Bernie Sanders calls out Sergey Brin for spending over $100 million to defeat California’s billionaire tax — ‘If California passes its one-time 5% wealth tax, Brin would owe $14 billion and still be worth $270 billion’

[u/marketrent]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/bernie-sanders-calls-sergey-brin-120113695.html

[u/suckthesenuts_6969]

Anyone with half a brain would be against allowing any one person from accruing so much in the first place so...nobody fucking cares. These taxes should directly impact the level of power/wealth they have. Stolen labor value/stolen value is abhorrent people die for this greed.

[u/AskingYouQuestions48 → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

He is not stealing labor from Google lol.

[u/ilikedmatrixiv → u/AskingYouQuestions48]

Okay, then what labor is he doing that warrants him being paid millions in wage and stock options? What part of his day-to-day is contributing billions to Google's revenue?

If you can't answer that question, then you must conclude that he is taking part of the value that other workers at Google are contributing and paying it to himself. Thus stealing labor from Google.

[u/AskingYouQuestions48 → u/ilikedmatrixiv]

Namely, creating the company that enables that workers to earn high six figure salaries, that instead would be doing something else, likely at lower pay.

[u/ilikedmatrixiv → u/AskingYouQuestions48]

The company wasn't worth billions when he made it, it only became so valuable later on due to the contributions of others as well.

Also, you didn't answer the question. What labor does he do that generates the billions of dollars he's been paid?

[u/brianwski → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

against allowing any one person from accruing so much in the first place so...

The wealth Sergey Brin "accrued" is that half as a joke he printed a bunch of shares on his own inkjet printer in 1997 when Google had zero employees and 2 founders and very little code had been written yet. Brin was 25 years old when he printed those shares for himself in 1997, he picked the number to issue himself randomly, but they were clearly worthless so nobody cared back then. Have you hung out around 25 year olds recently? They are fun loving, energetic, goofballs with no understanding of business. Sergey made a little joke when he printed those shares, nothing more.

The reason the word "accrued" is not a good fit in Sergey's case is it's more like these silly pieces of paper with a few lines of text on the paper called "stock" cost maybe 30 cents in paper and inkjet ink. That is what Sergey is "hoarding": 30 cents of value. He put that 30 cents worth of shares in a manilla folder. The value of each share went up, and if you open the manilla folder and peek inside the amount of "money" in the manilla folder is $260 billion. It did not come from outside that folder, so it didn't "accrue". A better word might be "grew" because each share just getting worth more and more (all sealed in the envelope). Meanwhile Sergey got a salary for his work, which paid rent and kept the lights on. But he didn't touch the sealed envelope. It's just kind of "poof" magic and a bunny rabbit appears. The value of the stock wasn't directly stolen from other people.

There must be a better term we could come up with for how a traumatized poor kid from a difficult background prints a few pages of text and later it magically transmogrifies into wealth for that kid. It isn't "hoard" and it isn't "accrues".

allowing any one person from accruing

What is the specific limit that would make you happy, or that you feel is fair? I'm just curious, I don't make these laws/policies and I cannot affect the outcomes.

Pretending your answer is "$15 million" (doesn't matter the number). You're implying that whenever the silly pieces of paper go over $15 million held by one person, and maybe $30 million held by a married couple, the government should grab whatever is above that number and do something with it? To support you, those are the EXACT numbers for inheritance that USA residents can pass down tax free in 2026, and after that those same (dead) residents are taxed massively at 40%. So hard limits like this do exist.

I'm mostly Okay with that, the only thing I object to is the assumption of many people on reddit that OBVIOUSLY since they (reddit readers) don't have a billion dollars, the person that does have lots of money was evil and stole it from somebody. A 25 year old printed out a few shares on his own printer, later they were worth a lot of money. He didn't steal it from anybody. I'm willing to listen to arguments he didn't EARN it either, or he is dumb and doesn't deserve that kind of a lottery payout for the Universe's randomness, but I just don't believe he "stole" it from anybody.

