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: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:02PM (43 children)
I have to agree with Carlin on something here: the "euphemism treadmill." It is time for the center (i.e., what passes for "the left" in the US) to stop using the phrase "income inequality" when 1) it doesn't actually match the problem (everyone does not need to have precisely equal income to be happy) and 2) it *papers over* the problem--that, last I read, one in seven Americans are on food assistance and one in five children misses meals semi-regularly or worse.
It's time we who actually want to change this start using plain, unvarnished language. "Income inequality" is technically correct, which as Any Fule Noe is the best kind, but not useful. "One in seven Americans can't afford food" drives the message home a lot harder. Why the "left" (center) insists on playing this cutesie-poo game of footsie with words I will never understand; it smacks of Republican dishonesty.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:52PM (36 children)
But you can feed people.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 28 2020, @12:01AM (9 children)
Hey, dipshit, the rich *remove money from circulation.*
Our money is both fiat and floating; it's the dream of an illusion of value. It's the virtual-particle theory of money, only having value based on its own velocity. Squirreling fiat money away effectively removes it from the economy. For all your supposed economic expertise, you ought to fuckin' well understand that. That you do not, or will not as I'm *sure* I've pointed this out to you before, is a strong piece of evidence that you do not argue in good faith on economic issues.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @12:12AM (7 children)
Because if they are investing money, fiat or otherwise, they're not removing it from circulation.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:41AM (6 children)
Offshore accounts, and phony 501(c)(3)s to evade taxes. Yes, I said "evade". That is what they are doing. And they make lots of money via loan sharking. They are cheats. It is impossible to accumulate that much without cheating.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:57AM (5 children)
Whatever. Once again, you flaunt your ignorance of things economic. I suppose one could read histories of people who actually got rich to see how they did it, cheating or not. But I doubt that'd make it through your reality filters.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:06AM (2 children)
Yes, sir, Mr. Banker boi!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:28AM (1 child)
Reduced to name calling in only two posts. Must be a rough day for you. Hope you get better.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:58AM
Why not? You're just repeating yourself
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:27AM (1 child)
What is there left to do with trolls who try and sell lies?
Here is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty and avoidance of simple facts.
Your problem here is that you honest-to-god seem to believe that the Titans of Industry made their fortunes through simple hard work and know how. Same as it ever was, the pyramid scheme at work. The select few able to claim credit by "owning" everything and everyone that works to make visions a reality.
There is value in entrepreneurship and it should be encouraged, but there are limits that must be set by government regulation.
Greedy assholes keep trying to ruin it for everyone.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @04:47AM
Why is that allegedly so? I remain unimpressed with unsubstantiated claims. What intellectual dishonesty was shown? What simple facts were avoided?
Ok. So sounds like you think there's something to that even though you insinuate otherwise in the earlier paragraph. Fustakrakich claimed every rich person "cheats" not just some. I'm very tired of those dumbass claims he repeatedly makes.
And there are limits set by government regulation already. I'm not proposing we go wild west and drop it all.
So what? I think we've figured out how to deal with them, though I grant moreso in the private world than in the regulatory world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:51AM
> Hey, dipshit, the rich *remove money from circulation.*
Not unless they keep it under their mattress.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:25PM (25 children)
I applaud someone who builds up a business and can enjoy a higher standard of living because of their diligent work. I applaud others who make a fortune and then create more businesses in an effort to fix everyone's problems (Elon Musk, Tesla, Solar City, Starlink SpaceX) Especially if they do this to the point of literally risking it all, putting all of it on the line, possibly to lose it all.
Maybe if poor people weren't quite so poor, they wouldn't max out credit cards.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:52PM (22 children)
There's only so much you can do to fix behavioral problems. Taking from others doesn't even start to fix those problems.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:36PM (21 children)
There are some poor people who cannot be helped.
But there are others who can be helped. People who want to work. Would make good use of genuine opportunities.
