member needs access to outside opportunities as well and someone who isn't cut off from privilege won't need or use them except as evidence of you crying wolf on inequality while demonstrating the same.
They should, they are distinct legal communities that represent differences in places to live. That is the entire point of the being able to move freely as protected in the Constitution, you don't shove demographics down the throat of others who are choosing to live in different places with different policies, you have choices and don't need to force the mediocre tyranny of the majority down the throats of all. If you don't have much, it only costs about a grand to move (toss everything in the car and get in crappy rent by the week hotel, get at least a shit job to maintain while you look for something decent) and anyone but the homeless can manage to scrounge that up within two or three years which is why some people don't have much sympathy for those who don't choose to move away from the problems of the community they happen to be in.
It serves the same purpose as making sure there is competition in business.
"But white males have been abusing their position of privilege right out in the open where everyone can see that it's actually true."
In the distant past sure but people who happen to share a skin color or other bogus characteristic on which imaginary concepts like race born today share those traits as an accident of birth and owe no debt for their actions just as those with other traits are owed no debts. Prejudices against those who happen to be white and male are now being encoded in corporate policies, education availability, legislation, as well as ethical and public sentiment. Those who are privileged are privileged without regard to race or gender with race falling under the "something we made up" category.
This is another example, if by some accident of birth you are lucky enough to born without the wrong skin color Amazon is going to give you a massive advantage. If like most white people you are born in to broken home in a trailer park, public housing, or a community so poor there isn't much difference you are held responsible for everything that goes wrong for literally everyone else... even someone lucky enough to born with a vagina (who are somehow magically excluded despite enjoying the same privilege or lack thereof AND being the majority).
I don't think the issue is nostalgia the issue is how integrated everything is... like the fact that snapchat and instragram are actually still just FB.
They might also being using the instagram interface or any of the various interfaces owned by Facebook or utilizing facebook as their central hub. If you do that, you haven't taken a break from anything.
If you exclude metropolitan areas you get nearly half the overall population with a dramatically lower penetration for social media, you also get most of the communities/cities/counties in the nation.
Last I checked the skin color and gender of the coder doesn't make a difference to the computer nor how poor or wealthy the district is. Why not assist without regard to race/gender/sexual preference?
White males are to Academia and the left right now what Jews were to the Nazi party when Hitler used them as a target for resentment to solidify power. I don't care who you are that should alarm you.
AT&T, Verizon, and the established telecoms snoop on your data sure and pass it to the NSA which might blackmail you with it. Local police and city officials are an entirely different animal far more likely to bother normal people early and often.
We already have auto-pilot. In visible conditions aircraft can detect each other as well as cars. I think the big advantage of this arena is that you don't have to design the way we have with cars and current flight systems where each vehicle is an island. The line of sight is fantastic for this use case, GPS, altimeters, etc can be used to get a very good idea of location right off, when vehicles are in proximity they can employ shorter range mesh networks and flocking algorithms and actually improve their collective ability to buffer wind and other atmospheric disruption. I suspect in normal conditions, and with quite a bit of polish, you'd be able to produce vehicles that can pack quite densely in three dimensional space. You don't exactly see a lot of bird-on-bird collisions even with groups of hundreds or thousands.
We can do most of that with traditional algorithms and light AI. But if we got serious we could do a better job on this AI than you might think. We are able to fully simulate a mouse brain using a super computer, not your typical synthetic neuron made to steal the concept of how one works but an actual replica of the known physical function and have shown mouse like behavior as a result (there are previous papers published on this). I have a strong feeling we could do the same with a bird brain and use it to train up a more computationally efficient Artificial Neural Net instances with flocks flying in a simulator.
The atmospheric conditions are largely already handled in auto-pilot systems but personal vehicles would be a different class because the weight and design of the vehicle impact these things a lot. Hobbiest drones are a worst case scenario. Personal vehicles would have to be somewhere between.
Whatever is written in the fine print of your state law I imagine it is enforced with roughly the same consistency as jaywalking. In other words, only if you do it on the day the cop quite smoking and his daughter fell in love with a guitar player.
