LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Dahyan]

Being a billionaire should definitely be illegal.

A 100% property/income tax for anyone worth over $1bil, basically seize their wealth, as a reset button. It'll be a fun sociological experiment, if hard work makes wealth than surely they can do it again.

*enacts 100% property and income tax on billionaires*

*Billionaires move all their liquid assets to Panama bank accounts*

surprised Pikachu face

I just love how people who defend capitalism always seem to forget that national laws are a thing whenever they make this point.

Just ban them from doing it. Yes, they will whine about "muh rights being violated", but then again the opinion of frankly immoral people matters very little.

[Cisairse]

So Jeff Bezos is set to become the first Trillionaire by the late 2020's/early 2030's.

Fun fact, he could give $1,000,000,000 to every American in the US (Equaling out to ~$325,000,000,000) and he'd still have $675,000,000,000 left over.

But apparently redistribution of wealth isn't a good idea because...?

I'm assuming that his networth isn't actually liquid so I highly doubt he could give $1,000,000,000 to every American. A bit of wealth distribution is definitely a good idea because consumption of basic necessities keeps the economy going and improves the standards of living of the people engaged in responsible consumption but we do need capital investment as well. It's about cutting a balance.

Investment doesn't require devolving into neofeudalism.

In fact, investment doesn't require capital.

[Rojava Free State]

*enacts 100% property and income tax on billionaires*

*Billionaires move all their liquid assets to Panama bank accounts*

surprised Pikachu face

I just love how people who defend capitalism always seem to forget that national laws are a thing whenever they make this point.

Just ban them from doing it. Yes, they will whine about "muh rights being violated", but then again the opinion of frankly immoral people matters very little.

As far as I'm concerned, when there are people living on the street, there is a national emergency, and the rich can afford to give up some of their money.

Seriously what is your argument against giving up money beyond "BUT IT'S MINE?" Let's say you have 60 billion dollars and I take 30 billion from you and give it to people living in skid row. You still have 30 billion, you're still rich and can survive. I could take 90% of Michael Bloomberg's money and he would still have more than enough money to not only survive, but thrive. Why should the rich not pay even one cent while there are people who don't have enough money to even rent an apartment?

[Rojava Free State]

So Jeff Bezos is set to become the first Trillionaire by the late 2020's/early 2030's.

Fun fact, he could give $1,000,000,000 to every American in the US (Equaling out to ~$325,000,000,000) and he'd still have $675,000,000,000 left over.

But apparently redistribution of wealth isn't a good idea because...?

I'm assuming that his networth isn't actually liquid so I highly doubt he could give $1,000,000,000 to every American. A bit of wealth distribution is definitely a good idea because consumption of basic necessities keeps the economy going and improves the standards of living of the people engaged in responsible consumption but we do need capital investment as well. It's about cutting a balance.

I'm not asking for too much. All I want is the rich to pay their fair share so people living in tent cities can be given an actual home.

[Cisairse]

Being a billionaire should definitely be illegal.

A 100% property/income tax for anyone worth over $1bil, basically seize their wealth, as a reset button. It'll be a fun sociological experiment, if hard work makes wealth than surely they can do it again.

An 100% property/income tax simply encourages off-shoring unless you reduce them to the status of serfs, which is morally repugnant. I have no objections to billionaires on principle but I'm critical of the tendency many affluent citizens have to shirk their social and communal obligations and to secede from society. But that's a pervasive problem among the upper middle-class and increasingly the middle-class as well. Citizens who do well because of the inheritance society has given to them should feel morally obligated to serve society and repay an unpayable debt accordingly. Our elites should act like elites in every respect. As we all should. I do think a 72% to 75% income tax on earnings over a particular amount is fine but I would probably put it lower than a billion and offer deductions and credits for charity and the like.

But the existence of billionaires is only because of our current system. Changing the system to such a point where billionaires are not allowable would also include changing the system to such a point where billionaires are not necessary for the economy to function.