Don't let the poorly behaved people stop you from trying to help other poor people. Don't use them as an excuse not to support policies that could help a lot of people, and wouldn't really hurt the obscenely wealthy people. There will always be people who try to game the system.
What we're really dancing around here is taxes on the wealthiest, who wouldn't even miss those tax costs (other than that they would be upset about the numbers on paper because of their greed).
Should we have taxes at all? If so, why shouldn't the wealthiest pay more than the poorest? Why should they pay less taxes than a minimum wage slave makes in a month?
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @04:11PM (20 children)
And already can and do in the present environment. You're arguing that the new scheme would be better than the old. But you'll have to abandon phantom metrics like wealth inequality. That doesn't measure anything worthwhile here.
Those tax costs also take away from employing people and investments. Economies aren't zero sum, but taxes are.
They already do.
What do we really need to fix here? Most of your expressed concerns are already addressed.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @04:35PM (17 children)
Nothing is addressed. Just a lot of dancing around. Justifications. Rationalizations.
We have obscenely wealthy people who could never spend their wealth in one lifetime, nor could their heirs.
We have poor people who wish they had more opportunity spending all their energy to barely survive, or even unable to make it.
(and yes there are always some freeloaders)
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @06:03PM (16 children)
Why is spending obscene wealth in a human lifetime supposed to be a worthy goal?
So what? They generally have enough opportunity already.
That's like saying there's always some ants or bacteria. There's a vast number of freeloaders out there. And if they can, they'll take down anyone who gets ahead. For a common example, a large portion of lottery winners end in bankruptcy because they didn't say no [soylentnews.org] often enough to their friends and family.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:22PM (15 children)
The question misses my point. If you can't spend it all, then it is quite a vast excess. That excess may be "rented out" to the poor people, in return for a gain for the wealthy.
If that were the case, then what I said "spending all their energy to barely survive" would not be the case. Opportunity would enable them to do more than just barely survive.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:02PM (14 children)
My take is that they're wealthy in large part because they don't share your viewpoint, seeing wealth only as something to be spent.
Indeed. I think that is the case for most of the people you are referring to.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:30PM (13 children)
I see wealth is the fact that some people have everything and much more than they need, and much more that they cannot use. While others struggle. That is the point. Everything else is to distract from that.
I don't know what you are trying to say about people who are poor. Have trouble paying their rent. Maybe work more than one job. Yet somehow have opportunity to better themselves.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:00PM (11 children)
Duh, he's saying "fuck them." Stop being polite and civil with Hallow; he's shown over and over again that he worships Mammon and is perfectly find with vast human sacrifice to his gold-plated idol. People like that are never going to change, at least not until they suffer the logical consequences of their own sociopathic beliefs.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @01:09PM (10 children)
I'm already suffering the logical consequences of my beliefs, and well, turns out it just wasn't bad. Better luck next time, right?
This thread exists in the first place because both DannyB and you are ignoring the self-inflicted behaviors that make people permanently poor. So we take away some rich person's wealth, sell it back to rich people for a fraction of what we originally valued it at, and then take the reminder to poor people who instantly spend it and stay poor. Meanwhile because those rich people now have less wealth (if only because a portion of that wealth is going on this Rube Goldberg ride rather than doing any good for anyone), there are less people employed and a bit more problems as a result. It's a pointless exercise.
And you're continued ranting about "never going to change" indicates to me that you don't have answers to fixing these people either. Else you would have tried fixing me.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday October 30 2020, @02:15PM (1 child)
Some people are poor because of bad and stupid choices. Others through no fault of their own. It is truly sad that you cannot see this. Clearly all poor people must be bad people.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @10:17PM
I grant that distinction. I even grant that the presence of bad and stupid choices doesn't imply that someone will always make those bad and stupid choices.
I don't grant that taking money from the rich to poor, just because, somehow fixes that. First, when the tools are in place for wealth transfer, the state is much better at reverse robin hood - taking from the poor and giving to the rich. It's easier since the poor don't have elaborate defenses against taxation and the kickbacks are better.
