Billionaires took enough money in '17 to end extreme poverty

[Torrocca]

Supply-side Robin Hood, Supply-side Jesus's English cousin.

Supply-side Robin Hood: Here you go, I stole this money from all the poor.
Billionaire: Just what I needed to buy another yacht and hide my monies offshore!

Debtcollectors_irl

[Conserative Morality]

Here’s the thing. There is no obligation whatsoever to give your wealth to a group or join said group because their actions have benefited you. You could argue that one should at least give their thanks and you’d have a point there. However, this does not change the fact that, aside from taxes, an individual has a right to their personal wealth. Whether or not people do things that make acquiring that wealth easier. Especially if those actions were done with the expressed intent on making workers wealthier. The freedom of choice is essential here as a matter of principle.

Again, I'm not saying we should make industries closed shops, where workers are forced to join and pay dues. I'm just saying that individual contractors outside of a union certainly benefit from them, making them free riders. I'm not saying "Take their money" or "Force them to join" or anything like that. I'm just saying that "I made all this money myself and unions are just jealous =^^^^)" is the worst kind of foolishness.

[Conserative Morality]

We could just not fuck anyone and not take their stuff. Is that an option? I feel like it should be an option.

There's a measure of coercion in every functioning system. We can only try to find the one that fucks the least amount of people in the gentlest way possible.

[Hakons]

Frankly, I'm confused. A good chunk of this thread seems irate that rich people are rich and that poor people are poor, and when others come to the conclusion of "well, you must want wealth confiscation and redistribution", it's met with "no I never said that". Okay, sure, you never said that. So what are you saying should be done, then?

I'm fine with income redistribution, but only through reasonable progressive tax rates, reasonable corporate tax rates, reasonable estate taxes, ect... I'm definitely not a socialist/communist, just itching to overthrow the economic hierarchy, but I would like to limit or reverse the trend of the widening income gaps. I also think the very wealthy should be correspondingly very charitable, but I would never force them to.

[Ors Might]

Here’s the thing. There is no obligation whatsoever to give your wealth to a group or join said group because their actions have benefited you. You could argue that one should at least give their thanks and you’d have a point there. However, this does not change the fact that, aside from taxes, an individual has a right to their personal wealth. Whether or not people do things that make acquiring that wealth easier. Especially if those actions were done with the expressed intent on making workers wealthier. The freedom of choice is essential here as a matter of principle.

Again, I'm not saying we should make industries closed shops, where workers are forced to join and pay dues. I'm just saying that individual contractors outside of a union certainly benefit from them, making them free riders. I'm not saying "Take their money" or "Force them to join" or anything like that. I'm just saying that "I made all this money myself and unions are just jealous =^^^^)" is the worst kind of foolishness.

In that case I see your point. However, I would add that giving credit solely to unions for an individual worker’s wages where personal negotiation is a thing might be the result of personal bias.

[Outer Sparta]

Frankly, I'm confused. A good chunk of this thread seems irate that rich people are rich and that poor people are poor, and when others come to the conclusion of "well, you must want wealth confiscation and redistribution", it's met with "no I never said that". Okay, sure, you never said that. So what are you saying should be done, then?

I'm fine with income redistribution, but only through reasonable progressive tax rates, reasonable corporate tax rates, reasonable estate taxes, ect... I'm definitely not a socialist/communist, just itching to overthrow the economic hierarchy, but I would like to limit or reverse the trend of the widening income gaps. I also think the very wealthy should be correspondingly very charitable, but I would never force them to.

Basically, don't be like Kansas which does the opposite of those things.

[Conserative Morality]

In that case I see your point. However, I would add that giving credit solely to unions for an individual worker’s wages where personal negotiation is a thing might be the result of personal bias.

Not saying that higher wages are solely the union's domain, only that they are a very significant contributor to them.

[Ors Might]

We could just not fuck anyone and not take their stuff. Is that an option? I feel like it should be an option.

There's a measure of coercion in every functioning system. We can only try to find the one that fucks the least amount of people in the gentlest way possible.

