These people are our future

[CoccoBill]

lol, I feel like this is true but at the same time, Bill Gates got how many billionaires to promise how much of their wealth to charity? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett Organize Billionaire Giving Pledge - ABC News

Piss in the ocean. The whole fact that this is newsworthy, and how we still tell stories about some samaritan dude who wasn't a complete douche tells everything there is to know about the general charitableness of mankind.

As it stands modern science thinks time goes on forever and if that is the case wealth can go on forever as well.

Load of rubbish. We currently assume that time started with the big bang, but we have absolutely no clue what/where/when/why/how it happened and what, if anything, was before it. Likewise, we have no idea, just a bunch of theories, such as big crunch, big freeze, big rip, big bounce etc. on the end of time/universe. We don't know if there are one, several or an infinite number of universes, nor whether any of them are finite or infinite. We know 4.6% of the observable universe is "matter", and the rest of it is something we call dark matter and dark energy, even though we have no clue what they actually are or whether they even exist. So no, modern science does not think that time is infinite.


Another quick note on flat vs. progressive income tax. To demonstrate why progressive taxing is the more "fair" alternative consider this example:

Each person requires a certain amount of money for basic necessities, such as food and accommodation. Typically national minimum wages are set at or around the minimum income necessary to be self-sufficient, let's use an arbitrary figure of $25,000/yr to represent this.

We have that rich guy, middle class guy and an armless guy from the island, and all pay a flat taxrate of 20%. Rich guy makes $500,000/yr, leaving him $400,000 after taxes. He pays the basic necessities and is left with $375,000 (or 75% of his gross income) to spend on luxuries in life. Middle class guy makes $150,000/yr, ie. $120,000-25,000=$95,000, or 63.3%. The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum after taxes and basic necessities. Progressive taxation was created to alleviate this clear discrepancy.

If this tax progression is removed, the poor suffer and the rich gain, both unproportionally. If income taxation or, in fact, taxation, government and social services in a larger sense are eradicated, only the poor (read: working class) suffer from it. The rich don't need affordable medical insurance, they can pay the bills just fine for any exotic procedures and pay without blinking. The rich don't need police or schools or fire department, no roads no libraries, nothing. They can just buy that shit if they happen to need it. All of these, however, are completely out of the reach of the general population, of the other 95%, who cannot afford them without socialized commie hippie governments.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

We have that rich guy, middle class guy and an armless guy from the island, and all pay a flat taxrate of 20%. Rich guy makes $500,000/yr, leaving him $400,000 after taxes. He pays the basic necessities and is left with $375,000 (or 75% of his gross income) to spend on luxuries in life. Middle class guy makes $150,000/yr, ie. $120,000-25,000=$95,000, or 63.3%. The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum after taxes and basic necessities. Progressive taxation was created to alleviate this clear discrepancy.

If this tax progression is removed, the poor suffer and the rich gain, both unproportionally..

Hmm interesting point.

One point, it's true if a progressive tax is removed the rich gain and the poor "suffer." But having any income tax at all is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the poor are gaining significantly and the rich are losing for nothing. You said it yourself, rich people don't need many public services.

[CoccoBill]

But having any income tax at all is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the poor are gaining significantly and the rich are losing for nothing. You said it yourself, rich people don't need many public services.

You're absolutely right, only the poor do. Starting positions are not the same for everyone and resources tend to end up getting spread unevenly. We can either choose to have some sort of organization by the people for the people to ensure a more even distribution and more equal rights, or just let things be. The latter is typically called anarchy and social darwinism.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

You're absolutely right, only the poor do. Starting positions are not the same for everyone and resources tend to end up getting spread unevenly. We can either choose to have some sort of organization by the people for the people to ensure a more even distribution and more equal rights, or just let things be. The latter is typically called anarchy and social darwinism.

Resources also, for the most part, get spread to who produces the most. In Bill Gates case, he started out as a poor college student, and now has created something that millions of people have paid thousands of dollars to be able to use. For the most part, rich people have made their wealth in this way.

The starting positions for everyone are a (relatively) small part of the equation. If you think they are a big part, I have to assume it's because you think rich people or their families magically pulled their money out of the sky which just isn't true.

[CoccoBill]

The starting positions for everyone are a (relatively) small part of the equation. If you think they are a big part, I have to assume it's because you think rich people or their families magically pulled their money out of the sky which just isn't true.

