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: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:13AM (3 children)
The poor are poor because of the terrible choices they make with their money.
Such as burning dollar bills in the form of cigarettes or flushing coins in the form of plural Colt-45's a night.
But the problem with liberals is they can't see that the problems are because of the choices people make. They always have to shift the blame to someone/somewhere else, i.e., to a bogey man, in order to avoid having to accept that the problems are self inflicted.
Liberals have no concept of "personal responsibility". Any problem anyone has, in the liberal mind, has to have a bogey man somewhere that is causing it.
Your response illuminates this liberal mindset so well.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:20AM (2 children)
This would be a poor, bad-faith argument if you weren't trolling. It's an even worse troll. I don't know what kind of reaction you were expecting, but this is such a simplified, shortsighted approach that I can't even be annoyed with you for posting it. Incidentally, this mindset is one reason I've resolutely remained free of all vices (except caffeine, but the world runs on coffee...).
Generally people drink or smoke to soothe some sort of pain. Fixing the root cause will do a lot to stem the tide of addictions. You, of course, don't give a shit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:13PM (1 child)
Translation, they are mentally deficient and unable to handle the truth.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 28 2020, @08:26PM
And are they any less human for it? Furthermore, were they more human before whatever happened to drive them to drink or drugs happened to them? If so, what specifically is it about trauma that dehumanizes a person?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...