It doesn't really matter what you are supposed to do if nobody does it we shouldn't be holding out until we attain better than actual human behavior. In the wild seeing someone signal a turn is rare enough let alone a lane change (with a few exceptions in very dense city commute traffic). I do habitually signal but as a defensive driver I generally ignore signals, defensive driving means not taking an action based on the assumption the signal is correct. You don't turn until their vehicle is stopped or there is enough of a gap to make the turn even if they kept going.
I guess. It's a nice bonus if someone signals but proper defensive driving generally means not assuming something like a turn signal meaning someone is going to turn. If you always assume the other drivers might do the worst thing and have a backup if they do you will avoid accidents.
A 6k UBI is certainly better than nothing if you are talking about charity. We aren't talking about charity, we are talking about the working class that collectively generated all the wealth in the first place and making sure those who've ended up with it can't simply leave with it.
Income taxes punish earning and earning tends to follow merit. Those who have far more than they need can simply dodge these taxes and only have an income of a tiny fraction of their wealth growth. If I have $10 billion dollars in stock, that stock goes up $1 billion dollars, I likely only spend $1 million living. It's a safe bet that stock will then be selected to provide that $1 million as dividends to put me in the lowest rate. That will put me in the lowest tax bracket and that is before I gift another few million in stock to "charity" non-profits that are pushing political issues and interests of mine and further reduce my effective tax rate. Sure at the end I'll have paid more taxes than 90% of the country but at the lowest rate and I'll have dodged hundreds of times the taxes I owed. When people pull up tax statistics they'll lump me in with the top 1-10% depending on the metric they are looking at, right alongside a doctor or engineer who is earning a $1 million/year as a result of actual merit. Me, my money comes from and has come from generation after generation of exploiting the value guys like him add to the economy and appearing to lift him up with investment when in reality I'm the only reason people like him need to assume debt to begin with.
No, I don't think the engineer should be hampered in continuing to earn and add value with his merit for the duration of his lifetime or our need. I certainly don't think we should tax him and then in a few years dump him with a $6k/yr UBI while nothing changes for the billionaire except where the working class lives and the perks that come from how much demand there now is for his wealth, thus boosting the spending power of his billion to epic heights. I don't think he's evil, he may do evil but most days probably doesn't see it that way. Which is exactly why we can't allow him to be in that position where he can actually turn around and view giving a helping hand to the people and descendants of those who actually built that wealth as charity and welfare. Previously you could at least say the rest of the billion got reinvested, it is already primarily being reinvested elsewhere.
That's why I don't support funding with income tax or shifting to sales tax.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any idea how much wealth 80 Billion dollars actually is? He makes more than 1% in profits and he doesn't pay an effective rate of 1% of that but 80 billion dollars worth of wealth costs an enormous amount of public money to maintain, including the clean air and water required by him a portion of that required by everyone employed by the companies where that wealth rests. But if he did pay your 1% $8 million dollars wouldn't even fund the police and emergency services that cover his personal use and tangible assets let alone all of that.
"Mar 20, 2017 - Last year, Warren Buffett reported about $11.6 million in gross income on his tax return, and paid $1.85 million in federal income taxes."
He reported to the news seeing $21 billion in net wealth growth due to tax cuts alone. $11.6 million is a joke as a starting figure, so it doesn't really matter what percent of it he paid.
"To say that the minimum wage and this are unrelated is clearly nonsense since both are intended to improve the wage of the lowest earners"
On the contrary, that is a motivation you read in to this. Others could see this as a way to reduce the amount of taxes paid by others for corporations abusing welfare. For those who believe in the free market the practice of using welfare to subsidize a below market wage is a significant obstacle to workers demanding a market wage.
A minimum wage would impede small startup businesses like lawn services and teenage/college operated babysitting services which don't even make enough to replace the owners day job but with enough scale could eventually do so. These types of businesses could employ teenagers saving for cars but simply couldn't exist and provide service to any significant number of people if they had to pay a high minimum wage. In fact they often can't pay the current minimum wage and operate under the table.