Second, the wealth taken was being used to generate more wealth and to employ lots of people: investment, wages, etc. For example, the present richest person in the world [wikipedia.org](excluding state actors like King Saud) is Jeff Bezos who has a networth valued in the recent past at $113 billion. Most of that wealth comes from Amazon which presently employs a million employees. So Bezos not only has wealth that is three orders of magnitude above the mentioned $100 million cap, but employs a million people in the process.
That's the huge fallacy with only looking at wealth as something to spend. Here, it also employs vast numbers of people and creates a huge amount of infrastructure that hundreds of millions of people use every day. Given that wealth to someone who doesn't employ people and create infrastructure, means you are likely to get less of both.
The third point is that a majority of the poor are behaviorally poor which is the problem we're discussing here. Give them money even on a permanent, continuing basis, they will burn through it, and remain just as poor as before, possibly with more serious problems than before (such as higher recreational drug consumption or higher debt).
Now, if you can combine that wealth transfer with some way to effectively improve the recipients so that they permanently stay out of the poverty trap, that would something worth considering. But I have yet to hear anything like that in this thread.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 30 2020, @09:30PM (7 children)
No, you are not, because your policies (thank Goddess!) have *not* been implemented at the national level. A bunch of them might be fairly soon though; you gibbertarian assholes might just be about to get exactly what you *think* you want, and part of the reason I want to get across the Canadian border is to have a stable vantage point from which to point and laugh at you.
Don't you sell hotdogs at Yellowstone or something? You can kiss that job goodbye if the current trends in removing parks protections continue. And aren't you not all that far off from retirement, maybe 10-12 years? You're proper fucked without Social Security, Medicare, and all that other socialist commie pinko gubbamint over-reach.
Personally, I hope you *do* get everything you think you want. Good and hard. With a spike on the end and covered in minced habanero peppers. Spending your twilight years under a bridge begging for food may just be the hands-on lesson you need to get wise about the way the economy works.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @10:37PM (6 children)
The only policies I have advocated here are for individuals to save money and to not transfer wealth from people who employ people and create valuable infrastructure to people who merely spend money.
Why would my job go away? Libertarians don't do tourism? I'm properly fucked with Social Security, Medicare, and other socialist commie pink gubbamint over-reach. For example, I'm already expecting to work deeply into my would-be retirement and not expecting much to come of those programs precisely because I think the wheels will come off of them by then, with or without my help, due to the terrible design and economic fundamentals of these programs. And that self-destruction will cause follow-on damage to basic government services like emergency services, defense, roads, etc.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 30 2020, @11:48PM (5 children)
All the more reason, Mr. Hallow, to support policies common to the Nordic nations.
If those were your real concerns, you would be all on board with strong, sustainable social safety nets. The fact that you're not, even when you know and acknowledge that it's your ass in the fire as well as everyone else's, tells me your motivation isn't actually fiscal responsibility any more than the average "pro-lifer's" motivation is actually stopping abortion, simpliciter.
You want people you deem unworthy to suffer, and are willing to put up with myriad and sundry stupidities, waste, and needless harm, even to yourself, to make sure that this is what happens. You're so full of shit I could use you to blow up Beirut AGAIN just by dropping you off a plane with a small C4 charge up your ass.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 31 2020, @01:16AM (4 children)
And if those were your real concerns, you'd have said something about our governments' spending more than they receive. "Sustainable" is an important word here.
You behave like you have a solution that results in less suffering. My take is that you've already gotten a large part of what you thought you wanted. And it has resulted in more rather than less suffering.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday October 31 2020, @02:27PM (3 children)
Good grief, what? I haven't gotten anything CLOSE to what I wanted over my entire lifetime aside from the marriage equality ruling. Damn near everything else--remember, I was born in 1988!--has been an accelerating plunge into a right-wing political hellscape. What the fuck was that? Was that some kind of failed attempt at a "no U!"