The key words in you comment are "or their families". Do you think the wealth of the parents correlate with the eventual wealth of their children? I would argue that quite a large portion of the rich magically pull their wealth out of their parents.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

The key words in you comment are "or their families". Do you think the wealth of the parents correlate with the eventual wealth of their children? I would argue that quite a large portion of the rich magically pull their wealth out of their parents.

So let's say you invent a cure for cancer, and make millions of dollars in exchange for providing this cure for people. Once you die, should the government take all your money that you would otherwise pass down to your children? Some people are working to provide for their family for future generations, is this wrong?

[CoccoBill]

So let's say you invent a cure for cancer, and make millions of dollars in exchange for providing this cure for people. Once you die, should the government take all your money that you would otherwise pass down to your children? Some people are working to provide for their family, is this wrong?

No it shouldn't and no it's not. I just don't think the children who are passed down this wealth are starting off equal to ones who aren't, and that they didn't create value to deserve it.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Do you think the wealth of the parents correlate with the eventual wealth of their children?

Sure, but I think it has little do with the fact that they are given money, and almost everything to do with the fact that they are learning, directly and indirectly, from parents that earn lots of money how to earn lots of money for themselves.

[Lyric]

Sure, but I think it has little do with the fact that they are given money, and almost everything to do with the fact that they are learning, directly and indirectly, from parents that earn lots of money how to earn lots of money for themselves.

Correct. Kids who don't learn spend all the money and go broke.

You could imply the same thing about intelligence, and claim that kids are only intelligent because their parents were intelligent. We know that intelligence is both genetic and random -- dumb people are born to smart parents and vice versa, many of the richest men today were not born that way, including Buffet and Gates.

[CoccoBill]

Sure, but I think it has little do with the fact that they are given money, and almost everything to do with the fact that they are learning, directly and indirectly, from parents that earn lots of money how to earn lots of money for themselves.

Are you suggesting that most children of wealthy families somehow lose all of their inherited wealth and then rebuild it all from scratch?

[a500lbgorilla]

Sure, but I think it has little do with the fact that they are given money, and almost everything to do with the fact that they are learning, directly and indirectly, from parents that earn lots of money how to earn lots of money for themselves.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they have access to money, and also that they'll carry a lot of the genetic traits that allowed their parents to be wealthy (either intelligence, talents, or that hard-workers spirit); a dash of being exposed to how to actually make it.

I think Max had the better opinion, it rather makes a lot of sense to me that a parent of wealth should be able to use that money to cement himself a strong link in the long chain of life. But it's pretty idealistic to think that it happens for the right reasons.

[Lyric]

We have that rich guy, middle class guy and an armless guy from the island, and all pay a flat taxrate of 20%. Rich guy makes $500,000/yr, leaving him $400,000 after taxes. He pays the basic necessities and is left with $375,000 (or 75% of his gross income) to spend on luxuries in life. Middle class guy makes $150,000/yr, ie. $120,000-25,000=$95,000, or 63.3%. The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum after taxes and basic necessities. Progressive taxation was created to alleviate this clear discrepancy.

If this tax progression is removed, the poor suffer and the rich gain, both unproportionally. If income taxation or, in fact, taxation, government and social services in a larger sense are eradicated, only the poor (read: working class) suffer from it. The rich don't need affordable medical insurance, they can pay the bills just fine for any exotic procedures and pay without blinking. The rich don't need police or schools or fire department, no roads no libraries, nothing. They can just buy that shit if they happen to need it. All of these, however, are completely out of the reach of the general population, of the other 95%, who cannot afford them without socialized commie hippie governments.

You've left the island and the issue has become muddled with large numbers and imaginary ideas.

On the island the hard working man has created and stored many wheels of cheese and many bottles of wine over the years. He has even managed to distill liquor from his potato patch and has relatively pure vodka. He has managed to use the vodka to extract acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) from willow trees on the island (this has been done since at least 3,000 BC). He stores all of this in the basement of his hut.

He has stored ten wheels of cheese, ten bottles of wine, ten bottles of vodka, and ten bottles of aspirin. He lives comfortably because he has worked hard to create his things and store them.

The other islanders have stored 5 of everything or traded fish with him and they now have worked enough to store half as much as the other man, and the armless man has no savings, and another lazy man has no savings either.

