Tag: billionaires

Member Post


The wealthiest of the wealthy support Democrats. Not only voting for them, not only donating millions to them, not only funding dark money PACs to swing elections for them, but perhaps actually buying elections for them including the presidency. Now, the president they elected wants to stick them with a big tax bill. Dubbed the […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

One Way ‘Abolishing Billionaires’ Would Undermine Silicon Valley and America’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem


Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer of Alphabet, speaks during a session of the 50th World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2020.

I mean, so what if a wealth tax took half of American billionaire wealth over the next decade or so? Or what if it took more? All these folks would still have plenty left to spend — which is why some democratic socialists would prefer a much, much lower wealth cap. As a policy adviser to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez has said, “If you have $5 million, you can live off the interest of that and be a one-percenter. There’s nothing in this world that anybody wants or needs to do that you can’t do with, let’s say, $10 – 15 million.”

Nor should we worry that vast wealth confiscation would hurt innovation and entrepreneurship — what economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman call “extreme business success.” Most rich and successful entrepreneurs would be, well, still rich and successful entrepreneurs before getting hit by the billionaire tax. As the two inequality researchers put it, “Established businesses typically devote a lot of their resources to protect their dominant positions by fighting new competition. A progressive wealth tax hits wealthy owners who have already established their businesses while it does not affect (yet) new emerging businesses.”

How Smart *Are* Billionaires, Anyway?


Only in the Age of Foolishness (our current age) would you see a headline like the following: “Billionaires could leave Earth behind for space colony as climate collapses.”

This comically preposterous headline, which sounds like something from some stinkaroo sci-fi flick, begs a very serious question; and no, not one about the climate or the technological feasibility of a space colony. Those pale in comparison to the more trenchant question, which is: If an incredibly wealthy person really believes that the climate is in danger of “collapse,” and collapsing so bad that the only way to survive is by leaving the planet, how is it possible that such a person could ever have been smart enough to make a billion dollars in the first place?

The Democrats debated in Las Vegas last night and they put on quite the show. Join Jim and Greg as they walk through the major dust-ups between Bloomberg and Warren, Bloomberg and Sanders, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg and try to figure out what the impact will be on the race for the nomination. They’re also thrilled to see a new poll from Gallup showing Americans with the highest satisfaction in the state of the U.S. since 2005 and lopsided numbers of citizens optimistic about the economy and where it is headed. And they go back to the debate to focus on NBC’s Chuck Todd asking Michael Bloomberg whether billionaires should exist.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad America is seeing just how radical Democrats are getting on abortion, with Virginia’s governor even appearing to endorse infanticide.  They’re also happy to see one Democrat in the Virginia legislature change her mind on an abortion bill after the intense public opposition.  They also shake their heads as Democrats and their friends in the media launch a relentless mission to destroy former Starbucks Chairman and CEO Howard Schultz for considering an independent presidential run.  And they react to a Huffington Post column arguing that billionaires are bad for America so we shouldn’t have any.