And don't fucking pretend to be concerned about deficit now of all times. Trump has run up a gigantic deficit, mostly with his corrupt tax breaks for the already ultra-wealthy. You don't give a shit about the deficit unless it's people you disagree with in charge, just like every other Republican asshole out there. And yes, I count Obama and Clinton (both of them!) as Republicans, I don't give a damn if they have a (D) after their names, their policies are Republican through and through,
If you want to do something about the deficit, let's do what the last Republican with a shred of honor or competence, that being Dwight Eisenhower, did with the tax brackets :) THAT is how you Make America Great Again (TM).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 31 2020, @04:02PM (2 children)
Unintended consequences are a bitch, amirite?
As you said earlier, "Good and hard."
Since I'm concerned about the deficit now (not pretending, you fucking idiot), I guess that means Trump is someone in charge I don't agree with, huh? News flash Buttercup, I never did.
I can't help but note that there's been only one year since when the US came close to no budget deficit in the 1999-2000 fiscal year. We know how this will play out, if we allow the government to take more. They'll just spend more.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday October 31 2020, @06:00PM (1 child)
You know how some people are calling you a dogmatic, unthinking asshole? Stuff like this is why.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday October 31 2020, @07:41PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @12:54PM
Sure, that's what you've been saying all along. Like wealth is just some sort of ballast that we should move from person to person.
Indeed. But it goes beyond that. A bunch of the poor had this opportunity to better themselves for years, sometimes many decades. And choose not to. At this point, giving them money is throwing good money after bad. Rich people on the other hand have already figured out how to turn wealth into more wealth for other people. They employ vast numbers of people and manage businesses that deliver a vast amount of value to society at large. That's where that wealth that the rich people "don't need" goes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @07:55PM (1 child)
If you compare unemployment against corporate tax rates [procon.org], it's clear that your statement is either completely uninformed or a bald-faced lie.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @09:53PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @06:08PM
> I applaud others who make a fortune and then create more businesses in an effort to fix everyone's problems (Elon Musk, ...
Mixed message in this one, Yes, PayPal made Musk a fortune. The new businesses he has started are all heavily funded by taxpayers in a number of different creative ways. The Tesla solar cell/solar roof plant near me was built by NY State, including buying much of the machinery (not one of the state's best economic development moves...)
I've tried thinking of other moguls who might be a better fit for your message, but I'm coming up blank in our current era.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:44AM
You have cause and effect backwards there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:57PM (3 children)
I'm pretty center and I tend to stick with old fashioned terms like poverty and unemployment (for all it's flaws).
"Income inequality" sounds like some newfangled Progressive term to me!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:15AM (1 child)
> "Income inequality" sounds like some newfangled Progressive term to me!
The term betrays the intent. There's a big difference between supporting kleptocractic executives and thinking an engineer working 50 hour weeks should earn more than a janitor working 35. Like the other phrase "wealth inequality" ignores that (on average) low to middle income people inherit more of their wealth than the rich.
I and many other others already know the outcome for UBI and / or the $15 minimum wage because we pay attention. [youtube.com] Are you ready? [twitter.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:59AM
Initially I thought you were a right wing troll, and I nearly modded you as such, but after watching that youtube link I realize that your post just reads badly. Maybe you should consider your words a little more when posting. Anyway, have an interesting.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 30 2020, @02:55AM
It's greed with a funny hat on. There's no other source of argument to say inequality is a bad thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:35AM
Why the "left" (center) insists on playing this cutesie-poo game of footsie with words I will never understand; it smacks of Republican dishonesty.
Democrats... They're not really liberal, and they are not in opposition. They just want people to believe they are, to fill the collection plate, but they aren't Simple as that...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:27PM
I like super old fashioned terms like rich and poor.
Of extravagantly obscenely rich and cold starving homeless poor.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.