That said, if you believe a minimum wage is appropriate, there is no reason you can't have BOTH pieces of legislation at some point. So no, the two are separate and unrelated. Are you just a shill trying to divide people or what? Are you trying to make those who oppose a minimum wage fight against something obviously in line with their beliefs and those who support a minimum wage think they that somehow cancels out that possibility? Or are you really just so wrapped up in politics you are desperately grasping to find a way to reject a proposal you know the other side would support rather than coming together?
"I do not know how large companies will react to this legislation but if you do believe that this potentially motivates them to make the life of their lowest earners even worse then it would certainy be ethical to oppose it."
They'll react in one of the ways that makes sense for employers who suddenly can't find employees at the rates they currently pay. Corporations aren't evil just for the hell of it, they are trying to make a profit. These corporations are currently receiving a government subsidy and using it to support a below market wage, the employees won't be able to work for them at those wages without the subsidy.
Top .01% really, if you go 1% you suddenly group in a bunch of people who earned success by becoming doctors, lawyers, and engineers. The top 1% are high income, the problem is those with high wealth. That high wealth largely takes the form of stock and interest in corporations. While they don't control the majority of corporate stock they do stock the executive ranks/boards, the controlling positions in banks and mutual funds, and often control the stock that matters.
Of course these people have so much influence the government won't give you the finer breakdowns but I use a simple rule of thumb, if you have so much wealth that putting it all in the S&P 500 would provide enough dividend output to put you in the top 1% by income, you are the wealthy we are talking about.
"Thirdly chances are the government isn't going to be so granular as to tell big corporations which employees are claiming benefits, they just get a tax bill for the totals."
Which becomes the basis for the objections. They have no way to anticipate what the bill will be.
Yes, no doubt he uses the buffet loophole. He just cashes out what he spends which is only a few million of the billions a year of gain, probably as dividends, then makes a donation to "charity" probably a church which turns around and provides entertainment to his kids in the form of stock and so never realizes gains on it and only a charitable contribution that eliminates most of the tiny fraction of his gains he pays taxes on. The final result after that and other tax loopholes is paying taxes at the lowest rate on a few million dollars less 30% of a charity hammer. He'd probably end up with an effective rate of 9% or so but that is 9% of what he actually extracted, the other several billions dollars is left to compound interest tax free the next year. The cost to society to make him all that money and support his workers is undoubtedly higher than what he actually pays. Hell, just the cost for infrastructure use and security staff probably cost more than Buffet taxes.
I couldn't. People who don't need those benefits won't take employment at these wages, people taking employment at these wages by definition are going to require these benefits.
The only exception I can think of are retirees who can work a certain number of hours a week without losing benefits but they amount they earn is docked from their benefits now anyway.
You make it sound like it is possible to work at these wages and not claim benefits. That honestly isn't one of the options these people have with the exception of a handful of people doing a "side hussle".
To suggest that it is this OR a minimum wage is false, logically, neither impacts the other. This shouldn't change your opinion on a minimum wage or oppose it. The danger is people saying things like you just did and presenting that false dilemma. There is no reason anyone should oppose this unless they are completely void of ethics AND a major stakeholder in a company like this (if you aren't a major stakeholder and have no ethics this is a freebie for creating the impression you do and milking it for profit on something that matters later).
At least not on principle, who knows what hides in the details but the concept itself should be solid regardless of what party you support.
"That would alarm me if it were true. Hitler blamed the Jews for secretly eroding society. But white males have been abusing their position of privilege right out in the open where everyone can see that it's actually true. That's fundamentally different."
Okay, show me all the white males abusing their privilege amongst the poor children in rural midwest and among the white people who constitute most of the staff at walmarts, truck stops, and fast food restaurants across the nation. Remind me again why hiring people of their skin color is beneficial aside from PR and what their kids did wrong and so shouldn't receive equal access to an opportunity in which success should be entirely based on merit, achievement, and colorblind. Remind me again why the ones randomly born with a vagina should be given superior access vs the ones born with a penis? Granted, there are more vaginas than penises born into the world but last I checked there is no evidence to support the idea that a penis is a karmic reward that should be punished.
