3 ms·

You’re speaking in code. Something more concrete and non-code: Americans could start by redistributing some of the money belonging to people who earn 100K or m

You’re speaking in code. Something more concrete and non-code: Americans could start by redistributing some of the money belonging to people who earn 100K or more a year.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
There is a saying that "peace should not be the peace of a graveyard" - that is, it should not be made by killing everyone who disagrees with you. In the same way, we should not "fix inequality" by making everyone poor. That was the point of my post. You made a more concrete proposal than many ever do - "100K or more". But you're still partly speaking in code. Now, define "redistributing". Redistributing to who? To those making below 100K? Below 60K? Below 30K? And, how much is going to be lost in bureaucratic overhead? There's very little demand for taking money from those making 100K and using it to hire more bureaucrats making 150K. Next, define "some". How much are you going to take from someone making 100K? 200K? 1 million? 10 million? What are you going to do about those who make very little, but have large assets? Nothing, or something? And if something, then what is your definition of "large"? Finally, what do you mean by "start"? How much further are you going to go?
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  Lmao you just juxtaposed fixing inequality with “fixing inequality”. A totally opaque statement which is presumably only meant to be a wink and a nod to fellow political travellers if they happen to be in the same room so that they can agree with you. Or else (if they are not) just a totally deniable statement. But now I’m supposed to detail my armchair tax plan/redistribution plan when I started out being a thousand times more specific than you? Sure, seems fair. And then when I answer all of those inquisitive questions, then what? Maybe bring up how taxation is inherently violent? (Well, I have no idea what your politics are like since you are all about expressing them through “air quotes”). But sure. More concretely I think that specifically SC software engineers who work for data harvesting companies should be taxed pretty heavily. I also think that anyone with an IQ over 115 should get mandatory, shall we say, night courses on socialist/government theory and praxis. And anyone with an IQ above 125 should have to submit their big brains to 100 hours/yearly government-mandated Extracurricular Activities so that those big brains can do something good (less time for SSC (old name) and HN). Like making better government IT infrastructure so that there is less need for bureaucratic overhead (some EU countries have much better government IT which helps to streamline all kinds of services aimed at citizens). Is that specific enough for you?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Feel free to stop trying to guess my intentions (you're lousy at it). You're also breaking the site guidelines about charitable assumptions of others. If you actually found my statement opaque, I shall try to me more clear. It's really easy for politicians to pass something, call it "fixing inequality", and completely ignore that it doesn't actually do anything to fix inequality. If you care about inequality, you don't want something labeled "fixing inequality"; you want something that actually does something about inequality. For the rest of my point, see Paul Graham's essay Economic Inequality (http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html). He argues that attempting to fix inequality may reduce the creation of new, high-growth companies. That probably isn't the "fix" that we want - it will prevent the creation of a large number of new jobs, for one thing. I'll ignore the personal attack parts of your second paragraph. Your third paragraph is far enough out there for me to say that, if you're actually serious, I will oppose you as strenuously as I can.
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      Figures.

You’re speaking in code. Something more concrete and non-code: Americans could start by redistributing some of the money belonging to people who earn 100K or more a year.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

There is a saying that "peace should not be the peace of a graveyard" - that is, it should not be made by killing everyone who disagrees with you. In the same way, we should not "fix inequality" by making everyone poor. That was the point of my post. You made a more concrete proposal than many ever do - "100K or more". But you're still partly speaking in code. Now, define "redistributing". Redistributing to who? To those making below 100K? Below 60K? Below 30K? And, how much is going to be lost in bureaucratic overhead? There's very little demand for taking money from those making 100K and using it to hire more bureaucrats making 150K. Next, define "some". How much are you going to take from someone making 100K? 200K? 1 million? 10 million? What are you going to do about those who make very little, but have large assets? Nothing, or something? And if something, then what is your definition of "large"? Finally, what do you mean by "start"? How much further are you going to go?

avgcorrection 4y ago
Lmao you just juxtaposed fixing inequality with “fixing inequality”. A totally opaque statement which is presumably only meant to be a wink and a nod to fellow political travellers if they happen to be in the same room so that they can agree with you. Or else (if they are not) just a totally deniable statement. But now I’m supposed to detail my armchair tax plan/redistribution plan when I started out being a thousand times more specific than you? Sure, seems fair. And then when I answer all of those inquisitive questions, then what? Maybe bring up how taxation is inherently violent? (Well, I have no idea what your politics are like since you are all about expressing them through “air quotes”). But sure. More concretely I think that specifically SC software engineers who work for data harvesting companies should be taxed pretty heavily. I also think that anyone with an IQ over 115 should get mandatory, shall we say, night courses on socialist/government theory and praxis. And anyone with an IQ above 125 should have to submit their big brains to 100 hours/yearly government-mandated Extracurricular Activities so that those big brains can do something good (less time for SSC (old name) and HN). Like making better government IT infrastructure so that there is less need for bureaucratic overhead (some EU countries have much better government IT which helps to streamline all kinds of services aimed at citizens). Is that specific enough for you?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Feel free to stop trying to guess my intentions (you're lousy at it). You're also breaking the site guidelines about charitable assumptions of others. If you actually found my statement opaque, I shall try to me more clear. It's really easy for politicians to pass something, call it "fixing inequality", and completely ignore that it doesn't actually do anything to fix inequality. If you care about inequality, you don't want something labeled "fixing inequality"; you want something that actually does something about inequality. For the rest of my point, see Paul Graham's essay Economic Inequality (http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html). He argues that attempting to fix inequality may reduce the creation of new, high-growth companies. That probably isn't the "fix" that we want - it will prevent the creation of a large number of new jobs, for one thing. I'll ignore the personal attack parts of your second paragraph. Your third paragraph is far enough out there for me to say that, if you're actually serious, I will oppose you as strenuously as I can.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    Figures.