Bob Arctor Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 No you fail. I just have to show that your wish is bourne of resentment and from your general mien in this and other posts that is obvious. Very poor, you haven't shown anything, just repeated the same assertion over and over as if that makes it true. I was hoping for more sport to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 And you are wrong. As I said. You want to take legitamatly earnt monies from someone and give it to others because you dont think they should be allowed to have it. Errr . . . legitimately earnt ? So bankers that crashed the economy, got billions in bailouts (your taxes, my taxes, our taxes) hundreds of millions of which they spent in awarding themselves performance-related bonuses . . . You call that money legitimately earnt ? And if I would rather have that same money (your taxes, my taxes, our taxes) be spent on public services instead . . . then I am displaying the politics of envy. Oh my, where do I sign up to be a banker please? It sure beats working and paying taxes for a living Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Such as the principle of the haves returning 45%+ of their income to the have nots? Yes, sure. That is the implementation of a principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Yes, sure. That is the implementation of a principle. Hmmm... Well it sounds fine in principle but I think I've spotted a flaw in this argument... ... won't there come a point where the 'have nots' will accumulate so much wealth that they themselves will become 'haves', and the 'haves' will have given away so much of their wealth that they will become 'have nots'? You'll then have a situation where we'll be going round in circles, where the original 'have nots' will then have to give some of their wealth to the original 'haves'... ... so really, a bit like it is at the moment? I think it'll be less confusing if things stay as they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Hmmm... Well it sounds fine in principle but I think I've spotted a flaw in this argument... ... won't there come a point where the 'have nots' will accumulate so much wealth that they themselves will become 'haves', and the 'haves' will have given away so much of their wealth that they will become 'have nots'? You'll then have a situation where we'll be going round in circles, where the original 'have nots' will then have to give some of their wealth to the original 'haves'... ... so really, a bit like it is at the moment? I think it'll be less confusing if things stay as they are... No, I don't see by what mechanism that would necessarily happen. It would be totally feasible to have a situation where some wealth is distributed downwards while still leaving some people better off than others, or a situation where wealth was distributed evenly, or where personal wealth was abolished by putting everything in common ownership. All of these would avoid the scenario you have described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now