4 ms·

Because all their wealth are already put into society. Where do you think all the factories comes from? Who do you think employs all the people? Who creates pro

by ignasl 9y ago

Because all their wealth are already put into society. Where do you think all the factories comes from? Who do you think employs all the people? Who creates products and services that people want and which improves people's lives? Billionaires do not sleep on the bag of cash - their wealth is already tied up to the things they are already doing. And as for non profit activities probably all of them do it for the causes they believe in. Universities, libraries, research, art, charities etc. I never understood this demonstration of the rich people, like they are some kind of evil aliens who want to hurt "us good people". This communistic nonsense should just go.

Gustomaximus 9y ago
I downvoted you for; 1) "This communistic nonsense should just go." This is taking the question to an extreme POV you want, not where the discussion was. 2) "Who do you think employs all the people?" Its worth recognising small businesses employs about 50% of the population and is contributing more new jobs than corporates these days.
- ignasl 9y ago
  It's OK I don't mind. 1. This was a bit of rant but questions like this are very related to communist's/socialist's "it's always someone else's fault". This is not productive nor is helpful. It's better to educate yourself on how economics work in the real world. Then you will have a chance to make the world a better place yourself instead of "let's use force to take from productive people and give it to unproductive people" which is not that good of an idea in the first place from economics perspective (proven empirically in many countries many times). 2. Nit-picking on my my "all". I didn't mean that literally. Billionaires' wealth is tied up and even if they would sell everything (and give everything to charity) someone else (who takes over) would be even richer which most likely would result in less competition, less innovation, higher prices and lower quality to everyone. Lack of understanding in how economy works results in questions like this.
  - Gustomaximus 9y ago
    I concur 2) was nitpicky :) Regarding your statement "let's use force to take from productive people and give it to unproductive people" which is not that good of an idea in the first place from economics perspective (proven empirically in many countries many times)." Firstly, one can easily argue force to take wealth is already in place. Most people would pay less tax if it was voluntary. Try not paying your tax and see what happens. So pretending this taking by force system doesn't already exist is ignorant or misleading for rhetoric. The discussion really should be about levels of taxation, not should there be taxation (ie forceful taking of money). Secondly, I'd be interested in where your empirical evidence comes from regarding how taking money 'from productive people" is a bad thing. And clarify 1) productive and wealthy are not the same and should be recognised and clarified what is being debated. I assume we are staying with the core discussion of taking money from billionaires in general, and not focusing on billionaires that rent seek vs value add. And for your empirical evidence, I assume your looking at the usual quoted countries at the more extreme edges like Communist Russia or Venezuela. But please point me somewhere if I'm wrong. I would suggest you look at history more openly. You should find empirical evidence suggests some level of redistribution is hugely beneficial. No economy in the world has transitioned to first world status without significantly balancing wealth distribution during this time. This could be coincidental but I doubt it. Look at western Europe, Japan, US, Canada, Australia etc through the 19th century. These became first world as they built the service and mass consumer economy. How you ask I am sure? We'll it was many things and redistribution of wealth and assets was a paradigm shift during this transition for all nations, much like what china is attempting now. People make the mistake of thinking first world countries are 'capitalist' in a much more pure sense than reality. All these countries have significant redistribution policy already, most more so during boom times. Think about education, health, unemployment systems, fire departments, roads, libraries, vehicle authories etc So my general point is that outside the fanatical fringe, people shouldn't debate whether wealth redistribution good or not, but what level of redistribution, or on what financial terms is it beneficial. I dont claim to know whats right, but I feel places like Venezuela massively overcooked policy left, whilst many western nations are swinging a bit too right these days.
    - deleted 9y ago

by ignasl 9y ago

Gustomaximus 9y ago

I downvoted you for; 1) "This communistic nonsense should just go." This is taking the question to an extreme POV you want, not where the discussion was. 2) "Who do you think employs all the people?" Its worth recognising small businesses employs about 50% of the population and is contributing more new jobs than corporates these days.

ignasl 9y ago
It's OK I don't mind. 1. This was a bit of rant but questions like this are very related to communist's/socialist's "it's always someone else's fault". This is not productive nor is helpful. It's better to educate yourself on how economics work in the real world. Then you will have a chance to make the world a better place yourself instead of "let's use force to take from productive people and give it to unproductive people" which is not that good of an idea in the first place from economics perspective (proven empirically in many countries many times). 2. Nit-picking on my my "all". I didn't mean that literally. Billionaires' wealth is tied up and even if they would sell everything (and give everything to charity) someone else (who takes over) would be even richer which most likely would result in less competition, less innovation, higher prices and lower quality to everyone. Lack of understanding in how economy works results in questions like this.
- Gustomaximus 9y ago
  I concur 2) was nitpicky :) Regarding your statement "let's use force to take from productive people and give it to unproductive people" which is not that good of an idea in the first place from economics perspective (proven empirically in many countries many times)." Firstly, one can easily argue force to take wealth is already in place. Most people would pay less tax if it was voluntary. Try not paying your tax and see what happens. So pretending this taking by force system doesn't already exist is ignorant or misleading for rhetoric. The discussion really should be about levels of taxation, not should there be taxation (ie forceful taking of money). Secondly, I'd be interested in where your empirical evidence comes from regarding how taking money 'from productive people" is a bad thing. And clarify 1) productive and wealthy are not the same and should be recognised and clarified what is being debated. I assume we are staying with the core discussion of taking money from billionaires in general, and not focusing on billionaires that rent seek vs value add. And for your empirical evidence, I assume your looking at the usual quoted countries at the more extreme edges like Communist Russia or Venezuela. But please point me somewhere if I'm wrong. I would suggest you look at history more openly. You should find empirical evidence suggests some level of redistribution is hugely beneficial. No economy in the world has transitioned to first world status without significantly balancing wealth distribution during this time. This could be coincidental but I doubt it. Look at western Europe, Japan, US, Canada, Australia etc through the 19th century. These became first world as they built the service and mass consumer economy. How you ask I am sure? We'll it was many things and redistribution of wealth and assets was a paradigm shift during this transition for all nations, much like what china is attempting now. People make the mistake of thinking first world countries are 'capitalist' in a much more pure sense than reality. All these countries have significant redistribution policy already, most more so during boom times. Think about education, health, unemployment systems, fire departments, roads, libraries, vehicle authories etc So my general point is that outside the fanatical fringe, people shouldn't debate whether wealth redistribution good or not, but what level of redistribution, or on what financial terms is it beneficial. I dont claim to know whats right, but I feel places like Venezuela massively overcooked policy left, whilst many western nations are swinging a bit too right these days.
  - deleted 9y ago