4 ms·
Yes, it is reasonable for some people not to have to work for survival. A person can earn non-work through age (retirement), vulnerability (disabled, children)
by saulpw 8mo ago
Yes, it is reasonable for some people not to have to work for survival. A person can earn non-work through age (retirement), vulnerability (disabled, children), lottery, or contribution. We want neither pure communism nor pure capitalism.
(I've seen other comments from you on here, you know you're being an unreasonable edgelord.)
- renewiltord 8mo agoI think it’s quite clear you want to place the limit at the the limit of your own achievable targets. Which sure, I’m on board with no taxes on people with the name Rene. Very self serving but not too different from yours.
- saulpw 8mo agoI think you're wrong, it's quite clear that there are objective levels of wealth that are positive for people to aspire to, and levels of wealth that are beyond what any one person should be able to control. You can strawman all you like but it's just bad faith arguing at this point.
- renewiltord 8mo agoYes, it just so happens that all these levels happen to be perfectly calibrated to one's own life. The Blub Paradox reigns supreme.