4 ms·
> "the hard thing in this discussion is to differentiate between consumption and investment" Indeed. Even harder is to acknowledge our government already has en
by jppope 5y ago
> "the hard thing in this discussion is to differentiate between consumption and investment"
Indeed. Even harder is to acknowledge our government already has enough tax money, and further tax revenue will not be used prudently, in the best interest of our country.
- IgorPartola 5y agoCitation needed.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoCitation also needed for the opposite position - that the government will use the money well.
- IgorPartola 5y agoSure. But here is the thing: what consequences to billionaires face if they use their wealth in stupid and unproductive ways? At least for the government we have some recourse (elections, protests, public hearings).
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoBut to the degree that the reason for doing this is "the rich shouldn't have that much money", to that degree there's no pressure on the government to use the money wisely. And I don't like your question. Sure, billionaires can use their wealth badly. Why should they face consequences (other than no longer having what they have wasted)? That someone could misuse something is not a reason to take it from them and give it to someone else who could also misuse it. That is, I don't like your question because it implies that they should only be allowed to keep it if they are using it "properly". I think that the rule of law calls for a higher bar than that before taking peoples' stuff.
- IgorPartola 5y agoThe original proposition was that essentially an oligarchy is more efficient than our current system: billionaires will waste less money than the government on inefficiencies. In that light I don’t mean consequences as punishment but rather incentive. Why should a billionaire spend money on socially useful project vs a self-serving or a socially harmful one?
- _greim_ 5y ago> what consequences to billionaires face if they use their wealth in stupid and unproductive ways? Well this one's easy at least. They lose the wealth.
- rufus_foreman 5y agoThe difference is that governments don't spend their wealth in stupid and unproductive ways. They spend our wealth in stupid and unproductive ways.
- jppope 5y agoNote: This was 5min of google search and reading abstracts/ overviews. Unfortunately I can't commit the amount of time necessary to provide a full rebuttal right now. From Representatives: - https://posey.house.gov/wasteful-spending/ - https://www.paul.senate.gov/wastereport - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg95798/html/CHRG-114shrg95798.htm From the Media: - https://www.rd.com/list/wasteful-government-spending/ - https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/09/30/wheres-the-pork-us-taxpayers-funded-a-lot-of-wasteful-spending-2017-2019/?sh=4563d5523dc0 - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-rein-in-inflated-military-budgets/ - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/rand-paul-outlines-54-billion-in-outlandish-government-waste-in-annual-festivus-report/ From Acadamia - https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305865 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003043871200004X
- IgorPartola 5y agoRight. Waste happens in the government. None of this compares it to how wasteful an oligarchy would be, which was the original comparison.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoAnd more money to billionaires will?