The three working men decide they would like to help the others who cannot help themselves. They agree to pool money and form a charity. Each man will contribute 20% of their cheese, wine, vodka and aspirin and donate it to the armless and lazy men each month. The rich man contributes 2 wheels, 2 bottles, etc. The other two men each put in one wheel and one bottle, etc.

The rich man has contributed double what the other men have, but we still have a fair and flat tax system. The harder working man has still contributed more to help the needy (double), but is not discouraged from working because his marginal gain is always 80%.

If it were a progressive system, where he is asked to contribute 65% if he makes over ten wheels/month, and 85% of every wheel over 20/month, he will probably stop making cheese when he gets to ten or twenty wheels.

[CoccoBill]

You've left the island and the issue has become muddled with large numbers and imaginary ideas.

I believe these numbers quite accurately represent the reality, though the "rich" in this example is really an alsoran when compared to the true elite.

If it were a progressive system, where he is asked to contribute 65% if he makes over ten wheels/month, and 85% of every wheel over 20/month, he will probably stop making cheese when he gets to ten or twenty wheels.

You're just describing a small working class economy with almost nonexistent income gaps, progressions used in the real world would hardly affect this system in any way. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the "rich" guy in your scenario would do then decide to starve to death?

[Lyric]

I believe these numbers quite accurately represent the reality, though the "rich" in this example is really an alsoran when compared to the true elite.



You're just describing a small working class economy with almost nonexistent income gaps, progressions used in the real world would hardly affect this system in any way. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the "rich" guy in your scenario would do then decide to starve to death?

What? You mean what would he do if he were starving? What? What's an "alsoran?"

The point of the island is to break it down into meaningful numbers. Let's imagine that the island has been running for 50 years and the rich guy has stored 500 wheels/bottles of everything, it doesn't change the basic ideas.

He is still accumulating wealth through work and applied knowledge and intelligence, and taxation would encourage him to stop making cheese even more if he could afford to sit on his ass for the next 30 years eating cheese and wine and trading for some fish. Taxing him will slow down his desire to work the richer he gets, and slow down his desires to trade the shit he invents if every trade is taxed.

We don't want him to slow down -- we want him to continue working hard to invent Tylenol and Swiss cheese, and learn how to make whiskey through experimentation (research). We want new islanders to see what they can have through hard work.

[a500lbgorilla]

Piss in the ocean. The whole fact that this is newsworthy, and how we still tell stories about some samaritan dude who wasn't a complete douche tells everything there is to know about the general charitableness of mankind.



Load of rubbish. We currently assume that time started with the big bang, but we have absolutely no clue what/where/when/why/how it happened and what, if anything, was before it. Likewise, we have no idea, just a bunch of theories, such as big crunch, big freeze, big rip, big bounce etc. on the end of time/universe. We don't know if there are one, several or an infinite number of universes, nor whether any of them are finite or infinite. We know 4.6% of the observable universe is "matter", and the rest of it is something we call dark matter and dark energy, even though we have no clue what they actually are or whether they even exist. So no, modern science does not think that time is infinite.


Another quick note on flat vs. progressive income tax. To demonstrate why progressive taxing is the more "fair" alternative consider this example:

Each person requires a certain amount of money for basic necessities, such as food and accommodation. Typically national minimum wages are set at or around the minimum income necessary to be self-sufficient, let's use an arbitrary figure of $25,000/yr to represent this.

We have that rich guy, middle class guy and an armless guy from the island, and all pay a flat taxrate of 20%. Rich guy makes $500,000/yr, leaving him $400,000 after taxes. He pays the basic necessities and is left with $375,000 (or 75% of his gross income) to spend on luxuries in life. Middle class guy makes $150,000/yr, ie. $120,000-25,000=$95,000, or 63.3%. The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum after taxes and basic necessities. Progressive taxation was created to alleviate this clear discrepancy.

If this tax progression is removed, the poor suffer and the rich gain, both unproportionally. If income taxation or, in fact, taxation, government and social services in a larger sense are eradicated, only the poor (read: working class) suffer from it. The rich don't need affordable medical insurance, they can pay the bills just fine for any exotic procedures and pay without blinking. The rich don't need police or schools or fire department, no roads no libraries, nothing. They can just buy that shit if they happen to need it. All of these, however, are completely out of the reach of the general population, of the other 95%, who cannot afford them without socialized commie hippie governments.

The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum

I choked on what I was trying to swallow.