"The millionaires could give loads of money!" lmao.

If Bezos has 1 trillion dollars and he gave every American all his money equally, each person would get $3,048.

Thinking that he could give each person millions is something you find in twitter memes designed to make fun of people who think that because dividing trillions by millions is hard for lots of people, but also being unable to do it usually implies a person is low intelligence.

1 000 = 1 thousand
1 000 000 = 1 million
1 000 000 000 = 1 billion
1 000 000 000 000 = 1 trillion

1 trillion / 1 million = 1 million

1 million / 328 = 3048

Of course we can't expect all people to do 1 million/328 in their head instantly, but you should be intuitively able to know that 1 million/328 is a couple of thousand, and not millions. Lmao.

I think you're missing the part where $3,048 is about 25% of the yearly income at the poverty line, which over ten percent of the country is living under.

Dissecting Bezos and distributing his funds to the American people equally would be a massive boon to the country as a whole.

[Cisairse]

*enacts 100% property and income tax on billionaires*

*Billionaires move all their liquid assets to Panama bank accounts*

surprised Pikachu face

^This^ is the main reason why Reaganomics and and trickle down economics can’t work in the 21st century like they did in the 20th. Back in the days of economic protectionism, those who grew wealthy invested in their own countries, this also made them accountable to their fellow citizens and allowed for things like Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-trust breakups. Nowadays, doing that is pretty much impossible because the billionaires can hoard everything in their Panama bank account

Oh it is very possible. We just don't do it because neoliberalist policy dictates that we must — must — allow our feudal lords to convert the human population of our country into batteries that exist only to recharge their bank accounts and are then expended.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

i love how my post about numerical literacy and political discourse was warped to make it look like im against taxing billionaires and having social protection

love the australian book sites high level of discussion

[Cisairse]

i love how my post about numerical literacy and political discourse was warped to make it look like im against taxing billionaires and having social protection

love the australian book sites high level of discussion

Probably because you quoted a post containing a typo and decided to use it to make a statement about your own mental superiority.

[Valrifell]

hey pal, they already do that shit.

a small sampling of their offshore activities

can't believe ppl have already forgotten about the panama papers tbh :/

It's crazy that media outlets owned by billionaire moguls report lightly on things that implicate their owners in financial crime.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Right because three separate numbers intrinsically linked to one calculation which the whole post was centred around was a “typo”

whats more likely, the above, or that new haven america agreed with the idea he read somewhere else and didnt bother to numerically check it because he likes the sound of it?

[Ostroeuropa]

The combined wealth of all billionaires is 7.1 trillion dollars.

Around 1/3rd of the national debt of just the USA. Eliminating the entire military budget brings that to 7.6 trillion. Still around 1/3rd of the national debt.

Now, the national debt has been accumulated over decades. However, if your argument is that if the rich paid their way we'd be better off, there's a question to be raised there, because even "Backdating" it by seizing 100% of all their wealth shows that even if they'd paid their taxes over the last few decades, the debt would still be immense and does not necessarily imply spending increases would be available.

That suggests two responses;
1. The debt doesn't matter and we can deficit spend
or
2. Expenditure is too high and cuts are needed, even if we completely seize all the billionaires money.


And that's before you consider that not every single billionaire lives in the USA, and they'd be distributed across the globe.

Discussing taxing the rich without also linking that to a defense of deficit spending is naïve imo.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Right because three separate numbers intrinsically linked to one calculation which the whole post was centred around was a “typo”

whats more likely, the above, or that new haven america agreed with the idea he read somewhere else and didnt bother to numerically check it because he likes the sound of it?

Only enemies of the people point out errors. Scooby Doo mask reveal, you were ancap all along.

[Ostroeuropa]

Forgot the bonus third option:

Chad Reply to right wingers asking if you'll raise people taxes and "Yes".

