Go to first unread
Back
to top
Why don't we just take all money off the rich and give it to the poor right now?
Watch
Announcements
This discussion is closed.
Report
#81
(Original post by Gladiator12345)
Austerity is a political choice we need to tax more to help everyone
Austerity is a political choice we need to tax more to help everyone
0
Report
#82
(Original post by Imperion)
Dank copy pasta/69 bruh.
Pop into my club, I r8 'em 8/8 Don't h8, just congratul8
Dank copy pasta/69 bruh.
Pop into my club, I r8 'em 8/8 Don't h8, just congratul8
0
(Original post by Gladiator12345)
Austerity is a political choice we need to tax more to help everyone
Austerity is a political choice we need to tax more to help everyone
1
Report
#84
(Original post by Gladiator12345)
Austerity is a political choice we need to tax more to help everyone
Austerity is a political choice we need to tax more to help everyone
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Report
#85
(Original post by Barack Obama)
Finally someone with a brain. Rep.
Finally someone with a brain. Rep.
(Original post by Little Popcorns)
8 88 8 9
8 88 8 9
0
Report
#86
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
An extremely smart and innovative man who gained the right to allocate our resources by providing the human race with value in the first place.
An extremely smart and innovative man who gained the right to allocate our resources by providing the human race with value in the first place.
0
Report
#87
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Are you aware of the laffer curve?
Are you aware of the laffer curve?
0
Report
#88
Because it's an arbitary seizure of money.
If the government allows itself to suddenly take people's money, even if its claimed for a good purpose, it will find reasons to allow itself to do more arbitary "it's just right" moves like take people's possessions, arrest people for ___ reason, take away privacy or free speech.
If you want to raise taxes on the rich campaign for it, get majority approval for it, pass it as a law... that is how you make such moves somewhat fairer. But you won't make it *fair*, ever, because there is a natural limitation to how much the government can command and interfere with a person and his property. At least in my imperfect opinion.
If the government allows itself to suddenly take people's money, even if its claimed for a good purpose, it will find reasons to allow itself to do more arbitary "it's just right" moves like take people's possessions, arrest people for ___ reason, take away privacy or free speech.
If you want to raise taxes on the rich campaign for it, get majority approval for it, pass it as a law... that is how you make such moves somewhat fairer. But you won't make it *fair*, ever, because there is a natural limitation to how much the government can command and interfere with a person and his property. At least in my imperfect opinion.
0
Report
#89
(Original post by Hydeman)
Resources held by the human race? What nonsense. Unless you're a Communist, you can't really be arguing that privately held resources are the property of all humans. He's only deciding the best use of his own resources.
Resources held by the human race? What nonsense. Unless you're a Communist, you can't really be arguing that privately held resources are the property of all humans. He's only deciding the best use of his own resources.
0
Report
#91
0
Report
#93
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Well we must stop this automatic veneration of people who have made a lot of money. It's not about being smart, not most of the time. It's lazy and disingenuous assume they must have got there on ability.
Well we must stop this automatic veneration of people who have made a lot of money. It's not about being smart, not most of the time. It's lazy and disingenuous assume they must have got there on ability.
0
Report
#94
(Original post by LibertyMan)
Because it's an arbitary seizure of money.
If the government allows itself to suddenly take people's money, even if its claimed for a good purpose, it will find reasons to allow itself to do more arbitary "it's just right" moves like take people's possessions, arrest people for ___ reason, take away privacy or free speech.
If you want to raise taxes on the rich campaign for it, get majority approval for it, pass it as a law... that is how you make such moves somewhat fairer. But you won't make it *fair*, ever, because there is a natural limitation to how much the government can command and interfere with a person and his property. At least in my imperfect opinion.
Because it's an arbitary seizure of money.
If the government allows itself to suddenly take people's money, even if its claimed for a good purpose, it will find reasons to allow itself to do more arbitary "it's just right" moves like take people's possessions, arrest people for ___ reason, take away privacy or free speech.
If you want to raise taxes on the rich campaign for it, get majority approval for it, pass it as a law... that is how you make such moves somewhat fairer. But you won't make it *fair*, ever, because there is a natural limitation to how much the government can command and interfere with a person and his property. At least in my imperfect opinion.
0
Report
#95
(Original post by Barack Obama)
I'm in favor of this. They don't need all that money.
All rich people are arrogant and should be shot. Not only have they plunged us into economic chaos, but they also cause endless poverty and wars through their selfish desire for more money.
They should have their wealth expropriated and given to the poor who need it most.
I'm in favor of this. They don't need all that money.
All rich people are arrogant and should be shot. Not only have they plunged us into economic chaos, but they also cause endless poverty and wars through their selfish desire for more money.