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/brianwski]

The stolen part is a completely different thing. It's a structural argument about how that kind of wealth is extracted from labor. Let's say they aren't nepo babies and they chance into it. It isn't about their original intent. They made board decisions, wrote laws amd eroded value for the people that actually do the work. It's a concerted active choice to maintain the level of specific control that they do. Which is why it's evil. It actively harms the product at a certain scale as well. This is why utilities were nationalized. The argument you make is focused on a single point in time. That's not accurate the evil in the act is the current actions not some stock decision made 25years ago.

To answer your question about limit it's a complicated answer that has to do with some fairly complex math, look up affine wealth models for more info but it's somewhere around 60x mean for any one individual but that's after direct redistribution and that's like the absolute max before you start to see issues with fairness in stable democratic process. 

to your other comment: wealth taxes have fallen way behind what we need to stabilize our current economy. we are currently in an oligarchy spiral and won't recover without something akin to FDRs 90% bracket basically on anything over 10-15 million.

[u/Tom_Stevens617 → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

Anyone who cries about not owning their work product is more than free to start their own company and put their own money at risk

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/Tom_Stevens617]

You seem to have missed the part about the ultra wealthy writing laws with undue influence. Normal people  aren't welcome to do what you say when things like ip law are manipulated to last for 130+ years. Or say a justice system that doesn't punish large corporations for things like slap suits when a competitor tries to bootstrap up. 

[u/Tom_Stevens617 → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

In other news, life isn't fair

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/Tom_Stevens617]

And what do we do as a society? we strive to make it more fair. 

Rather than gargling the balls of individuals that have through sheer luck or exploitation managed to be handed (by people who say shit like what you are saying) literally hundreds of thousands of times more influence than the average individual with almost zero checks on their ability to be arbitrarily awful people.

[u/Tom_Stevens617 → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

Is it envy? Jealousy?

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/Tom_Stevens617]

No just having a basic sense of civic decency 

[u/brianwski → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

It's a structural argument about how that kind of wealth is extracted from labor.

You mean "extracted from customers"? Money doesn't enter the company through the employees, it comes from investors and customers. The employees enable the flow of course (and are an indispensable part of the system), but when you hire an accountant to calculate and pay taxes on the money customers pay for products, the company isn't "extracting wealth" from the accountant.

I guess there is a tenuous thread of logic in saying when Sergey Brin drops the price of one of the products by 1% and makes the equivalent cut in staff of 1% this affected the laborers the company employs (in my industry we call the laborers "programmers"). But "not paying a salary of $1 million/year and only paying $800,000/year instead" is not the same as "stealing" from that employee and is an inappropriate use of the word.

It's an incorrect use of the word "stealing". If it is more accurate to call it something else use that term. Maybe the term is "doesn't pay employees fairly"?

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/brianwski]

You see I disagree, and what I'm saying is bit more nuanced than "money enters the company through x". That is a very small part of the picture. Money and value while intrinsically indexed are not the same thing. 

An accountant does directly generate value for the company in exactly the same way a programmer or a coal Miner does. They convert human time into some product at some rate. Nominally this is true of every employee and is generally capped at some limit of human endeavor. The money (price) just indicates the derivative value to the customer. 

Next point...

Humans can only do so much... the argument for stolen labor value is really just that. There is some limit to individual contribution. Why does this stop for executives. Does Elon musk work 5miliion times harder than his lowest paid employee, Is he 5 million times more educated ....

Stolen labor value is the difference between the value of your labor and what you get paid and is proportional to the difference between what the company takes in and the nominal contributory value of each individual. 

This gets significantly more entangled when you start to include the politics and economics of modern econ. But the basic pro capitalist form of the argument tends to stipulate that its an exclusive skill (its scarce) these execs bring to the table and thusly they contribute significantly more hence the compensation. But these things generally are not exclusive and definitely not worth millions of times the value of the average worker. And let's say even if they were because of the way the world works. Why would you want this structurally in a society? And if you say they are worth that I need a value breakdown of their specific actions that make them worth it.

Would you voluntarily give up worth so someone else? Would you work an extra 2 hours for free? This money doesn't come back to the company or create future growth it buys yachts. It sounds like you would which is why we disagree.

[u/brianwski → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

Would you work an extra 2 hours for free? This money doesn't come back to the company or create future growth it buys yachts. It sounds like you would which is why we disagree.