Raising taxes on the working and middle classes as well as the wealthy to collectively purchase necessities will lower overall costs through economies of scale. if those necessities are not means tested, this will reduce overall running costs also. Poor peoples taxes will go up, but their overall expenditures will go down. The lower middle classes will be slightly better off, the upper middle classes slightly worse off, and the wealthy worse off.

The notion that we should "Just tax the rich" to pay for means tested things is a bad notion that stands in opposite to universalist principles and collective solidarity, as well as generates opposition and resentment to the poor.

this is the position universal healthcare advocates in the US were eventually forced to adopt under scrutiny after initial suggestions that the rich could pay, and it made their proposal much more feasible and sensible.

I'd suggest to you that the focus on taxing the rich is a liberal perversion of socialist principles, the encroachment of means testing ideas.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Only enemies of the people point out errors.

The worst thing about the Left isn't that it wants to take away butter steak, heterosex, and assault rifles.

It isn't that in the face of Rightist aggression, through media assault, vote buying, outright coup d'etat, all the Left ever has to say is "we love democracy!"

It isn't even that the Left treats Heresy, without which there's no innovation and no improvements in life, even more severely than the Right.

It's that the Left tries to uninstall reason itself.

new haven america made a mistake. That's ok. All people make mistakes. Great Confederacy corrected him. All he had to say was "You are right, I made a mistake, thanks for the correction," as a man would. Instead he pretends its a typo (XDDDD).

But look what I did: I made a heresy. I contradicted someone who made a false claim about distributing ultrarich wealth. I didn't even speak of the premise! Yet all the other leftists 1. attack me 2. draw inferences about my views (ie an Unknown factor) which are completely not present based only on the fact that I contradicted someone whose views they agree with (ie a Leftist).

Luckily this is NationStates and Leftist Heresies don't affect my real life. I'm free to sit here and drink a beer and eat a buttersteak and laugh. But if the New Left ever, somehow, managed to start running any kind of institution, watch the above happen writ large.

[Valrifell]

Only enemies of the people point out errors.

The worst thing about the Left isn't that it wants to take away butter steak, heterosex, and assault rifles.

It isn't that in the face of Rightist aggression, through media assault, vote buying, outright coup d'etat, all the Left ever has to say is "we love democracy!"

It isn't even that the Left treats Heresy, without which there's no innovation and no improvements in life, even more severely than the Right.

It's that the Left tries to uninstall reason itself.

new haven america made a mistake. That's ok. All people make mistakes. Great Confederacy corrected him. All he had to say was "You are right, I made a mistake, thanks for the correction," as a man would. Instead he pretends its a typo (XDDDD).

But look what I did: I made a heresy. I contradicted someone who made a false claim about distributing ultrarich wealth. I didn't even speak of the premise! Yet all the other leftists 1. attack me 2. draw inferences about my views (ie an Unknown factor) which are completely not present based only on the fact that I contradicted someone whose views they agree with (ie a Leftist).

Luckily this is NationStates and Leftist Heresies don't affect my real life. I'm free to sit here and drink a beer and eat a buttersteak and laugh. But if the New Left ever, somehow, managed to start running any kind of institution, watch the above happen writ large.

You were just being a dick about it my guy, and you still are

[Kowani]

The combined wealth of all billionaires is 7.1 trillion dollars.

Around 1/3rd of the national debt of just the USA. Eliminating the entire military budget brings that to 7.6 trillion. Still around 1/3rd of the national debt.

Now, the national debt has been accumulated over decades. However, if your argument is that if the rich paid their way we'd be better off, there's a question to be raised there, because even "Backdating" it by seizing 100% of all their wealth shows that even if they'd paid their taxes over the last few decades, the debt would still be immense and does not necessarily imply spending increases would be available.

That suggests two responses;
1. The debt doesn't matter and we can deficit spend
or
2. Expenditure is too high and cuts are needed, even if we completely seize all the billionaires money.


And that's before you consider that not every single billionaire lives in the USA, and they'd be distributed across the globe.

