4 ms·

This isn't how human society works. If you don't want to live in a world where individuals with considerably more ambition and intelligence than you who have bu

by aje403 9y ago

This isn't how human society works. If you don't want to live in a world where individuals with considerably more ambition and intelligence than you who have built industries and consolidated empires and have been rewarded for doing so, get off your computer built by people who accumulated wealth and funded by people with wealth built from other inventions built and funded by wealthy individuals before that and return to the jungle to lick flies and learn what actual poverty is before you get eaten by something. In human history, when people like you attempt to force wealthy individuals to hand over their wealth, the country stagnates, and the ambition and intelligence move to other nations that have better social systems built by ambitious men, and the nation gradually rises. Finally, why do you think "the people" or the government is an efficient instrument for ensuring charitable interests are met? That's really silly

subroutine 9y ago
Do me a big favor and don't use any publicly funded or or tax payer subsidized utility or service ever again. Don't drive on roads, don't take public transit, don't ever call the police, don't do business with anyone with a government job or government contract, don't use products or medicines that have resulted from basic research at public universities or NASA, don't use public schools or libraries, if you have a degree from a public institution give it back or pay the difference. Im sure with all your ambition and intelligence you will make due just fine though. The rest of us here aren't exactly looking for handouts; on average I'd say HNs do pretty well. However we can appreciate the many ways income tax helps support a functioning society.
- aje403 9y ago
  Your point is not relevant to what I am arguing. High income and high estate taxes exist in the same world as wealth and I think they should be higher than they are now - the wealthy use considerably higher resources than the rest of society, and it requires extreme stability in society to even keep and maintain wealth which people in the US take for granted. The comment did not say anything of that nature, he's describing a hard cap on wealth.. what would that number be? 1 million? 5? - "limit[ing] the wealth in the first place to ensure that everyone get its share" - this is the ignorance of a mob with torches. Phones to make 911 calls from and cars for the police to drive over in were built by American entrepreneurs who became wealthy. It's part of the system. They did not take value out of society to become rich at it's expense - they were not perfect, but there was a significant net gain. If Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg is forced to liquidate 99% of their ownership in their company tomorrow because the guy above me thinks "I want more money, it's not fair he has more than me" to himself and builds a set of quasi-logical ideals around that and those ideas take root, then we begin declining as a society. The system always needs to be re-balanced and kept in check, but having a maximum bank account is not the answer.
  - subroutine 9y ago
    I think we were just not on the same page with regard to OP's comment: "limit wealth" You interpreted this as "hard limit", I assumed they just meant limit using tiered tax brackets (i.e. status quo). And, I assumed this is what you assumed. The top-level comment in this thread advocates zero income tax; it's clear now this is not a position you are defending. My bad. That said, I fixed your original comment... "If you don't want to be a machine in multiverse where some AI has considerably more resources, training examples, and optimizations than you... with accounts holding more Ether and funded by AI who gamed ICOs... and something something something, dark side... then power down"

by aje403 9y ago

subroutine 9y ago

Do me a big favor and don't use any publicly funded or or tax payer subsidized utility or service ever again. Don't drive on roads, don't take public transit, don't ever call the police, don't do business with anyone with a government job or government contract, don't use products or medicines that have resulted from basic research at public universities or NASA, don't use public schools or libraries, if you have a degree from a public institution give it back or pay the difference. Im sure with all your ambition and intelligence you will make due just fine though. The rest of us here aren't exactly looking for handouts; on average I'd say HNs do pretty well. However we can appreciate the many ways income tax helps support a functioning society.

aje403 9y ago
Your point is not relevant to what I am arguing. High income and high estate taxes exist in the same world as wealth and I think they should be higher than they are now - the wealthy use considerably higher resources than the rest of society, and it requires extreme stability in society to even keep and maintain wealth which people in the US take for granted. The comment did not say anything of that nature, he's describing a hard cap on wealth.. what would that number be? 1 million? 5? - "limit[ing] the wealth in the first place to ensure that everyone get its share" - this is the ignorance of a mob with torches. Phones to make 911 calls from and cars for the police to drive over in were built by American entrepreneurs who became wealthy. It's part of the system. They did not take value out of society to become rich at it's expense - they were not perfect, but there was a significant net gain. If Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg is forced to liquidate 99% of their ownership in their company tomorrow because the guy above me thinks "I want more money, it's not fair he has more than me" to himself and builds a set of quasi-logical ideals around that and those ideas take root, then we begin declining as a society. The system always needs to be re-balanced and kept in check, but having a maximum bank account is not the answer.
- subroutine 9y ago
  I think we were just not on the same page with regard to OP's comment: "limit wealth" You interpreted this as "hard limit", I assumed they just meant limit using tiered tax brackets (i.e. status quo). And, I assumed this is what you assumed. The top-level comment in this thread advocates zero income tax; it's clear now this is not a position you are defending. My bad. That said, I fixed your original comment... "If you don't want to be a machine in multiverse where some AI has considerably more resources, training examples, and optimizations than you... with accounts holding more Ether and funded by AI who gamed ICOs... and something something something, dark side... then power down"