To no one's surprise.
And you had a 2024 candidate outright admit he's going to give them tax cuts.
Yet some people get annoyed when you say the sitting president stands for billionaires more so than the average person.
143
musiclover818Mar 27, 2026
+47
For comparison purposes:
A million seconds is about 11.5 days.
A billion seconds is about 31.7 years.
47
welmoeMar 27, 2026
+24
What’s the difference between a million and a billion? Almost a billion.
24
girlnamedJaneMar 27, 2026
+13
Majority people are NPCs who believe what they are drip fed on cable and Facebook so yeah... we are screwed
13
BallBearingBillMar 27, 2026
+5
He had a meeting with them and straight up told them that he was going to make them soooo much money. The problem is 2 fold, the media didn't run with it and the public that heard it didn't understand where those riches are coming from. Simple math ... if someone is making a LOT of money, it means that someone or many people are paying that money to them.
5
TheHomersapienMar 27, 2026
+60
Correct. 140+ million Americans consistently vote for candidates who work for the 1%. They know this. They are cool with it.
60
greendale_alum88Mar 27, 2026
+9
Agreed. The racism helps lube them up in their quest for poverty.
9
AcceptableFlufferMar 27, 2026
+3
Yeah, and it’s all gonna be worth it once I join their ranks. /s
3
johndoe201401Mar 28, 2026
+1
“Economy is booming” says American voter
1
raygar31Mar 27, 2026
But please, oh so enlightened centrists of the world, tell me again how it’s actually the rich vs the poor, and how the people who support all this are somehow decent people
0
rraattbbooyyMar 27, 2026
+44
Anyone remember Occupy Wall Street?
“We are the 99%!!”
That was 15 years ago, and wealth inequality has gotten exponentially worse.
The bad guys won.
44
OneUseHeroMar 28, 2026
+7
Immediately after media stations shifted to the "culture war" hoping people would get angrier about minorities instead of focusing on the ultra wealthy that have been making more profit on the suffering of a majority of the world/planet. The people with positions of control really don't want people thinking about the power they wield and the damage they do daily.
7
RemarkableTadpoleMar 28, 2026
+1
Unfortunately, money buys power and I can’t see us reversing course and changing that… as much as I wish we could. The bad guys will always win
1
580_farmMar 27, 2026
+10
and it all trickled down and tons of jobs were created and we all lived happily ever after, right?
Right?
10
squirlnutzMar 27, 2026
-10
Largely, yes. And if you don't get this, then you are the problem.
Most billionaires' wealth is mostly tied to the value of the company(s) they own/lead/founded. In order for their wealth to double, the value of those companies need to double. The value of a company doubling directly contributes to the growth of GDP, which benefits everybody, and it also means one or, usually, both of the following: revenue growth which means more employees and more business for their upstream supply chain, and stock value growth, which gives value to investors, which include public and private pension funds and individual retirement portfolios.
Billionaires also are more likely to fund a/o start long-shot ventures that standard investors see as too risky. Sometimes these pay off with big benefits (e.g. if Neuralink proves successful).
Envy and hate shouldn't drive bad policy.
-10
Plastic_Ad_8248Mar 27, 2026
+3
GDP only measures growth. That’s not always an indicator of the strength or wealth of an economy. That’s what GNP is
3
squirlnutzMar 27, 2026
-3
Umm, that’s not the difference between GDP and GNP. They are both measures of total economic activity. GDP is meaningful because it incorporates economic activity that is taxed (e.g. Japanese car sales in the US) and, for the most part, higher GDP means higher tax revenue (assuming all else is equal).
-3
Plastic_Ad_8248Mar 27, 2026
+4
During the 1970s gas crisis when the economy was absolutely trashed, and most American households were forced to send the second parent to work, which was the largest wave of women moving from the home to the workforce in American history besides World War II, GDP grew because women moved to the workforce. GDP is not some magical number that up is always good. China artificially inflated their GDP through the 2000s by building cities in the middle of nowhere that nobody ended up living in.
