Do you know how much of that military spending will go to fixing problems that are decades old?

That doesn’t justify spending more as a percentage of our GDP on the military than the USA who spends more than the next 10 or something states combined. I’m not giving up nationalized health care because Donald fucking Trump wants to shake down NATO and make Canada spend 30% of it’s national budget on American arms.

You can criticize one big group without being part of the other big group.

‍ doing the math to figure this out is depressing.

Cool.

With that rant you have shown tou don’t understand how badly our military has been neglected.

Your mindset only works if the US is actually friendly.

And, we have been shopping elsewhere for new military equipment.

Keep up.

30% of the budget. Certainly the end of nationalized health care. That’s worth it to you?

And if you think the US won’t engage in the sorts of tactics it currently is engaging in to demand we spend more of our military budget on them then you are mistaken.

Also good for good’s sake by just throwing money at whatever millionaires think might be needed is simply making the overall societal problem worse, because of the warped perspectives they have.

Thoughtful coordination, planning and disbursement of funds to create good public works requires careful government.

Tax the rich, relentlessly push bikes and public transport, regulate big business, this is the only way we survive.

Being a millionaire these days is pretty normal. Need a lot more than that to retire if you don’t have a pension plan.

You need to be a millionaire these days if you want to actually retire. If it only took a million, would have retired a while ago.

http://archive.today/2025.06.30-022902/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/06/29/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-school-closure/

The Chan-Zuckerbergs stopped funding social causes. 400 kids lost their school. Priscilla Chan’s decision to stop funding the school she opened to help struggling families shows the risks for communities reliant on wealthy private donors.

Using money for charity is great, but having the government tax and manage it all instead is much, much better. Because it won’t suddenly disappear. Unless your ruler’s name is Donal Trump.

I know plenty of millionaires … people who own property, vehicles and wealth that all amount to one or two million … and they are still just getting by. They aren’t that terribly wealthy - they don’t live with any more luxury than most people, they just have more things.

Billionaires on the other hand are something else … it’s like comparing someone with a weight problem and calling millionaires slightly pudgy and billionaires are grossly overweight behemoths that can affect the structure of your house.

Here’s a visual comparison using grains of rice of what a millionaire and billionaire and the wealth of someone like Jeff Bezos is

Using Rice to Show How Rich Jeff Bezos Is | NowThis

All throughout most modern history … if you set up an economic system where you allow humans to gain unbelievable amounts of wealth and ask them or wait for them to share it, they never do and instead use that wealth to gain even more sums of wealth in a never ending cycle. I know plenty of wealthy people and they do share their wealth, just not in the sums you want to imagine - they share a few hundreds or thousands here and there but never enough to create meaningful change and never in the amounts to affect the growth of their wealth.

Wealth hoarders are the problem. Millionaires aren’t wealth hoarders, and any multi-income home that lives a frugal lifestyle can become millionaires before they retire (and they’ll need to, if they don’t plan on working into their 80s).

But there should be no such thing is a billionaire, let alone, a billionaire with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of hoarded wealth.

Sure, we can tax them more (and should!), but we should also design a system where wealth hoarding isn’t incentivized. It should be actively discouraged, and punished at a certain point.

I feel like a lot of people retire with much much less than “millions”. Might not be a super comfortable retirement but, def doable.

My mom ‘retired’ with ‘much much less than “millions”’. She stopped working at 75.

She lives in a small $2/sqft/mo rental with dodgy power, asbestos in the walls, windows stuck shut, people staggering past the fuse box all night, miner bees in the walls, and shit Internet. It’s a coastal town with no access by roads - just ferries - and minimal services. It’s a half-day to get there, really, or an hour’s flight.

you may need to experience your version of ‘doable’ before you commit to it.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates did this joke already.

Write an Op-Ed about how they aren’t taxed heavily enough. Then spending millions to prop up conservative political campaigns dedicated to cutting taxes.

Quit buying this horseshit. You’ll know a millionaire is lying when their lips are moving.

The person with 100 million is closer in wealth to the homeless person you pity than they are to a billionaire.

It’s an unimaginable amount of money

Being a homeowner gets you there in a lot of places, it doesn’t matter because you still need a home so you can’t live off it

That’s an excellent point.

We need to shift the conversation from government taxing its citizens to shielding them from international economic forces.