Right, you will dismiss those individuals because of some other individual who shares a meaningless genetic trait on par with eye color happens to have wealth/power and abuse it. Or because you can name a few hypothetical purpose built scenarios like the viral "step forward if" video with cooked candidate selection.
Sorry, the world is filled with individuals and none of them deserve understanding and opportunity more than others. I will oppose you if you try to create conditions which provide exclusive opportunity to the wealthy (to a point, we do need there to be enough reason that people keep making and doing amazing things trying to achieve that) and I will oppose you if you try to create disproportionate access to opportunities to individuals for reasons that aren't based on merit.
I'm sorry, with regard to race and gender you have no leg to stand on. With regard to class you have to think further... someone facing an abusive family member needs access to outside opportunities as well and someone who isn't cut off from privilege won't need or use them except as evidence of you crying wolf on inequality while demonstrating the same.
They should, they are distinct legal communities that represent differences in places to live. That is the entire point of the being able to move freely as protected in the Constitution, you don't shove demographics down the throat of others who are choosing to live in different places with different policies, you have choices and don't need to force the mediocre tyranny of the majority down the throats of all. If you don't have much, it only costs about a grand to move (toss everything in the car and get in crappy rent by the week hotel, get at least a shit job to maintain while you look for something decent) and anyone but the homeless can manage to scrounge that up within two or three years which is why some people don't have much sympathy for those who don't choose to move away from the problems of the community they happen to be in.
It serves the same purpose as making sure there is competition in business.
"But white males have been abusing their position of privilege right out in the open where everyone can see that it's actually true."
In the distant past sure but people who happen to share a skin color or other bogus characteristic on which imaginary concepts like race born today share those traits as an accident of birth and owe no debt for their actions just as those with other traits are owed no debts. Prejudices against those who happen to be white and male are now being encoded in corporate policies, education availability, legislation, as well as ethical and public sentiment. Those who are privileged are privileged without regard to race or gender with race falling under the "something we made up" category.
This is another example, if by some accident of birth you are lucky enough to born without the wrong skin color Amazon is going to give you a massive advantage. If like most white people you are born in to broken home in a trailer park, public housing, or a community so poor there isn't much difference you are held responsible for everything that goes wrong for literally everyone else... even someone lucky enough to born with a vagina (who are somehow magically excluded despite enjoying the same privilege or lack thereof AND being the majority).
I don't think the issue is nostalgia the issue is how integrated everything is... like the fact that snapchat and instragram are actually still just FB.
"Snapchat/Instagram with their short lived stories?"
Those are really still just facebook.
There is a very big reason, all of your data on FB servers, and if you use other social media apps like Instagram, you are still using FB.
They might also being using the instagram interface or any of the various interfaces owned by Facebook or utilizing facebook as their central hub. If you do that, you haven't taken a break from anything.
If you exclude metropolitan areas you get nearly half the overall population with a dramatically lower penetration for social media, you also get most of the communities/cities/counties in the nation.
Nah, the younger users have deleted FB to move to instagram and whatsapp ignoring the fact that is still using facebook.
Last I checked the skin color and gender of the coder doesn't make a difference to the computer nor how poor or wealthy the district is. Why not assist without regard to race/gender/sexual preference?
White males are to Academia and the left right now what Jews were to the Nazi party when Hitler used them as a target for resentment to solidify power. I don't care who you are that should alarm you.
Right, which is why google couldn't even manage to build out fiber beyond the one test city even with the city TRYING to let them.
AT&T, Verizon, and the established telecoms snoop on your data sure and pass it to the NSA which might blackmail you with it. Local police and city officials are an entirely different animal far more likely to bother normal people early and often.