Trickle down economics does not work. All it does is shift wealth from the bottom to the top. You are either an extremely wealthy person who gets their rocks off hanging out on Listnook like Gislaine Maxwell did, or you are just very unaware that the billionaires don’t care about you and love it when people like you defend them.
There’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire. The only way to make that much money is by exploiting other people. And whether that’s liquid cash, assets, or stock wealth, that person still got to that number by exploiting other people. Period.
The nature of capitalism, especially the American version of it, requires people at the bottom. It requires exploitation. It requires people to be poor.
We used to have a better life in America. When the corporate tax rate was high and manufacturing jobs were here. But thanks republicans giving massive tax breaks to the ultra wealthy and to corporations, on top of NAFTA and GATT moving all of our jobs overseas so we were no longer competing with other Americans for labor, we were competing with the entire world. Places like china or the Philippines where corporations could pay 40+ workers equal to the cost of one American worker. Then we made it so they didn’t have to pay taxes to bring those goods back to America to sell at us at a markup.
Then in the background you have the Epstein class who has been manipulating the markets to crash the economy to buy c**** and sell high. They have been gambling with our economy since the stock market was created. We have had so many crashes because of it. At this point it’s definitely part of the design of the system.
And all of this is in the background while they try to convince us that it’s other poor people ruining our lives. And then there’s those like you, who come on here and try to convince us that we are wrong. That we don’t believe what we see with our eyes and feel with our wallets. That we stare down every day when we can’t afford food and health insurance, when our parents can’t afford their medications and our children cannot afford college.
4
squirlnutzMar 27, 2026
-1
The economic illiteracy on Listnook is sometimes astounding.
First: The way the tax structure in the US works today, rising GDP equals rising tax revenues. Call it good or bad or whatever, it’s a simple economic fact. And when all those women joined the workforce, they all paid taxes, and the economic output they created also generated tax revenues. And and…a job has to exist in order for someone to move from not working to working. Women didn’t just magically invent jobs for themselves that allowed them to create a 2nd income. Employers realized the opportunity to expand the available workforce by hiring women and gain a competitive edge through increased efficiencies, or increased productivity, or whatever made it worth creating the jobs. That’s how market economics works. Which brings us to…
Second: You use the word “exploit” to mean “give jobs to people who want them, and deliver products and services to people who are willing to pay for them.” People want jobs, capitalism provides jobs. People want stuff, capitalism provides stuff. What’s wrong with “exploiting” people by paying them for the value they add to your company? And what’s wrong with being “exploited” by getting paid for your skills and labor that deliver value to an employer?
Here’s some data for you:
| Metric | 2017 | 2026 (latest available) | Notes / Change |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------|
| Tesla Employees | 37,543 | 134,785 (end of 2025) | ~3.6× growth |
| SpaceX Employees | ~6,000–7,000 | ~13,000–18,000 (2025–early 2026) | ~2–3× growth; estimates vary |
| Neuralink Employees | ~20–50 (early startup) | ~500–630 (early 2026) | 10–30× growth |
| Tesla Annual Revenue | $11.76 billion | $94.83 billion (FY 2025) | ~8× growth |
| SpaceX Annual Revenue | ~$1–2 billion (est.) | $15–16 billion (2025) | ~8–15× growth (Starlink dominant) |
| Elon Musk Net Worth | ~$13–20 billion | ~$810–850 billion (March 2026) | ~40–60× growth |
Between 2017 and 2026, Elon Musks companies have added well over 100,000 jobs, and added about $100B/yr in direct economic activity. This is just the cold numbers. It doesn’t factor in indirect economic activity (like the benefits airlines get by offering Starlink on flights) or the overall benefits of the technological advances made by these companies. And the only downside is we have to tolerate an often insufferable billionaire. Pretty good bargain if you ask me.
