It’s not a new argument, but there has been a lot of talk lately about how much taxes the rich should have to pay. I think we can all agree that they should have to pay as much or more than the rest of us do, since they’re benefiting off the backs of our labor.

But even with taxes aside, it’s hard to fathom having THAT. MUCH. MONEY. And it’s hard to fathom having that much and not DOING something amazing with it.

That was the basis of a Twitter thread that went viral last April when Big Tech accountability advocate Jane Chung started crunching the numbers.

It started when the Forbes billionaire list was released.

Jane then went on to explain a little bit about interest and how interest rates, which have been historically low for years now, actually work.

Like me, Jane confessed she has a hard time comprehending that many zeroes, so she made it concrete for us:

TWICE.

They’d have so many zeroes left over that I get lost counting whether it would be billions or trillions and just go straight to zillions.

The point is: it would be enough. Surely it would be enough.

In response to people’s arguments that they earned their money and should keep it all, Jane had an intriguing counter proposal.

After all, why should they get to profit so grandly off a global pandemic?

It’s not really even a question of should.

Surrounded by that much wealth, how does a person look at themself in the mirror every day and not start spreading it around to those most in need?

I guess your rockets and your empire make it easy to feel better?

It’s a little mind boggling once you really do the math.

Like, it’s just so much money. And of course they do some amount of charity here and there. And it’s THEIR money so no one can force them to do good things with it. Make the world better or joyride in space, it’s their choice.

But that brings us back to taxes.

Because the fact is, the government is scared to make them pay any at all.

Despite the fact that they wouldn’t feel it a bit.

Upworthy pointed out:

When you consider the living costs and the poor wages, it’s fair to say that workers losing their hard-earned money from poor policymaking, which in most cases is due to lobbying by rich companies. America’s lowest-paid workers have lost about $3,000 a year when you consider the rising cost of living, according to calculations from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

But sure, give the big tech companies a blank check.

Jane’s thread is an incredibly cogent argument that just makes you want to bang your head against a wall. Because it becomes so painfully clear that it doesn’t have to be this way.

And then she mentioned that her mom runs a non profit to help others, and invited us all to chip in if we can. Because that’s the way the world works. Those who can (and are willing) take care of the less fortunate. Who else is going to?

There are good stories too, though.

If only our billionaires could be more like millionaire Johan Eliasch, the European who bought a massive swath of the Amazonian rainforest just to preserve it.

Or even Jeff Bezos’ ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, who has donated billions to hundreds of charities combating hunger and racial injustice.

See, it is possible.

What do you think about Jane’s proposal? Do you agree the Ritchie-Rich-est should at least pay their fair share of taxes? Tell us in the comments!