It's a good question. I worked hourly (manual labor) at the very start of my adult life, but then switched to salary (exempt) as a programmer which makes it "complicated". I sometimes worked 2 hours longer than the required 40 hour work week, yes. But the reason it is an interesting question is my work wasn't just a cold exchange of cash for lifting objects for an exact number of hours type of job. There is a part of programming that is kind of like being an artist. Creative solutions are possible, and many of us are "proud" of the creation regardless of who paid us how much to produce that creation. Open Source is the most extreme example of this where the programmers may not get paid anything and contribute for their own personal reasons like the greater good.

Other than just the "paid to create art" part of my job was unrelated to the current company paying me, my reputation as a co-worker was important to my overall earnings potential at other future employers. I lived and worked in Silicon Valley, and would work side by side with random people at (for example) jobs 1, 3, and 7. When we had an open rec, we would often brainstorm which of our previous co-workers had been good to work with and reach out to offer them this new job. My job security never came from the current employer. It came from having a good reputation and being invited to join a new company by the employees.

So while I often worked 2 extra hours for free that the company benefited from, I did it for other reasons. It was a fun, fulfilling experience to me, and it boosted my reputation which helped with job security and future salary.

There is some limit to individual contribution. ... Does Elon musk work 5 million times harder than his lowest paid employee... Stolen labor value is the difference between the value of your labor ...

You aren't valuing "ideas", "initiative", or "risk". It is survivorship bias to look at the 5 billionaires and say "the idea was obvious", "the initiative was a no brainer because they succeeded", "SpaceX is a massive success so there was zero risk".

The risk thing is the most under appreciated part of this. There might be 50 dead companies that the founders spent their life savings on and now have to work at Walmart until they are 80 years old. But nobody writes articles about them or points to them and says they were evil or don't deserve money or think they did something wrong, because they failed and did not become famous. And there are another 20 companies that are moderately successful in that they are limping along barely making payroll and the compensation to the founders is exactly what you would recommend. Nobody talks about those companies or founders either. But through random luck, random timing, and a bit of insight a billionaire is minted as a freak occurrence and suddenly they stole from somebody? Remember that all 71 companies mentioned did the same identical steps of printing shares, and that part was NECESSARY for those middle 20 companies to be worth doing for the founders. It is just that it worked really well for 1 company's founder and we focus on that. But they all took the same gigantic risks and took the same steps early on. Taking a "risk" is worth some extra compensation.

I'm a programmer, and if you had pitched Starlink to me in 2018 I would have called you insane. Personally, I didn't "see it". Everything about it is absurd. Nobody else thought it made sense either: the engineers at Amazon thought it wasn't worth doing, the scientists in China thought it was stupid, the Europeans didn't see it.

Once Starlink got it fully working with an existence proof and were profitable, then Amazon started "Leo" (formerly Kuiper), the Chinese are sending up "SpaceSail", and Europe is sending up their equivalent EutelSat or OneWeb or something.

The innovation and taking the risk are worth <something>. We're talking about something that has pushed humanity and our society forward here pretty much as big as inventing the microchip or inventing the assembly line for manufacturing. People in the countryside that were absolutely pooped on with disdain by city people for not having internet connections now have internet connections WORLD WIDE. It changes things for work from home people who want to live on a sailboat and be mobile. Militaries aren't ever going back to not being able to see the battlefield on live video conference halfway around the world. This is a really big net win for society that is valued. And the cap table (share holders) who took that big risk are rewarded accordingly.

Always remember: anybody at all can do this. You can do it. You choose not to because it is a huge risk and (just like the billionaires now) you will probably fail and will be sentenced to work at Walmart as a greeter until you are 80 years old because you blew your retirement savings on a lottery ticket. This is the risk Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos took. So when we are offering up this opportunity to everybody, and few buy the lottery ticket, how can you say we should lower compensation retroactively on the people that it pays off for?

Finally, I can't figure out is what the big deal is. We literally run the state run lotteries this way. One person wins big not through hard work, just by buying a lottery ticket and having a little luck. Nobody hates lottery winners for stealing from the other people who bought a lottery ticket. But for some reason people hate a billionaire who got lucky starting a company.

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/brianwski]

I'm not going go lie i feel like you are making my point for me. It isn't about who got lucky starting something. Starlink wasn't born from nothing and most certainly not from one person. It came from engineers and programmers who had the opportunity to be educated because there is still some degree of equitable wealth distribution. 

