Is Inequality Good? New concept says "Very much so"

[Murphys Island]

We could solve the whole problem by just getting rid of money.

[Northern Davincia]

We could solve the whole problem by just getting rid of money.

Bitcoin is the superior currency.

[East Lodge]

But then social status would be something else. Like skills to survive with or physical appearance to also survive. Essentially we would become primitive animals again.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

A great idea which I agree with 100%. Why isn't it an official ideology?

It is an official ideology. It's what most people call kleptocracy.

[Valrifell]

We could solve the whole problem by just getting rid of money.

Bitcoin is the superior currency.

But Bitcoin is money. Actually, it doesn't even behave like a real currency, it's closer to an investment.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Trickle-down focuses on net tax cutting though. The proposal's to transfer income directly from the poor to the rich.

The core idea is essentially the same, "if we enable or help the rich do whatever the fuck they want, eventually they'll help the poor. Right? Right?"

Not really. Trickle down economics doesn't involve paying tithes to the rich; it involves cutting taxes to promote economic growth, and while the rich will benefit from that, it hardly counts as the rich getting "whatever the fuck they want". They still have to work for the money they bring in, ether through investments or their official job positions

[Valrifell]

The core idea is essentially the same, "if we enable or help the rich do whatever the fuck they want, eventually they'll help the poor. Right? Right?"

Not really. Trickle down economics doesn't involve paying tithes to the rich; it involves cutting taxes to promote economic growth, and while the rich will benefit from that, it hardly counts as the rich getting "whatever the fuck they want". They still have to work for the money they bring in.

Both systems hope the wealth will somehow work it's way down, whether the wealth is "created" by the wealthy or given to them is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

[Internationalist Bastard]

All the bs of trickledown economics only made comedic

[The of Japan]

Not really. Trickle down economics doesn't involve paying tithes to the rich; it involves cutting taxes to promote economic growth, and while the rich will benefit from that, it hardly counts as the rich getting "whatever the fuck they want". They still have to work for the money they bring in.

Both systems hope the wealth will somehow work it's way down, whether the wealth is "created" by the wealthy or given to them is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Some of it does go down, its just a discussion on how much.

[Diarcesia]

My first thought of this is that it's the rich people telling others to "stay in your place and don't dare rise above your station".

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

We could solve the whole problem by just getting rid of money.

Capitalism destroyed by communist facts and logic.

[Great Minarchistan]

Trickle-down focuses on net tax cutting though. The proposal's to transfer income directly from the poor to the rich.

The core idea is essentially the same, "if we enable or help the rich do whatever the fuck they want, eventually they'll help the poor. Right? Right?"

Unsurprised at your conclusion since that's the natural byproduct of oversimplification of any set of ideas.

[Tahar Joblis]

The core idea is essentially the same, "if we enable or help the rich do whatever the fuck they want, eventually they'll help the poor. Right? Right?"

Not really. Trickle down economics doesn't involve paying tithes to the rich; it involves cutting taxes to promote economic growth, and while the rich will benefit from that, it hardly counts as the rich getting "whatever the fuck they want". They still have to work for the money they bring in, ether through investments or their official job positions

No.

A capitalist does not earn money by working. A capitalist earns money by having money.

If you literally just park a million dollars in an index fund and a million dollars in bonds, you will have a lifetime income that is higher and more secure than that of a typical (median) full-time worker on top of the original investment. Not even any "work" cleverly managing money, seeking out clever investment opportunities, et cetera, just basic conservative investment that a trained parrot could perform.

[US-SSR]

...assuming that the long-run trickle down rate of the income generated on the economy is 30%...

I'll tell you how to get a long-run 30 percent tricke-down, tax three-tenths of the assets of the wealthy and give it to the poor.

[Great Minarchistan]

...assuming that the long-run trickle down rate of the income generated on the economy is 30%...

I'll tell you how to get a long-run 30 percent tricke-down, tax three-tenths of the assets of the wealthy and give it to the poor.

You get two thirds of the figure on an unfavorable scenario [to a high ratio] so nah thanks.

[Torrocca]

The core idea is essentially the same, "if we enable or help the rich do whatever the fuck they want, eventually they'll help the poor. Right? Right?"

Unsurprised at your conclusion since that's the natural byproduct of oversimplification of any set of ideas.

Imagine being the only person here who can't see your own idea for what it actually is.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Doesnt need to be coercive, short term incentives to subsidize the rich would do the trick.

When talking to me earlier, you said something about incentives. What short term incentives would you offer to get people to pay?

[Great Minarchistan]

Unsurprised at your conclusion since that's the natural byproduct of oversimplification of any set of ideas.

Imagine being the only person here who can't see your own idea for what it actually is.

I'm sure you wouldn't say it if I were to use your own personal ideology as an example. But why care, after all anarchism is just unbridled capitalism!

[Torrocca]

Imagine being the only person here who can't see your own idea for what it actually is.

I'm sure you wouldn't say it if I were to use your own personal ideology as an example.

"Lol no u"

Not how it works, bucko. This is your thread, where you're specifically peddling your NeoFeudalist, trickle-down garbage as a legitimate concept. We get to criticize it all we want for the trash that it rightfully deserves to be called, because it's the only relevant topic of this thread. My ideology is irrelevant here. :3

[New haven america]

A Capitalist Libertarian making a tread about the goods of economic inequality.

Shocking.

[Darussalam]

...assuming that the long-run trickle down rate of the income generated on the economy is 30%...

I'll tell you how to get a long-run 30 percent tricke-down, tax three-tenths of the assets of the wealthy and give it to the poor.

Imagine having time preference this high.

[Zordennox]

Not really. Trickle down economics doesn't involve paying tithes to the rich; it involves cutting taxes to promote economic growth, and while the rich will benefit from that, it hardly counts as the rich getting "whatever the fuck they want". They still have to work for the money they bring in, ether through investments or their official job positions

No.

A capitalist does not earn money by working. A capitalist earns money by having money.

You're right, and that is a result of our society's focus on equality. In pre-capitalist society, money wasn't prioritized and most of it was in the hands of the aristocracy who made use of it by ruling. The bourgeoisie, however, destroyed the aristocracy and hoarded the money for their own interests. They got rid of the ruling class and replaced it with democracy. Money, democracy, and equality are all interconnected. Anyone can make a lot of money just by stock market involvement. This is the egalitarian factor in liberalism. Personally, I am opposed to liberalism and communism.

[Northern Davincia]

A Capitalist Libertarian making a tread about the goods of economic inequality.

Shocking.

I see it as a neutral thing.

[Byzconia]

The entire OP just reminds of the joke on social media, "See where this line meets this line on the graph? That's why the poor should starve."

In serious terms, this idea is entirely predicated on the premise that trickle down economics works--which it doesn't. Ever since the Reagan Revolution in the US, the rich have become vastly richer while standard of living for everyone else has stayed level or, in some areas, decreased. Cost of living has gradually increased while real wages have stayed completely stagnant. Supply-side economics is a joke clung to solely by ideologues and cranks.

[Petrolheadia]

...assuming that the long-run trickle down rate of the income generated on the economy is 30%...

I'll tell you how to get a long-run 30 percent tricke-down, tax three-tenths of the assets of the wealthy and give it to the poor.

Define the word "assets". It'd bring us a lot closer to the problems with your statement.