They should have their wealth expropriated and given to the poor who need it most.
Good thing you're winding us up, liked the call for the shooting of arrogant people!
0
Report
#96
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Well, that's exactly why communism happened. I don’t see why our entire society should be based around allowing those who control the most resources to do literally whatever they want with them. I thougbt the whole point of civilisation was to redirect resources so that they benefit the whole of the population while retaining incentive for people to work more efficiently and/or innovate. But no, apparently our society is only run for the few with the most power.
Well, that's exactly why communism happened. I don’t see why our entire society should be based around allowing those who control the most resources to do literally whatever they want with them. I thougbt the whole point of civilisation was to redirect resources so that they benefit the whole of the population while retaining incentive for people to work more efficiently and/or innovate. But no, apparently our society is only run for the few with the most power.
It's not even a question of 'allowing' people to do what they want with their wealth. It is their wealth, whether you hate them for it or not. It is not up to you or me to allow or disallow them from using it how they like. I don't buy this assertion that society is run for the most powerful at all -- granted, there are problems with things like campaign finance but it's nowhere near the kind of thing you're talking about.
A society for the rich is incompatible with the welfare state we have in this country. If you ever listened to your own complains about society, you'd find that they posit that the current welfare state is not enough rather than insisting that it doesn't actually exist, as would be the case in a society run for the rich.
You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist with your assertion that society is run for the rich though so I'll stop talking before this gets too long.
0
Report
#97
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Are you aware that the Laffer optimum can be anywhere between 0 and 100?
Are you aware that the Laffer optimum can be anywhere between 0 and 100?
0
Report
#98
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
I'm not sure ability makes a great deal of difference. If he's been quick and funded projects that have provided value to the rest of us (as evidenced by our paying for them) the result is the same. In this particular case, though... Let's just say that if you think Elon Musk is 'no smarter than anyone else' I think you're vastly overestimating 'anyone else'.
I'm not sure ability makes a great deal of difference. If he's been quick and funded projects that have provided value to the rest of us (as evidenced by our paying for them) the result is the same. In this particular case, though... Let's just say that if you think Elon Musk is 'no smarter than anyone else' I think you're vastly overestimating 'anyone else'.
Plus the only people buying into SpaceX are other people who have more money than they know what to do with. Have you or any of the other normal people here invested in one of these spaceships? I think not. I am open to the idea that their capital could fund inward investment in a later democratisation of commercial space travel, but it's not like there are any guarantees or even gentlemen's agreements here: once again, we're hanging on the utility function of Elon Musk and whether the venture is profitable to his companies.
0
Report
#99
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It can be, but it isn't. For the UK economy it's between 35 and 42 %
It can be, but it isn't. For the UK economy it's between 35 and 42 %
0
Report
#100
(Original post by scrotgrot)
No smarter, then, than the many other people who tried to go into business and failed. In any case that's not my main criticism: even if he is more able than the ones who failed, it doesn't say anything about whether what he produces like SpaceX is good for human advancement, or even if it is, whether he is the most efficient way of making those things happen.
Plus the only people buying into SpaceX are other people who have more money than they know what to do with. Have you or any of the other normal people here invested in one of these spaceships? I think not. I am open to the idea that their capital could fund inward investment in a later democratisation of commercial space travel, but it's not like there are any guarantees or even gentlemen's agreements here: once again, we're hanging on the utility function of Elon Musk and whether the venture is profitable to his companies.
No smarter, then, than the many other people who tried to go into business and failed. In any case that's not my main criticism: even if he is more able than the ones who failed, it doesn't say anything about whether what he produces like SpaceX is good for human advancement, or even if it is, whether he is the most efficient way of making those things happen.
Plus the only people buying into SpaceX are other people who have more money than they know what to do with. Have you or any of the other normal people here invested in one of these spaceships? I think not. I am open to the idea that their capital could fund inward investment in a later democratisation of commercial space travel, but it's not like there are any guarantees or even gentlemen's agreements here: once again, we're hanging on the utility function of Elon Musk and whether the venture is profitable to his companies.
We've been dependent upon individuals' ability to profit from developments for many of the wonders we enjoy today. Development happens organically if you let it. I would like to be clear, though: Elon doesn't owe us any development in any direction. He's made his money through free trade and it is his to do with whatever he wishes. I would prefer the system that left us largely free to deal in our own affairs even if it didn't lead to a greater level of progress than... what exact alternative solution are you suggesting, anyway? I suppose you'd have these decisions left to government, on the basis that some faceless decision-maker in a government bureau is vaguely, indirectly accountable to an electorate that for the most part couldn't have less of a clue about the direction in which it would be best for space travel to proceed.
0
X
new posts