Finally: A common economic fallacy employed when the “capitalism exploits people on the bottom” trope is invoked is failure to acknowledge economic mobility. Do fast food chains “exploit” unskilled minimum wage workers? No. In exchange for making minimum wage at an entry level job, the employee gains experience and skills that they can then use to get better paying employment, either through promotion at the same company or by leaving to better opportunities. If a restaurant only ever pays it’s line staff only minimum wage, and is in business for 20 years and makes a healthy revenue stream for it’s owner for those 20 years, has that owner exploited employees for 20 years? Of course not. The average tenure of a fast food employee is a year. If over the 20 years, thousands of people have decided to take a job there, gotten what they wanted out of it - or maybe not - then moved on with the money and experience from having the job, that’s not the same as the same 10 employees working there 20 years earning nothing but minimum wage, which is the way “capitalism exploits people on the bottom” is represented.
-1
Plastic_Ad_8248Mar 27, 2026
+2
Look at wages of McDonald’s and Burger King workers in Europe vs the US. It’s absolutely exploitative. US farm production literally exists on exploiting undocumented laborers for wages below minimum wage. US production has risen exponentially since the 80s and wages have not. CEO compensation packages and salaries have exploded over the last 40 years. They also pay single digit % on their taxes and less, while the average American pays significantly more. The money transfer to the top is undeniable. Minimum wage isn’t enough to survive on.
I don’t know where you get your economic literacy, but spouting everything you did without recognizing that in America the average citizen is choosing between healthcare and food, one paycheck away from bankruptcy and homelessness, is too far out of touch to make you worth my time.
I have a book recommendation for you. It’s what my economics professor gave to us to give a foundation for truly understanding economics through a real world human lens, and not just numbers on a page. It’s an old one at this point, but the information is still greatly pertinent. It speaks to why the economy being healthy at the micro is the most important thing to a thriving economy that works for everyone, not the those that hold the most capital. It’s called “The Trap by Sir James Goldsmith” and if reading is not your thing, look him up on YouTube. He did an interview with Charlie Rose back in the day that still holds true information applicable to us now.
2
RemarkableTadpoleMar 28, 2026
+1
Errr, Amazon employees aren’t paid enough to live on so are eligible for food stamps. Subsidised employment. Tax breaks for the rich. Trickle down economics is what they’ve preached for decades. Show me a single piece of evidence that it’s ever worked… it’s a lie to enslave the middle/working class forever.
1
jimmygee2Mar 27, 2026
+28
Not a lot trickling down then?
28
jayfeather31Mar 27, 2026
+26
It was bullshit in the 80s and it is still bullshit today.
26
impatientlymerdeMar 27, 2026
+4
It was buckshot in the 1920s as well.
(Herbert Hoover)
ed: I have a prudish os.
4
tarantulawarfareMar 27, 2026
+4
Nope, no trickling down to us serfs. Just a giant flood of our money going to them.
4
TheRyanFlahertyMar 27, 2026
+5
It’s even worse than a lack of trickle down at this point.
Virtually everything we consume is now worse (and increasingly so) as corporations become more efficient at maximizing profit over providing quality.
Yet, we consume more shit than ever, as corporations compile personal information and employ a constant barrage of psychological warfare in an attempt to manipulate a population with an eroding ability to think critically.
5
Appropriate-Act3028Mar 27, 2026
+1
Just the shit.
1
i_am_a_real_boy__Mar 27, 2026
+1
I wouldn't call it "trickle down", but if you put some money in an index fund in 2020, you could have doubled it by now.
1
OG-BoomMasterMar 27, 2026
+7
But of course it has. The rich get richer.
7
AINonsenseMar 27, 2026
+12
And that’s why there’s no money for healthcare.
Somebody took it all.
12
AmericanProspectMar 27, 2026
+10
TAP Executive Editor David Dayen reports:
\>>>
Inequality has boomed so much in the 2020s that a 2 percent wealth tax on multimillionaires initially introduced in 2021 would yield more than twice as much revenue today.
The analysis, from University of California, Berkeley, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, reveals the incredible volume of capital income, currently not reached by the U.S. tax code, and could prove vital for the ongoing debate about taxes that has taken over the Democratic Party in recent weeks.
On Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) rereleased proposed legislation that taxes households with net wealth of over $50 million annually. The tax is set at 2 percent of total wealth; the legislation adds a 1 percent surtax for households with over $1 billion. To guard against wealthy individuals who respond to this by leaving the country—even though they move at lower rates than middle-class households, even when faced with higher taxes—it adds a 40 percent “exit tax” on anyone with net wealth over $50 million who renounces their citizenship.
\>>>
Read [the story](https://prospect.org/2026/03/27/billionaire-wealth-has-doubled-so-far-this-decade/) for free by heading to [prospect.org](http://prospect.org).
10
DeltaFoxtrot144Mar 27, 2026
+4
well at least we know where to get all the funds to re build america, We can just take it from them.
4
No_Friend4042Mar 27, 2026
+9
Honestly, how have the working class not rebelled against this kind of nonsense....
9
impatientlymerdeMar 27, 2026
+3
Bread and circuses to our hearts content.
3
medullahMar 27, 2026
+3
GOP is great at misdirecting hate towards immigrants, trans athletes, democrats, etc.
3
i_am_a_real_boy__Mar 27, 2026
+4
Six years ago today, the S&P 500 was less than half of what it is right now. Doubling money over that timeframe is not a magic trick and you don't need a billion dollars to do it.
4
RaisinOverall9586Mar 27, 2026
+1
Yeah these headlines and articles are nonsensical. Wealth is *supposed* to double every 7-10 years if you have it properly invested, whether it's $1,000 or a billion.
1
this_is_poorly_doneMar 27, 2026
+3
I'm all for the rich and Uber wealthy to pay more in taxes but the headline is just kind of dumb. If someone had $100 invested in the SP500 on 1/1/2020 and didn't add any more money to it, that investment would be $211 on 12/31/2025.
If they waited til 1/1/2021 to invest that $100 in the SP 500, then they would have $182 by 12/31/2025.
Sure there are ways that billionaires pay lower tax rates than working people, and yes there's a lot of shit being pulled by the GOP and their naked cash looting of America as a whole, but even the average Joe would have seen their investments double in nominal terms from 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2025.
There was so much hot money pumped into the system that just investing in low cost, broadly diversified etf's would have made even average folks sizeable paper gains in the stock market. And those paper gains also would have been sheltered from taxes inside an IRA, employer sponsored plan, or any other qualified plan the investments were held in.
3
dogs_gt_catsMar 27, 2026
+1
I agree with you. The article seems to be rage bait feeding on people not understanding how exponential growth works.
When you're dealing with exponential growth, there's this thing called "[the rule of 72](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72)". Basically when something grows at a given rate, you can divide 72 by that rate and get the number of years it will take for your starting amount to double, called the "doubling time."
So if you have $100 in an account earning 3% interest per year, in 72/3%=24 years it will double.
It works backwards too. So if you have $200 and it has doubled over 24 years from $100, you know it was about 3% (72/24years=3%) growth.
If billionaire wealth doubled over 10 years, that's about 7.2% annual growth (72/10=7.2%). That actually under-performs the historical average of the SP500 over the past decade (13-15% average).
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but... pretty much anyone who has investments in the market has had their wealth double or more over the past decade. That includes 529s, 401ks, 403bs, HSAs, etc.
So if anything, the headline/article seem to be suggesting that billionaires underperformed the market over the past decade.
1
this_is_poorly_doneMar 27, 2026
+1
Tbf to the article they did reference THIS decade, not in the last decade so I'm assuming they mean since 2020/2021. Which if they doubled since 2020 puts them right in line with the gains everyone else could have had (assuming investments) during that same time.
1
Maligned-InstrumentMar 27, 2026
+3
MAGA keeps kissing Trump's ass like it'll pay off. It won't.
3
AFCO78Mar 27, 2026
+3
Great I was beginning to worry about them.