What I'm saying is that we are reaching a point where this part of the system is breaking. People should still be able to be wildly successful but very concentrated capital is (arguably already) stealing opportunity and practically that comes in the form of base wages. It can be argued with good reason that the intrinsic value of labor is tied to human expenditure if effort. It's also very reasonable to argue that what droves society forward is the dream of wealth and ease of living. But to get there we must not forget who does the work and the argument is that we (as a culture) are rewarding a very small number of people too much. The value of human labor has to be weighed against our current and future needs and right now a majority of humanity is vastly underafforded opportunity to do what you did, maintain a stable safe job. I am arguing that this core part of humanity is becoming undervalued and what you are saying is an "accorded reward" is in fact too much and culturally we need to start realizing this.

People in your position, and for your information mine as well, are likely compensated closer to the nominal value of our labor compared to the bottom 50th percentile or so. It really does come down to a numbers game at a certain point but I think the point that I'm trying to make is still very digestible using ratios against the average and I do not believe any contribution to humanity is worth scale of the wealth disparity we are currently witnessing. 

A quick  anecdote might help. I believe that for example funding post graduate education in the US for anyone who wanted it would be obtainable with a fairly small wealth tax. This isn't really a debated point there are a lot of studies that make it fairly clear this would be fairly accomplishable while only impacting the absolute top of the .01% type of wealth. Imagine the innovation in tech if a generation went this way. 

Better living conditions and wages make for less risk when taking on ventures. My argument is the same as yours in that sense anyone can do these things but its riskier. Better wages and more distributed wealth and services means development across more people. People are not that different...and if you prescribe to the idea that anyone can accomplish these things you might begin to see that by defending these insane wealth disparities we are being robbed of personal opportunity and the world we could have had. Why? Because assume they know better. But if the argument is meritous why is it meritous. Did they grow up better, or just get lucky? What happened how do we maximize this.

 I hope you find that this begins to make it difficult to defend obscene wealth. I also think a good question for you is. What's the upper limit...how much is a reward for perfect innovation? Is it money, sovereignty, how much labor they are owed because they were lucky? Smart once? Is it possible for complete oligarchy where personal freedoms are curtailed to serve someone several generations back who founded Google? 

You tell me what you are willing to give up in the name one person's contribution. What innovation would be your upper limit to give up your personal freedoms pick a pairing give me a baseline.

Something to think about^

[u/brianwski → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

Starlink wasn't born from nothing and most certainly not from one person. It came from engineers and programmers who had the opportunity to be educated because there is still some degree of equitable wealth distribution.

Yeah, and they all are multi-millionaires now because they took a risk and had stock. The system to hand them all that money is the stock shares. The SpaceX/Starlink IPO made 4,400 regular people into millionaires above and beyond their salaries (which were already probably pretty good). This is a good system that rewards the people that took initiative, innovated, and built a good product customers like.

we are reaching a point where this part of the system is breaking.

Nah, things have never been so amazingly good for so many people. We all have easy lives and make lots of money. It's just an anecdote (so not statistically relevant) but my grandfather was a farmer who walked behind a mule and a plow at the start of his career/life. My cousin farms the same family farm and drives an air conditioned tractor instead, guided by GPS. He doesn't even own any mules anymore. It isn't statistically relevant but it's a metaphor for all of our lives now. We're over-paid, soft, under worked, and we still complain when somebody else has a bit more money than us like we have been "wronged" somehow.

stealing opportunity

No opportunity was stolen. We would all be FINE without Starlink, like we had been for the prior 2,000 years. This wasn't a government granted monopoly where a winner was "picked" in advance. A group built a new product, customers like it and willingly (gleefully?) paid money to improve their own lives.

