3 ms·

>A very simple distribution solution therefore is to stop privileging capital gains and tax all income equally. An even more simpler solution would be to take

>A very simple distribution solution therefore is to stop privileging capital gains and tax all income equally. An even more simpler solution would be to take away the all wealth of rich people and divide it among all people. The calculations would be a lot easier. Taxes are complicated.

perfecthjrjth 4y ago
Of course, when you become a dictator, you can do that. When will that happen?
- dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
  >When will that happen? April 17, 2028.
theamk 4y ago
Someone tried this, it was called "USSR" (a.k.a. Soviet Union)! They started by nationalizing all businesses, and had all sort of interesting laws, like jail time for people without "real" jobs (to prevent people living off passive income). Or jail time for people who were trying to get rich by selling stuff for too high of a price. Look it up, pretty interesting story. They did have to build a strong border protection force to prevent people from trying to escape the country, but the country still lasted 69 years.
- wlecometo 4y ago
  while i agree that "taking away the all wealth of rich people and divide it among all people" is simply unrealistic, wrong and unpractical, i do believe we could ask the wealthier more "effort" than the actual one, without having to recreate a "ussr 2.0" or worst go again for that awful original "experience".
astrange 4y ago
It wouldn’t exist anymore then. Bezos is wealthy because Amazon investors want to give him money; they don’t want to give you money, so if you had the Amazon shares they simply wouldn’t be worth anything.
dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
Had 2 people fall for this already, fellow HNers, my above statement was said in sarcasm. Of course there are people here who are stupid enough to suggest it for real.
- wholinator2 4y ago
  You should be aware then that HN is a place for sincere and kind discussion. If you're going to speak sarcasm you must mark it, that's how it goes here. You shouldn't come here calling people stupid because you're not following proper social etiquette. In case you aren't aware, placing a \s at the end of your comment is enough to properly denote sarcasm. Communicating intentions is very important and I think you'd be surprised who might say what you said genuinely. A healthy and kind discussion has no place for denigrating those who take you at your word or for trolling people into "falling for it". This place trusts you to properly communicate your ideas.
  - dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
    If you are the admin/owner of HN I'll buy your argument. I'll even go away. If you are not, bugger off. Calling out stupidity is important. In your 'kind' world, every idiot will have his say to the detriment of everyone else. I mean what a surreal and disturbing thread - people calling for the robbing the rich, via taxes. Robbing is what thugs do, not thoughful, 'kind' people.

perfecthjrjth 4y ago

Of course, when you become a dictator, you can do that. When will that happen?

dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
>When will that happen? April 17, 2028.

theamk 4y ago

Someone tried this, it was called "USSR" (a.k.a. Soviet Union)! They started by nationalizing all businesses, and had all sort of interesting laws, like jail time for people without "real" jobs (to prevent people living off passive income). Or jail time for people who were trying to get rich by selling stuff for too high of a price. Look it up, pretty interesting story. They did have to build a strong border protection force to prevent people from trying to escape the country, but the country still lasted 69 years.

wlecometo 4y ago
while i agree that "taking away the all wealth of rich people and divide it among all people" is simply unrealistic, wrong and unpractical, i do believe we could ask the wealthier more "effort" than the actual one, without having to recreate a "ussr 2.0" or worst go again for that awful original "experience".

astrange 4y ago

It wouldn’t exist anymore then. Bezos is wealthy because Amazon investors want to give him money; they don’t want to give you money, so if you had the Amazon shares they simply wouldn’t be worth anything.

dennis_jeeves1 4y ago

Had 2 people fall for this already, fellow HNers, my above statement was said in sarcasm. Of course there are people here who are stupid enough to suggest it for real.

wholinator2 4y ago
You should be aware then that HN is a place for sincere and kind discussion. If you're going to speak sarcasm you must mark it, that's how it goes here. You shouldn't come here calling people stupid because you're not following proper social etiquette. In case you aren't aware, placing a \s at the end of your comment is enough to properly denote sarcasm. Communicating intentions is very important and I think you'd be surprised who might say what you said genuinely. A healthy and kind discussion has no place for denigrating those who take you at your word or for trolling people into "falling for it". This place trusts you to properly communicate your ideas.
- dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
  If you are the admin/owner of HN I'll buy your argument. I'll even go away. If you are not, bugger off. Calling out stupidity is important. In your 'kind' world, every idiot will have his say to the detriment of everyone else. I mean what a surreal and disturbing thread - people calling for the robbing the rich, via taxes. Robbing is what thugs do, not thoughful, 'kind' people.