3
spyinguitaristMar 27, 2026
+3
And it’s still not enough for them
3
Conscious_until_1565Mar 27, 2026
+3
I will never forget hearing Hillary say ‘And who’s going to pay for it? The super rich are going to pay for it.’ But instead here we are. In an oligarchy surrounded by grifters, criminals, and idiots. With an unstable, petty, vengeful 80 year old at the helm with his finger on the button. It’s terrifying. The whole world should be terrified.
3
RoutineCowManMar 27, 2026
+2
Gonna have to claw that labor capital back one way or another
2
DeltaFoxtrot144Mar 27, 2026
+1
[https://open.spotify.com/track/2a9YyNltT3s77wfv79xmof](https://open.spotify.com/track/2a9YyNltT3s77wfv79xmof) let this play a few times to get inspiration
1
TicketAmbitious6200Mar 27, 2026
+2
And as they've gotten wealthier and bought more control, they've gained more and more momentum. It's obvious at this point that they think they're untouchable and there is nothing we can do to stop them. Maybe they're right. They literally control our government and, by proxy, our military.
2
Plzlaw4meMar 27, 2026
+2
I mean… that’s a lot, but over 6 years that’s 12% a year. You would think after poisoning the earth, killing all regulation, cutting all worker protections, refusing to increase wages beyond inflation for decades, the corrupt tax cuts and subsidies, mining all our personal data, and all the other terrible, society ending shit billionaires have contributed to, they would do a little better than 12% per year.
Like if you’re going to fast track out species (or at least our society) extinction, can you maybe do better than 12%/year?!
2
Duchess0612Mar 27, 2026
+2
This makes me sick to my stomach. Knowing what we all know about what’s going on right now and people come so many people right on the edge and the TSA, and and and and.
2
oneseason2000Mar 27, 2026
+2
It's more like the real "Stop the steal" by billionaires and trillionaires. Are all those billions of dollars of campaign donations, major media purchases, and SCOTUS gifts really about protecting the sanctity of life, border security, the rights of this or that ethnic group, ... ? Or do they really ensure insane wealth and power growth for the donors while keeping the country divided?
2
mentaljobbymonsterMar 27, 2026
+2
What's the f****** point
2
Nizle_Bizle_ShizleMar 27, 2026
+2
Billionaires aren't compatible with democracy. that said, doubling your portfolio in the last decade is actually not impressive.
2
Middle-Armadillo-660Mar 28, 2026
+2
♫ It’s beginning to look a lot like lynchmas ♫
2
-Yazilliclick-Mar 28, 2026
+1
All while this club is pushing for more and more poor people to go kill each other on their behalf. It's all just numbers, they don't give a f*** and for some reason people keep going along with it.
A CEO dies though and that's huge news, horrible event, holy shit things need to be done! A couple hundred school girls get burned and crushed to death, meh. A few thousand more poor people starve to death because you take away their benefits in your own country, just a number change in the spreadsheet.
Everybody just needs to remember the rules, billionaires, politicians and other so called 'elite' class are different and more important. It would be wrong to treat them with the same complete and utter contempt they treat everybody else not in their club.
1
tedemangMar 27, 2026
+1
That means their power has gone 4X-8X.
And remember, that data is backward-looking. We're in a new era.
1
ByteBaronMar 27, 2026
+1
Patiently waiting for some of that wealth to trickle down
1
red_simplexMar 27, 2026
+1
No big deal. My wealth tripled! I now have $12
1
Red_V_Standing_ByMar 28, 2026
+1
And everyone else, including Millennials who were “doing well” 5 years ago are now struggling bigtime.
1
tumericschmumericMar 28, 2026
+1
There’s only one answer to this whole billionaire thing
1
aftertherisottoMar 28, 2026
+1
Newsflash for them, money ain’t gonna keep them
from kicking the bucket
1
hootopiaMar 27, 2026
+1
Billionaires should not exist, period.
1
Excellent-Berry-2331Mar 27, 2026
-1
Has it? Or has the dollar halved this decade?
-1
Even_Establishment95Mar 27, 2026
And the poor folks defending them and arguing against taxing them is just wild.
63 Comments