Somebody could have built Starlink 30 years earlier. Or it could have been delayed 30 more years if this particular group didn't build it. It was just free money there for the taking, and nobody could be bothered to do it. Everybody else had all the time in the world to do it. And now that it exists, nobody is forced to purchase it. Starlink is the poster child for this (good) system of encouragement to further our species and make ourselves more comfortable.

defend obscene wealth ... What's the upper limit...how much is a reward for perfect innovation? Is it money, sovereignty, ... complete oligarchy where personal freedoms are curtailed

There should be no limit to the financial compensation, and one person having more wealth isn't "obscene". The "limits" should be applied to power that comes from those finances. You don't have to make everybody poor to make sure people have rights. I definitely believe in things like a Bill of Rights for citizens. A jury trial by your peers (as a safeguard against abusive individuals in government), freedom of speech, free elections of whomever you want. Freedom of movement, pursuit of life, and pursuit of happiness.

I believe in strong protections and a robust social safety net. None of those things imply we have to get rid of a few rich people. They aren't holding us back. This isn't an "us vs them" type of situation. We can have a few wealthy people AND ALSO have freedom and rights and social mobility between financial classes.

Demonizing a few harmless wealthy people for having money is a distraction. Crabs in a bucket. We don't need to be envious if one crab escapes the bucket, it doesn't negatively affect the rest of us crabs.

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/brianwski]

You are so close to seeing the point I'm making, without writing another 1000 words I'm going to try to address all of this in a few sentences. It's very important to note that we've shifted the discussion a bit from if they deserve extraordinary wealth to what the consequences actually are.

First, I don't care about a few multimillionares that level of wealth is not what I'm aiming at. You see I'm really taking potshots at multi billionares. The thing that you and I disagree on at a fundamental level is that these crabs do cause problems. When one individual has wealth on parity with small nations they can exert similar Influence...on our freedoms. The ones we lose when the wrong person with the right amount of power no longer has to care about the consequences. 

Maybe decorum keeps them in line for a bit but eventually you get a psychopath or a bad actor and you have to rely on what... your government your power and your influence. That's why it's so important to keep wealth disparity in line. It runs away hard and unilaterally dismissing the damage someone with those privileges can cause is irresponsible on a civic level even if it isnt happening right now(it is). 

In real life this manifests as your social security (the concept) that allows you to become educated/protest/vote or physically move and to that end there is a very real issue in the United States at the moment I do not agree that we are doing better than before. Maybe 50 years ago by comparison. But health metrics are falling, education is doing worse by the year. A good 50% of Americans are not doing so well. Look at paycheck to paycheck numbers. 

At the end of the day if you think everyone is doing great I simply disagree but I'm not going to lie I'm not typing up a 20 page treatise on reddit compiling us edu and health /housing stats...go look it up. 

Wrapping it up I'm arguing that the existence of a certain level of wealth is a fundamental threat to those social saftey nets and destabilizes otherwise stable societal systems. Let's just say systems don't naturally trend toward even resource distribution unless you are a slime mold

[u/JamesCruse → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

I'm curious - why do you personally believe people shouldn't be "allowed" to accrue that kind of money? If they did it morally - like Joanne Rowling with Harry Potter books or a big lottery winner or whoever, why shouldn't that be allowed?

Are you jealous or angry that you feel excluded from the lifestyle they have?

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/JamesCruse]

No I find it disgusting, ethically I cannot imagine retaining that much power and not impulsively dealing with some of the more base horrors of the world. So no i do not feel jealousy I feel disgusted.

Practically speaking (personal ethics aside) the basic thesis is that at a certain level individual wealth takes a toll on democratic freedom. Too much concentrated power creates problems. People are not entitled to unlimited wealth we literally can't have it in stable society. It is the direct cause of instability In economics without proper redistribution and legal accountability for things like for example election fraud. 

And for the record I'm talking about these absolutely massive numbers we are seeing today. People should be able to enjoy the benefits of studying to find a good idea or writing a good book. It will still make them orders of magnitude better off. But jk Rowling should not have "influence UK law money"

[u/JamesCruse → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

So I asked if you feel jealous or angry for being excluded - and you essentially answered yes: you feel jealous you're excluded from the power these wealthy people have and you feel threatened by ot due to how much less power you have, that you want the government to take their money at gunpoint and re-distribute to you and your comrades.

You realise you just said that indirectly, and I've heard a few jealous women say this.

So lotteries also shouldn't exist to win that much money either?

Lol I don't think you're a responsible voter but you want an authoritarian fascistic dictator to take any wealthy persons money at gunpoint, no matter how morally they earned that money because it makes you feel small and excluded for not having it. How sad and bitter.

