4 ms·

you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who

you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer. > http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html riddled with fallacies and calculated to produce envy. totally irrelevant to our discussion.

tmnvix 9y ago
> you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. That is a non sequitur.
- tensor_rank_0 9y ago
  I don't understand what you mean.
  - tmnvix 9y ago
    GP suggested that a redistribution of resources could allow the poorer section of society to engage in the type of risky behaviour that often results in financial success. You then assumed that this means depriving wealthier people of the ability to engage in that sort of behaviour. That isn't a logical consequence. You seem to be assuming that any redistribution will deprive wealthier people of these opportunities which is obviously not true. For instance, GP might be suggesting that only the wealthiest 1% should be required to make a sacrifice for the benefit of the poor.
jokoon 9y ago
> and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer. It's about income distribution. It's true that the economy is not a cake you can split in several parts, so it's not a zero sum game, but I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less. And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance. And again, it's about the extremes, there is less need to touch the incomes of those in the middle. I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing.
- tensor_rank_0 9y ago
  > It's about income distribution. so you've got some people who (for whatever reason) are prevented from making a decent income. how are you proposing to solve that problem by routing an income that is contingent on their inability to generate their own? We have tried that for 3 generations and poverty is worse than ever, inequality is worse than ever, the food stamps go to buy drugs, and the only solution you people have is to take more money from "the rich" and pour it into the same failed social programs. > I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less. people who generate their own income are going to have whatever they generate less whatever you take. people who cannot generate their own income are going to have whatever you take less your operating costs, and spend it on non-discretionary consumption items like food, rent, healthcare. which are provided by people who don't need your welfare. so you're simultaneously creating a dependent class or poor people and a guaranteed income stream for the wealthy. this is why your idea has always failed. >And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance. you'll observe that the ones who have the most are the ones who write the tax code. good luck taking from them. >I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing. 1. creates a class of poor people who are dependent on social programs for survival. 2. "Taking from the rich" happens through a political system that is designed to protect the interests of a subset of rich people. so the rules are manipulated to take a lot from rich people without political connections, and route money towards rich people with political connections.

tmnvix 9y ago

> you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. That is a non sequitur.

tensor_rank_0 9y ago
I don't understand what you mean.
- tmnvix 9y ago
  GP suggested that a redistribution of resources could allow the poorer section of society to engage in the type of risky behaviour that often results in financial success. You then assumed that this means depriving wealthier people of the ability to engage in that sort of behaviour. That isn't a logical consequence. You seem to be assuming that any redistribution will deprive wealthier people of these opportunities which is obviously not true. For instance, GP might be suggesting that only the wealthiest 1% should be required to make a sacrifice for the benefit of the poor.

jokoon 9y ago

> and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer. It's about income distribution. It's true that the economy is not a cake you can split in several parts, so it's not a zero sum game, but I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less. And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance. And again, it's about the extremes, there is less need to touch the incomes of those in the middle. I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing.

tensor_rank_0 9y ago
> It's about income distribution. so you've got some people who (for whatever reason) are prevented from making a decent income. how are you proposing to solve that problem by routing an income that is contingent on their inability to generate their own? We have tried that for 3 generations and poverty is worse than ever, inequality is worse than ever, the food stamps go to buy drugs, and the only solution you people have is to take more money from "the rich" and pour it into the same failed social programs. > I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less. people who generate their own income are going to have whatever they generate less whatever you take. people who cannot generate their own income are going to have whatever you take less your operating costs, and spend it on non-discretionary consumption items like food, rent, healthcare. which are provided by people who don't need your welfare. so you're simultaneously creating a dependent class or poor people and a guaranteed income stream for the wealthy. this is why your idea has always failed. >And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance. you'll observe that the ones who have the most are the ones who write the tax code. good luck taking from them. >I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing. 1. creates a class of poor people who are dependent on social programs for survival. 2. "Taking from the rich" happens through a political system that is designed to protect the interests of a subset of rich people. so the rules are manipulated to take a lot from rich people without political connections, and route money towards rich people with political connections.