4 ms·

> By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumula

> By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. At the extremes, tiny differences in competence lead to exponentially differing compensation scales. Look at any professional sports league for examples. > They could afford it. They just don't want to. Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing. And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit.

esarbe 9y ago
> How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. If you are relying on rent instead of work for an income, you are mooching, simple and easy. Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation. > Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. Yes, it does. Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling. > You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing. I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not demanding that those earning more than me should be taxed more - I'm very much aware that I'm a privileged member of the 1%. I'm among those that should be taxed more! >And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit. There are good arguments to be made that a UBI scheme would actually be less complicated than the complex tangle of social support systems we have nowadays. At least in Europe.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  > Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation. No, you're also getting paid for the lack of appreciation of the capital in the machinery, the possibility that the machinery loses value, and the maintenance and upkeep of the machines. If you're a landlord, you're paying for maintenance, property tax, and code upgrades in exchange for money for shelter. It's just a means of exchange of goods for money, like any other. Or do would you rather that productive machinery (including capital) be not produce, and capital locked away from productive use? By not charging money for the use of goods, you disincentivize the purchase of capital machinery/real estate as there is no upside, only downside to ownership/usage. > Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It isn't right for people to charge rent for the use of capital, just because, and you have to redistribute wealth because otherwise you'll be forced to anyways, screw what's right. Either argue from the moral high ground or sheer pragmatism. You can't have both. > I'm among those that should be taxed more! Nobody is stopping you from donating more money to the government or any number of good charities. Why should extra taxation be necessary and involuntary when people with consciences like you are willing to act on your better impulses rather than just whine about the status quo?

esarbe 9y ago

> How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. If you are relying on rent instead of work for an income, you are mooching, simple and easy. Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation. > Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. Yes, it does. Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling. > You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing. I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not demanding that those earning more than me should be taxed more - I'm very much aware that I'm a privileged member of the 1%. I'm among those that should be taxed more! >And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit. There are good arguments to be made that a UBI scheme would actually be less complicated than the complex tangle of social support systems we have nowadays. At least in Europe.

jimmywanger 9y ago
> Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation. No, you're also getting paid for the lack of appreciation of the capital in the machinery, the possibility that the machinery loses value, and the maintenance and upkeep of the machines. If you're a landlord, you're paying for maintenance, property tax, and code upgrades in exchange for money for shelter. It's just a means of exchange of goods for money, like any other. Or do would you rather that productive machinery (including capital) be not produce, and capital locked away from productive use? By not charging money for the use of goods, you disincentivize the purchase of capital machinery/real estate as there is no upside, only downside to ownership/usage. > Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It isn't right for people to charge rent for the use of capital, just because, and you have to redistribute wealth because otherwise you'll be forced to anyways, screw what's right. Either argue from the moral high ground or sheer pragmatism. You can't have both. > I'm among those that should be taxed more! Nobody is stopping you from donating more money to the government or any number of good charities. Why should extra taxation be necessary and involuntary when people with consciences like you are willing to act on your better impulses rather than just whine about the status quo?