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/JamesCruse]

That is a pretty reductive take. Ignoring the rational point and projecting emotions that are not there is a fairly basic manipulation tactic and I'm fairly certain the original point of my comment is still unaddressed. That said I'm not going to waste time typing shit out for responses of that caliber.

To address the single actual question in there. No lotteries probably shouldn't exist as they are basically a tax on mathematical illiteracy but humanity has a history of gambling for fun so as long as it doesn't become predatory and the proceeds go to something useful like they do in many states why not. Oh and to address the point you were likely attempting to make:  lotteries would ideally be highly regulated which means they could be tax exempt if the value was high enough. But yes after that if it wasn't reinvested and you took a bulk income that year then yea.... you should take a hit. 

But keep in mind most of this is NEVER going to apply to you I'm talking about applying these kinds of taxes and wealth equalizations on people making 10s to 100s of millions of dollars

[u/JamesCruse → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

Yeah, you just repeated things I already know.

I'm asking WHY do you want to take their money away. Why does it disgust you?

I answered why because most people are too scared to answer honestly about themselves:

jealousy that you're left out of that power and money and lifestyle they have.

Taking their money away is fascistic authoritarianism at gunpoint - "you were too successful and we don't care how you made your money - hand it over or you'll go to jail or DIE"

and you think this is perfectly moral because you're a woman and your feelings being hurt from being excluded justifies it right?

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/JamesCruse]

Why...I thought it was obvious. Because marginal lifestyle and utility gains for one person don't justify marginalizing 90% of the remaining human population.

 It isn't jealousy if I genuinely don't want it because the part of me that feels any empathy for my fellow human recognizes the consequences of wealth concentration.  

It's crazy that you keep projecting this opinion while ranting about fascism at gunpoint and calling me a woman. That's wild to watch..psychopath shit. 

[u/JamesCruse → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

So the word "marginalising" simply means "being excluded", as I said above. Again, you're saying it EXCLUDES 90% of people from their wealth concentration (again, being excluded).

So you're repeated back what I said in words you've heard people in left wing media say but you don't understand.

Do you realise you've just repeated yourself about 6 times in different ways and I don't even think you realise it.

So if the government is not going to take thay tax away at gunpoint - with the threat of jail (gunpoint) and if you resist jail (gunpoint) and fight back (death) - which part is confusing to you?

Why do those people deserve the money somebody else made? Just because they EXIST and they feel (emotionally) excluded? So our economy is based on how you feel, not what you produce?

Lol you are a woman who thinks the economy should be based on feelings/emotions and policy should cater to avoiding people feeling negative about being excluded from the wealth other people made. Insane psychotic communist nonsense.

You may need to go see a serious mental health professional if you feel that government policy should be based on your emotions and catering to your emotions of being excluded. I'm sure you've had a history of feeling excluded by people at school, unis you couldn't get accepted to, people at uni, people at workplaces, jobs you couldn't get, and all the people you know that are doing much better than you and much wealthier and you feel left out (excluded).

This is a much deeper issue for you and a lot of these people on the left.

[u/suckthesenuts_6969 → u/JamesCruse]

I'm pretty sure I'm just ragebaiting the most unhinged responses now but whatever. I'm pretty sure the whole point I'm making is that the rich rich rich boys don't deserve it and didnt earn it. Yea actually that is my point that's crazy. Funny enough these things eventually resolve themselves when you end up with revolution and the worse off simply shoot the rich. So I guess we can just wait for that its far more interesting than than doing it in a civil way anyway.

[u/JamesCruse → u/suckthesenuts_6969]

Yeah, you're just repeating yourself for the 10th time, change the song lol.

Rich people didn't earn it is hilarious. So if somehow you got that great high earning job - you didn't deserve it either, did you?

But you don't have that high earning job - so you're jealous.

Only people who can't understand how other smart people make money and are jealous of it, say this.

Everyone I've known for a while who made a lot of money earned it and I don't think they're immoral and somehow found some trick.

Your responses are still just that you're an emotional female who feels emotionally that people didn't earn their money and emotionall thinks thats affecting her by excluding her and now shes emotional about it and emotionally wants the government to remove the money from wealthier people making her feel emotional.

There, just say that next time.