@tim
Why only billionaires? The threshold seems to me to be quite arbitrary. Why not millionaires? It would be more practical as it would reach more people and social changes would be better visible.
@theZosia absolutely fair point! If I were to actually put a number on it, I think the least controversial one I'd pick would be $100 million.
This is where you (plural you in general, not you specifically) may well call me hypocritical, and that's fair, but the bottom line is that my home, alone, puts my "wealth" at over $1 million (and I again acknowledge my privilege there!).
I can see a path in which I need $10 million to live comfortably after retirement, the way things are going.
@theZosia so for me, $100M is the next logical step. But it's absolutely fair for you and others to have other opinions!
(Also: I don't own nearly 100% of my >$1M home, the bank owns a vast majority of it...)
@theZosia but for purposes of this poll / discussion I figured I'd start with the absolute least controversial / easiest to pick on and go with $1Bn.
@tim
From my perspective $1M is much more than I have and also well enough to have comfortable retirement, so I'd vote for placing the limit at $1M.
Ask everybody on the Earth and let the limit at the lowest value that will get >50% votes. I think it would be fair.
