SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If you bring up UBI, or other reforms, you'll inevitably get someone who brings up: "voting yourself someone else's money".
You could convince me, except that things have gotten to an absurd state.
I look at some graphs of wealth inequality and it is unimaginably shocking. I never dreamed it could be this bad. More than 50% of the US wealth is owned by 5% of the people. [1] 35% is owned by only 1% of the population.
This image from this article also tells the story.
I'm not going to argue how accurate those numbers are. Rather, I will extrapolate the trend.
Let's continue the current trend to its logical absurd conclusion. The entire planet is owned by one single person. You (and everyone else) are one of the wage slaves in the bottom 99.99999999 % of the population (at least 8 decimal places). [7.5 billion people, minus that one person who owns everything, then divided by 7.5 billion people.]
Naturally, we should respect property ownership. Somehow this one person deserves and "earned" the wealth of the entire planet through his hard and diligent efforts and deserves to own everything and everyone. It is absurd on its face.
At this logical endpoint, it clearly seems that the rest of the planet should seize the wealth of the one person.
Wealth transfer has already happened. And is still happening. Republicans are just fine with this as long as it is all trickling upward.
Yes, "voting yourself someone else's money" involves taking away some of the absurd amounts of wealth hoarded up by a few. Amounts of individual wealth that one person couldn't spend in a lifetime; then leaves to others, who themselves can't spend it in their lifetime.
Not as a proposal, but just to make a point, hypothetically, if all of these people who exceed this threshold had their net worth capped at $100 Million, they would still be just fine. Yes, really! They would still live in fabulous homes, drive fabulous cars, and eat whatever they wanted, travel wherever and whenever they wanted -- for the rest of their natural lives.
In case my "one man owns the world" didn't get the idea across, I'll be more blunt. Any time too few people have owned way, way too much, and too many had nothing, there is always an uprising. I'm not proposing an uprising. I'm merely warning it is inevitable. Hopefully not in my lifetime. Maybe it would be better to solve this peacefully where the wealthiest, while heavily taxed, still end up, after taxes, fabulously wealthy beyond the dreams of most everyone else. I'm not proposing reducing all the rich people's wealth to some cap. Just that they should pay their fair share. Why are they the ones who get the tax cuts?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday October 31 2020, @02:31PM
Way to miss the point, shitbird.
Let me spell this out for you: it costs less to perform preventive maintenance measures for things like healthcare, housing, safe water (hello, Flint!) and nutrition. We, as a nation, pay MORE to deal with the aftermath of neglecting these things than we would if we just fucking fixed them up front.
You *claim* to care about fiscal responsibility. If you did, you would be on board with this. You do not, which means your true motivation is some combination of 1) "fuck you, got mine (and don't tell me about HOW I got mine, fuck you, I don't care)" and 2) "I choose to pay more so that people I deem unworthy suffer more."
Why do you think everyone and their grandmother's dog can't see this? You're not clever, you're not smart, you're not sneaky, and you're not a skilled enough rhetorician to hide any of that. It's one of the oldest cliches in the book. I can't help it if you're a defective attempt at a human being whose physical wiring makes him incapable of interacting with other humans and living in a normal society.