3 ms·

Yes, that's a problem. But it's not as big a problem as the current economic divide. The very wealthiest have superfluous amounts of money -- enough to pay to

Yes, that's a problem. But it's not as big a problem as the current economic divide. The very wealthiest have superfluous amounts of money -- enough to pay to find loopholes so that they pay no taxes. If there was an island with 100 people and one person had almost all of the coconuts and others were starving, no one will care about details for very long. Fix it now because people won't ask nicely for long.

andreilys 5y ago
Right so instead we should take one of those 100 people and give them the power of violence to take all the coconuts and distribute as they see fit. Likely to their friends and family. So we end up with the same scenario again, inequality persists only this time it’s because of a centralized authority figure that now has a monopoly on violence.
- david927 5y ago
  Straw man. Taxation has existed for a long time and has worked well. The only new part would be a wealth tax that caps out to 100% at some level, and only until basic needs are met for the very poorest.
- jayjader 5y ago
  > Right so instead we should take one of those 100 people and give them the power of violence to take all the coconuts and distribute as they see fit. No one is saying that. We take all the coconuts, gather all the people, and work to come to a decision. Or are you saying you need someone to tell you what to do, and you'd rather it be the guy that got rich off everyone else than someone randomly chosen? I can understand that at least, although I still disagree.
simonh 5y ago
Suppose that's the only person who knows how to grow and harvest coconuts, and those coconuts are the seeds for next year. That's what real economies look like, not the simplistic naivety of so many Marxists who think that everyone is equally good at managing resources, and spreading out resources equally is just as good as investing them strategically. There are no simple answers to questions like this.
- david927 5y ago
  Billionaires building toy rockets when others starve is equivalent to "seed coconuts"? That's a terrible straw man. There have long been simple answers but we have been to greedy to look at them. We have been able to eradicate hunger, homelessness and educational poverty for a long time. We have just chosen not to. I find it funny that so many people are terrified of being capped to $20M/person and so few are concerned about children sleeping outside, hungry.
  - simonh 5y ago
    The whole coconuts example is a terrible straw man, but I tried to make it at least a little less infantile and look at least slightly like economics. Yes these problems have been solvable for some time, but it’s not billionaires stopping that happening. Their job is creating companies, jobs, products and services not ending poverty. We have the resources in the public purse already. Richard Nixon came very close to announcing a basic income. The problem is political. Too many Marxist on the left that are economically illiterate and don’t know how wealth works or even what it is (hint it’s not piles of money); and too many radical libertarians on the right that think western European style liberal welfare is communism.
    - david927 5y ago
      > [The billionaires] job is creating companies, jobs, products and services not ending poverty They're being asked to pay their fair share of taxes and instead are using their wealth to find loopholes so that they pay nothing. The US has regressive taxation. > Too many Marxists on the left... I'm not sure that there really are any Marxists on the left and that's certainly not what's holding back addressing poverty. Neither of the groups you mentioned have any real political power. No, the political center has the power, and it's that center which has moved right to be more concerned with protecting wealth than helping the poorest, at least in America. As you said, Richard Nixon considered UBI and Milton Friedmann was quite clear about the need for a negative income tax. That was the right; now that's the radical left. See the problem? I honestly didn't mean to start a fire with my first statement above. I'm saying that the wealth inequality gap is disastrously large and growing. The wealthiest, much like before the French Revolution, both won't pay taxes and frankly don't care how much poverty exists. And that's unacceptable. We should be talking about that and nothing else.

andreilys 5y ago

Right so instead we should take one of those 100 people and give them the power of violence to take all the coconuts and distribute as they see fit. Likely to their friends and family. So we end up with the same scenario again, inequality persists only this time it’s because of a centralized authority figure that now has a monopoly on violence.

david927 5y ago
Straw man. Taxation has existed for a long time and has worked well. The only new part would be a wealth tax that caps out to 100% at some level, and only until basic needs are met for the very poorest.
jayjader 5y ago
> Right so instead we should take one of those 100 people and give them the power of violence to take all the coconuts and distribute as they see fit. No one is saying that. We take all the coconuts, gather all the people, and work to come to a decision. Or are you saying you need someone to tell you what to do, and you'd rather it be the guy that got rich off everyone else than someone randomly chosen? I can understand that at least, although I still disagree.

simonh 5y ago

Suppose that's the only person who knows how to grow and harvest coconuts, and those coconuts are the seeds for next year. That's what real economies look like, not the simplistic naivety of so many Marxists who think that everyone is equally good at managing resources, and spreading out resources equally is just as good as investing them strategically. There are no simple answers to questions like this.

david927 5y ago
Billionaires building toy rockets when others starve is equivalent to "seed coconuts"? That's a terrible straw man. There have long been simple answers but we have been to greedy to look at them. We have been able to eradicate hunger, homelessness and educational poverty for a long time. We have just chosen not to. I find it funny that so many people are terrified of being capped to $20M/person and so few are concerned about children sleeping outside, hungry.
- simonh 5y ago
  The whole coconuts example is a terrible straw man, but I tried to make it at least a little less infantile and look at least slightly like economics. Yes these problems have been solvable for some time, but it’s not billionaires stopping that happening. Their job is creating companies, jobs, products and services not ending poverty. We have the resources in the public purse already. Richard Nixon came very close to announcing a basic income. The problem is political. Too many Marxist on the left that are economically illiterate and don’t know how wealth works or even what it is (hint it’s not piles of money); and too many radical libertarians on the right that think western European style liberal welfare is communism.
  - david927 5y ago
    > [The billionaires] job is creating companies, jobs, products and services not ending poverty They're being asked to pay their fair share of taxes and instead are using their wealth to find loopholes so that they pay nothing. The US has regressive taxation. > Too many Marxists on the left... I'm not sure that there really are any Marxists on the left and that's certainly not what's holding back addressing poverty. Neither of the groups you mentioned have any real political power. No, the political center has the power, and it's that center which has moved right to be more concerned with protecting wealth than helping the poorest, at least in America. As you said, Richard Nixon considered UBI and Milton Friedmann was quite clear about the need for a negative income tax. That was the right; now that's the radical left. See the problem? I honestly didn't mean to start a fire with my first statement above. I'm saying that the wealth inequality gap is disastrously large and growing. The wealthiest, much like before the French Revolution, both won't pay taxes and frankly don't care how much poverty exists. And that's unacceptable. We should be talking about that and nothing else.