We already have auto-pilot. In visible conditions aircraft can detect each other as well as cars. I think the big advantage of this arena is that you don't have to design the way we have with cars and current flight systems where each vehicle is an island. The line of sight is fantastic for this use case, GPS, altimeters, etc can be used to get a very good idea of location right off, when vehicles are in proximity they can employ shorter range mesh networks and flocking algorithms and actually improve their collective ability to buffer wind and other atmospheric disruption. I suspect in normal conditions, and with quite a bit of polish, you'd be able to produce vehicles that can pack quite densely in three dimensional space. You don't exactly see a lot of bird-on-bird collisions even with groups of hundreds or thousands.
We can do most of that with traditional algorithms and light AI. But if we got serious we could do a better job on this AI than you might think. We are able to fully simulate a mouse brain using a super computer, not your typical synthetic neuron made to steal the concept of how one works but an actual replica of the known physical function and have shown mouse like behavior as a result (there are previous papers published on this). I have a strong feeling we could do the same with a bird brain and use it to train up a more computationally efficient Artificial Neural Net instances with flocks flying in a simulator.
The atmospheric conditions are largely already handled in auto-pilot systems but personal vehicles would be a different class because the weight and design of the vehicle impact these things a lot. Hobbiest drones are a worst case scenario. Personal vehicles would have to be somewhere between.
Whatever is written in the fine print of your state law I imagine it is enforced with roughly the same consistency as jaywalking. In other words, only if you do it on the day the cop quite smoking and his daughter fell in love with a guitar player.
It doesn't really matter what you are supposed to do if nobody does it we shouldn't be holding out until we attain better than actual human behavior. In the wild seeing someone signal a turn is rare enough let alone a lane change (with a few exceptions in very dense city commute traffic). I do habitually signal but as a defensive driver I generally ignore signals, defensive driving means not taking an action based on the assumption the signal is correct. You don't turn until their vehicle is stopped or there is enough of a gap to make the turn even if they kept going.
"'Political News'. Notice that exhibit D. is news expressly designed for political impact, not news about political events."
Ummm.... I'm not sure I've ever seen news about political events that wasn't designed for political impact.
I guess. It's a nice bonus if someone signals but proper defensive driving generally means not assuming something like a turn signal meaning someone is going to turn. If you always assume the other drivers might do the worst thing and have a backup if they do you will avoid accidents.
A 6k UBI is certainly better than nothing if you are talking about charity. We aren't talking about charity, we are talking about the working class that collectively generated all the wealth in the first place and making sure those who've ended up with it can't simply leave with it.
Income taxes punish earning and earning tends to follow merit. Those who have far more than they need can simply dodge these taxes and only have an income of a tiny fraction of their wealth growth. If I have $10 billion dollars in stock, that stock goes up $1 billion dollars, I likely only spend $1 million living. It's a safe bet that stock will then be selected to provide that $1 million as dividends to put me in the lowest rate. That will put me in the lowest tax bracket and that is before I gift another few million in stock to "charity" non-profits that are pushing political issues and interests of mine and further reduce my effective tax rate. Sure at the end I'll have paid more taxes than 90% of the country but at the lowest rate and I'll have dodged hundreds of times the taxes I owed. When people pull up tax statistics they'll lump me in with the top 1-10% depending on the metric they are looking at, right alongside a doctor or engineer who is earning a $1 million/year as a result of actual merit. Me, my money comes from and has come from generation after generation of exploiting the value guys like him add to the economy and appearing to lift him up with investment when in reality I'm the only reason people like him need to assume debt to begin with.
No, I don't think the engineer should be hampered in continuing to earn and add value with his merit for the duration of his lifetime or our need. I certainly don't think we should tax him and then in a few years dump him with a $6k/yr UBI while nothing changes for the billionaire except where the working class lives and the perks that come from how much demand there now is for his wealth, thus boosting the spending power of his billion to epic heights. I don't think he's evil, he may do evil but most days probably doesn't see it that way. Which is exactly why we can't allow him to be in that position where he can actually turn around and view giving a helping hand to the people and descendants of those who actually built that wealth as charity and welfare. Previously you could at least say the rest of the billion got reinvested, it is already primarily being reinvested elsewhere.
That's why I don't support funding with income tax or shifting to sales tax.