True but ideally one should look towards non fuck overing solutions instead of settling almost immediately. Either that or everyone can get a good fuck, although in that situation the metaphors might have gotten a bit out of hand.

[Hakons]

I'm fine with income redistribution, but only through reasonable progressive tax rates, reasonable corporate tax rates, reasonable estate taxes, ect... I'm definitely not a socialist/communist, just itching to overthrow the economic hierarchy, but I would like to limit or reverse the trend of the widening income gaps. I also think the very wealthy should be correspondingly very charitable, but I would never force them to.

Basically, don't be like Kansas which does the opposite of those things.

I'll be like Indiana, which does things with the same ideology as Kansas, but actually makes it a workable system.

[Ors Might]

In that case I see your point. However, I would add that giving credit solely to unions for an individual worker’s wages where personal negotiation is a thing might be the result of personal bias.

Not saying that higher wages are solely the union's domain, only that they are a very significant contributor to them.

Ah. Then we don’t disagree. I misunderstood your original post’s snark as supporting an arguement you apparently did not make. I apologize.

[Conserative Morality]

Not saying that higher wages are solely the union's domain, only that they are a very significant contributor to them.

Ah. Then we don’t disagree. I misunderstood your original post’s snark as supporting an arguement you apparently did not make. I apologize.

np, misunderstandings are a NSG tradition.

[Outer Sparta]

Basically, don't be like Kansas which does the opposite of those things.

I'll be like Indiana, which does things with the same ideology as Kansas, but actually makes it a workable system.

I prefer something along the lines of a Nordic Model, although American viewpoints on taxation are way different than their other western counterparts. We generally view high taxation as theft while other countries view high taxation more positively because they have access to many services.

[Des-Bal]

So there's a poor African farmer as described by the OP. He produces vegetables at a level slightly above pure subsistence. How much money should he get and why?

[Oil exporting People]

So there's a poor African farmer as described by the OP. He produces vegetables at a level slightly above pure subsistence. How much money should he get and why?

The market gets to dictate that, based on supply and demand.

[Senkaku]

So there's a poor African farmer as described by the OP. He produces vegetables at a level slightly above pure subsistence. How much money should he get and why?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Neat

[Washington Resistance Army]

We need to Share Our Wealth.

[Donut section]

Seriously it's great.

"Fuck the poor, I have money!" Your silly little statement in a shellnut.

Back from buying a car.

You made a straw man first. I was just responding.

[Empire of Narnia]

Imagine what the US could do if they seized the assets of the rich.

[Des-Bal]

Imagine what the US could do if they seized the assets of the rich.

Kill it's enemies and persecute the outgroup of the day.

The market gets to dictate that, based on supply and demand.

And so the system goes.

[Kenmoria]

Imagine what the US could do if they seized the assets of the rich.

Become a state which has no regard for personal property; even if they did not earn there wealth in a way more righteous than a poor subsistence farmer, they still earned it.

[Hirota]

Is there any reason to believe the methodology for this Oxfam study is any more relevant than the one last year,or better than the one in 2016?

I mean this seems to be little more than the annual pearl clutching and wailing the Something Must Be Done without actually putting forward a sensible solution.

[Des-Bal]

Become a state which has no regard for personal property; even if they did not earn there wealth in a way more righteous than a poor subsistence farmer, they still earned it.

I'm perplexed by this idea of "righteous" earning of wealth. An investor who does nothing but trade money for money fuels business and innovation that can effect millions of people. A subsistence farmer might get his hands dirtier figuratively and literally but the nature of subsistence farming is that he never really effects another person. His goes to feeding himself, only he benefits from that labor. Why is that somehow more worthy of praise?

[Risottia]

Thoughts on this amazing triumph of capitalism and the Free Market?

If I looked at my reflection in an empty dish, I'd side with the rifle.

[Risottia]

So there's a poor African farmer as described by the OP. He produces vegetables at a level slightly above pure subsistence. How much money should he get and why?

The market gets to dictate that, based on supply and demand.

Because the market is an entity with a brain and a mind.