They don't have money. They have debt and stock. Their money is a whole other tier of pretend that we're too poor to have access to.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
1222 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
8917 readers
2527 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Stocks are assets are money.
The pretend we're collectively falling for is that you can't tax those assets because they're somehow not really there until they want them to be.
I like it, but it needs some work to give it staying power. I say start with 1 billionaire, then once they've gotten a good, front-row whiff of the consequences, we start a blind bidding war for social services, a different one each episode. Whoever has the lowest bid gets a new and excruciating ending at the end of each episode. The one guy left standing at the end gives up his money for the final program, but gets to walk out alive.
Liberté! égalité! fraternité!
Leeja Miller notes historically wealth accumulated by the aristocratic elite is never restored back to the public (that is, back to the state general fund, then used to sponsor roads, bridges, libraries, food programs, education, science, etc. which serve the public good) except through violence, e.g. the response of the French public after the États Généraux de 1789 )
So this, along wirh discussions of the kind of reprisal Luigi Mangioni may not have done, all tracks, considering the escalating clime in the United States.
It'd sure be nice to find a nonviolent path to ~~restoring~~ creating public-serving government and a system that regards the personhood of absolutely everyone, but we very much cannot take violence off the table, especially when it comes to restoring wealth parity.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
If we're workshopping names, Boil the Billionaire has nice alliteration.
"I'm Mark Summers and Welcome to..."
Live Audience: "BOIL!"
Live Audience: "THE!"
Live Audience: "BILLIONAIRE!"
What about calling it "you can't do that on television" and ~~slime~~ boil them when they say "I do not recall" or similar while under oath
Instead of drowning then in molten lead, we could force-feed them enriched uranium and call it Let Them Eat (Yellow) Cake.
If this makes a difference, they wouldn't drown. They'd cook on top like eggs over easy.
Nothing but good to come out of that idea.
But is lead going to be bad for the groundwater?
Who Wants to Bury a Billionaire?
But we get the lead back, right? Otherwise that's a bit of a waste.
I don't want billionaire poisoning in my lead.
Might need to do a little work to clean all the carbon garbage out of there, but yeah that should be no prob.
slag
Switched roles Squid Game
I’d watch that.
and if they run out of billionaires how about landlords next
Depends what you define as landlord.
Guy who owns 2-3 duplexes in the city? Nah.
Big time landlord who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from thousands of properties? BOIL EM!!!
the guy who owns 2-3 duplexes can (and are incentivised) to be as cruel and inhumane as possible by the same capitalist forces.
if you ask me, rent shouldn't be a thing. once you paid the value of the house in rent you should be able to claim it as your own.
I agree, but those who own like 2 or so houses are literally not the main problem. We can work on abolishing them at a later point, but until then we can ignore them.
I'll concede that they aren't the "main" problem.
but if we eliminate corporate landlords, that industry will be taken by smaller landlords and you haven't really fixed the problem, just replaced a handful of corporations with a few thousands of landlords doing the same shit.
Its much harder to enshittify a market when you dont have a monopoly, so it does improve the situation. But yeah, longterm we definitely have to act against those too.
we could go into a very nice debate, but I think the economical forces that push for enshitification will still be there even if you break monopolies or large corporations. It will likely be slower without shareholders demanding permanent growth. but the landlord greed is still there.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Exactly. I’m living in a triplex that sold for $1.4 million last year. My rent is less than 1/3 a 30 year mortgage (with a 3.5% down payment). My old landlord set the right price. I hope my new landlord does the same.
It still staggers me how quickly some people's opinions on landlords changes when they see the money. A bunch of otherwise stand up fellas are now dreaming of using their retirement investments to 'buy some houses, rent them out for the passive income,' and another of the group who says his dream is to buy/own an apartment complex, all the while salivating at the money.
Most of us are trying to play in a game we hate... where not playing means suffering. I don't really see just owning rental properties to be worthy of the billionaire boil. Hold them accountable for every scummy practice and ounce of harm caused by greed seeking, but not merely for renting housing out.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Funny, I think there was an old fella with a beard that put them in the same category
load more comments
(1 replies)
There's no real entertainment in this...
let them fight to the death... and then let the animals in... If you want to know how to entertain MAGA folks... check out the ancient romans!
Winner gets a dog park named after them, because they were eaten by wolves released into the pit after they defeated the other billionaires
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is fantasy, I do not condone violence.
I want them to fight to the death in an arena. There's about 800 of them in America. We could set up a tournament bracket, there are plenty for every city to get a live performance. If they refuse to fight, they're both beheaded. The whole thing would be televised. Viewership would break world records. The champion gets life in prison.
It would start here, but like any good reality show, it would expand worldwide.
It would stay active, when two people are discovered to be in control of over a billion--because you know they won't be able to resist, and they'll do their best to hide it, thinking they'll get away with it--they'll be rounded up and paired off.
No joke, Hunger Games-ing the billionaire class might actually be enough to solve world hunger.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Go ahead and condone it. Nobody's forcing you to push the button after all.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"we can monetize the fall of billionaires"
Can I be the guy that pours the lead?
I still wouldn't watch it, but I fully support the concept
No no no. You HAVE to watch, so the show gets good ratings. Otherwise it gets cancelled.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm in
That might not be the ideal choice of words in this case, but I like your enthusiasm!
load more comments
(1 replies)
I am sometimes saddened that "Authoritarian Good" doesn't seem to exist.
I mean, it's not hard to figure out values. Sure, some morons might think the good things you want are bad, but they're MORONS we can ignore them.
"Oh no! Save the billionaires! What if we become wealthy one day?" No, you won't. If you love them so much throw yourself in the pit with them.
What if we become wealthy one day?
What if you could just live comfortably for your entire life?
Aye, I could do that.
We don’t need their money to pay for any of that, not providing them is an exclusively political choice.
The only justification needed to take their money is because them having it is an existential crisis for society.
It should be proportionally more expensive to remain rich.
view more: next ›