Discussing taxing the rich without also linking that to a defense of deficit spending is naïve imo.

Speaking of which, number 1 is empirically correct.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

if the problem was that I'm being a dick, that would have been the first thing you guys said, rather than a second order point you bring up later, duh

[Valrifell]

if the problem was that I'm being a dick, that would have been the first thing you guys said, rather than a second order point you bring up later, duh

My first point was "don't make fun of people for being less educated", bruh.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

oh, you are calling him less educated?

[Ostroeuropa]

The combined wealth of all billionaires is 7.1 trillion dollars.

Around 1/3rd of the national debt of just the USA. Eliminating the entire military budget brings that to 7.6 trillion. Still around 1/3rd of the national debt.

Now, the national debt has been accumulated over decades. However, if your argument is that if the rich paid their way we'd be better off, there's a question to be raised there, because even "Backdating" it by seizing 100% of all their wealth shows that even if they'd paid their taxes over the last few decades, the debt would still be immense and does not necessarily imply spending increases would be available.

That suggests two responses;
1. The debt doesn't matter and we can deficit spend
or
2. Expenditure is too high and cuts are needed, even if we completely seize all the billionaires money.


And that's before you consider that not every single billionaire lives in the USA, and they'd be distributed across the globe.

Discussing taxing the rich without also linking that to a defense of deficit spending is naïve imo.

Speaking of which, number 1 is empirically correct.

It's correct to the extent that deficit spending is fine provided you can pay your debtors their expected interest, or nobody will lend you money. It's true up to a particular point, and only really a valid option if the expenditure is expected to generate economic growth sufficient enough to pay the yearly interest on the debt.


Borrowing 50,000 dollars to buy a port expected to bring in 10,000 dollars of revenue yearly, with 5,000 of those dollars going to the lender, is completely valid and desirable.

Borrowing 50,000 dollars where that's going to bring in 4000 dollars yearly, with the lender expecting 5000 dollars yearly? That's a death spiral.

The question is whether something is economically viable. Borrowing to pay peoples pensions? Not really an economic plan tbh. They don't produce revenue. Borrowing to pay for peoples education? Absolutely viable.

[Valrifell]

oh, you are calling him less educated?

No that was you.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

oh, you are calling him less educated?

No that was you.

so your retort for me making fun of him for being less educated (something i didn't claim, and something i didn't do) is "dont make fun of him for being less educated"?

u understand how this looks, right?

[Valrifell]

No that was you.

so your retort for me making fun of him for being less educated (something i didn't claim, and something i didn't do) is "dont make fun of him for being less educated"?

u understand how this looks, right?

You can reread what I said, if you like. You're taking my second post (which was a generalization of the first post) and re-applying it to this situation, which transparently does not reflect what actually happened.

Regardless, I take it that this sudden change in topic means you understand your goofy persecution complex has no legs to stand on?

[Kowani]

Speaking of which, number 1 is empirically correct.

It's correct to the extent that deficit spending is fine provided you can pay your debtors their expected interest, or nobody will lend you money.

Well, this bit is slightly incorrect- The US government, for instance, can’t go bankrupt because that would mean it ran out of dollars to pay creditors; but it can’t run out of dollars, because it is the only agency allowed to create dollars.

It's true up to a particular point, and only really a valid option if the expenditure is expected to generate economic growth sufficient enough to pay the yearly interest on the debt.

This bit is true, though.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

so your retort for me making fun of him for being less educated (something i didn't claim, and something i didn't do) is "dont make fun of him for being less educated"?

u understand how this looks, right?

You can reread what I said, if you like. You're taking my second post (which was a generalization of the first post) and re-applying it to this situation, which transparently does not reflect what actually happened.

Regardless, I take it that this sudden change in topic means you understand your goofy persecution complex has no legs to stand on?

more inference drawing lmao

I don't have a persecution complex. As I made it clear in my post I'm not bothered what Australian Book Site leftists think about me. My problem is when they take over organisations.