HA. If most of the retards whining about other people's money choked down even another 200 or so calaries a day beyond the insane over-consumption they already partake in, their hearts would litterally explode today instead of within the next five to ten years that so many are right on course for.Eat twice as much?
Look how stupid this post is.
We should point at it and talk about how stupid it is.
For the people who hate the wealthy, what elements of humanity are you unable to take part in because these wealthy people have too much money?
What more would you have if their wealth were redistributed? Would you have twice as many cars? Twice as large a house? Eat twice as much?
In an economy based on consumption, what more do you feel you could consume?
Actually, that's not a joke.
Even with many peoples best efforts, some are still unable to provide for themselves or their families the basic necessities of survival.
Meanwhile, those who are born into wealth and have been a bunch of non-contributing zeroes to society gamble 100k every weekend in Vegas because they have nothing better to do with their time or money. Their income is solely based off of capital gains and taxed at half of the tax ratio that you and I pay. The rich do not make their money off of income like you and I do; they make their income in capital gains.
I don't know that I'm qualified to answer this question, since I don't hate the wealthy, I'm on my way to being one right now. But if the wealth had less money and the poor had more then I'd be able to have my own business, or a better job.
It's sheer economics. Having a million people with a thousand extra dollars to spend a month is better for the economy then a single person with 100 Million dollars. That single person will never spend close to the 100 million dollars and thus the money gets frozen, but with the million people that money travels through the economy and . There is a reason why in the past when there was more wealth equality, there were more and better jobs (and more and better chances to get rich).
I would welcome that. First though, we confiscate their wealth, beat the ever loving fuck out of them, and let them serve long harsh sentences in America's roughest prisons.
There is a reason why in the past when there was more wealth equality, there were more and better jobs (and more and better chances to get rich).
I don't know that I'm qualified to answer this question, since I don't hate the wealthy, I'm on my way to being one right now. But if the wealth had less money and the poor had more then I'd be able to have my own business, or a better job.
It's sheer economics. Having a million people with a thousand extra dollars to spend a month is better for the economy then a single person with 100 Million dollars. That single person will never spend close to the 100 million dollars and thus the money gets frozen, but with the million people that money travels through the economy and . There is a reason why in the past when there was more wealth equality, there were more and better jobs (and more and better chances to get rich).
I would welcome that. First though, we confiscate their wealth, beat the ever loving fuck out of them, and let them serve long harsh sentences in America's roughest prisons.
Using the same zero sum "logic", if you cut off the good looking people's noses, the ugly people will get good looking noses.
There is a reason why in the past when there was more wealth equality, there were more and better jobs (and more and better chances to get rich).
You didn't answer my question. How would the distribution of goods and services change if we confiscated every dollar from the wealthy?
You believe money in investment accounts is frozen?
Also, between your lack of understanding of money and your poor math skills, I don't believe wealth inequality is to blame for you not owning a business. You're off by a factor of 10, recheck your work.
Why would you confiscate every dollar from the wealthy?
That's you're problem. You only think in absolutes, white or black, one or zero. Literally, you're not worth someones time to even attempt to have a rational discussion.
Even with many peoples best efforts, some are still unable to provide for themselves or their families the basic necessities of survival.
What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Just asking random questions does not a valid point make. What do investments have to do with anything?
I believe I vaguely understand the point you're trying to make but you need to make your argument.
I was using hypotheticals, but this is first semester economics theory. The more money that is being traded, the better. Money being taken out of the money supply is bad for the economy.
If you want me to expound on this due to your ignorance of how economics work, I'm perfectly willing to do so.
Using this logic, some people have better looks than others and are thus more succesful in landing romantic partners. If the good looking had less beautiful features and the ugly had more then you'd be able to have a business or a better job. Maybe we should force the good-looking to them to have surgical procedures done to make them more ugly, or make them date people like the OP as punishment.
Using the same zero sum "logic", if you cut off the good looking people's noses, the ugly people will get good looking noses.
You guys do know that Economics isn't a zero-sum game, right? That as more money is passed around, more wealth is created. The problem right now is that lack of money being passed around.
Again, this is rather basic economic theory. I pay paul $5 for a sandwich, who then pays the baker $5 for bread, who then pays the farmer $5 for grain, etc etc etc. Nobody's nose is cut off, nobody is made handsome or ugly, or any of the straw man that you guys have just built. Everyone is now richer because this money made it's way through the economy.
So, again, is the money these people are keeping being hoarded in mattresses? Or is it sitting in a bank account or some other type of account? And do you suppose it's sitting there in a heap, or is the bank lending it out to people and businesses?
You guys do know that Economics isn't a zero-sum game, right? That as more money is passed around, more wealth is created. The problem right now is that lack of money being passed around.
Again, this is rather basic economic theory. I pay paul $5 for a sandwich, who then pays the baker $5 for bread, who then pays the farmer $5 for grain, etc etc etc. Nobody's nose is cut off, nobody is made handsome or ugly, or any of the straw man that you guys have just built. Everyone is now richer because this money made it's way through the economy.
You guys do know that Economics isn't a zero-sum game, right? That as more money is passed around, more wealth is created. The problem right now is that lack of money being passed around.
Again, this is rather basic economic theory. I pay paul $5 for a sandwich, who then pays the baker $5 for bread, who then pays the farmer $5 for grain, etc etc etc. Nobody's nose is cut off, nobody is made handsome or ugly, or any of the straw man that you guys have just built. Everyone is now richer because this money made it's way through the economy.
Well that is what your compatriot suggested. That and beating them to death.
Regardless of the percentage you want to redistribute, please explain in your own words what specific changes would happen to the consumption habits of the average American if we didn't have these wealthy people hoarding money.
Please, be specific.
Who? What the fuck is wrong with you?
I would welcome that. First though, we confiscate their wealth, beat the ever loving fuck out of them, and let them serve long harsh sentences in America's roughest prisons.