You're viewing a single thread.
Regardless of how hard it's to do this, you'll get what out of this... 15B? That's nothing... the government spends that in less than a day. Maybe cut government spending in half first. None of this is sustainable.
You hear that everyone? $15 billion is nothing.
…yeah when you think about how the US government spends money, a one-time injection of 15 bil is nothing. Hell, the combined lifetime wealth of ALL billionaires wouldn’t reach the ANNUAL budget of the US military.
You do understand that the government budget is 4 trillion per year, right? Do the math! What's wrong with you?
It may blow your mind but there are more than 3 wealthy people that live in the USA.
Do the total and calculate it all and show me whether it's gonna last you a few days.
You plebs can't do elementary school math and think you should talk policy. What a joke.
well, the top 25 wealthiest americans are together worth about 1.8 trillion, which according to your clock is just about the federal budget deficit and a third of federal spending. The numbers OP gave assume a tax rate of 3% which is already fairly substantial (it would be 3% of the deficit), but we could always raise that number if you feel fit isn't enough.
I'll do you one better. Even if you take ALL their money, that's less than 6 months budget. You steal it from them, spend it in a few months, and you're back where you started in no time. It doesn't fix anything or change anything, but introduces tremendous problems (like inflation).
And besides that and completely ignoring all these direct problems, these assets are not even liquid (Surprise surprise, Jeff Bezos doesn't store $5B in his safe). So, in order to cash them out, you're gonna have to sell them on the open markets, crash the stock markets, crash real estate markets, etc, which will lead to much higher unemployment, and pension funds will be destroyed (just like in 2008), and millions will go bankrupt. And all this even ignores that the net worth you're assigning to them ignores slippage, so it's much less than 1.8 Trillion when sold on the open market, ignoring automated bots that will sell even more to protect their hedge funds.
Yes, let's do all that destruction in the economy just for 6 months worth of spending. Great plan!
Like I always say: A bunch of ignorant, uneducated, stupid and entitled teenagers who don't know anything about the economy want to decide how the economy works. Go read a book, and stop telling us how to run the world before you learn how the world works. Go learn, and your realistic suggestions are welcome. We all want a better world.
Finally, some sense! I agree that we need to close some loopholes used by the ultra-wealthy to hoard their fortunes, but the reality is that all their money is basically pocket change compared to the kinda cash the US government routinely blows on the stupidest shit imaginable.
Seriously, just take a look at how the US military spends its almost-a-trillion ANNUAL budget and you probably won’t sleep for a few nights.
I'll do you one better. Even if you take ALL their money, that's less than 6 months budget.
You're completely missing the point. There are more than just 3 billionaires in the US. There are more than even 25 billionaires in the US.
You steal it from them, spend it in a few months, and you're back where you started.
You're the only one here talking about seizing their entire estate. So sure, your plan is bad, let's not do it that way.
Like I always say: a bunch of ignorant, uneducated, stupid and entitled teenagers who don't know anything about the economy want to decide how the economy works.
Dude, you're talking to two people who are counting billionaires. This weird 'dumb teenager ' fantasy is all you.
Make a better calculation then come back, and stop criticizing examples. If you understand statistics, you'll see why whether 25 or 50 billionaires doesn't make much of a difference. They all mostly follow inverse function distribution in wealth. There's a law for it, forgot the name. So, no matter what amount you scrape from the top, it won't make a difference.
Again, ignorance in real world phenomenon and attempts to talk policy. Please stop! Read a book!
come back, and stop criticizing examples
I'll do that as soon as you define an "inverse function distribution" and give me the name of this "law".
No matter what amount you scrape from.the top, it won't make a difference
Patently false. The fact that any taxes work is an obvious counterexample, cause in our progressive tax system they "come from the top"
Please stop! Read a book!
Well you give up quickly. Why don't you go back and find the name of your law, and then I can give you a reading list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law
"Taxes" are not taken from the richest rich as proposed by this dumb OP's post. That's why you're wrong. What a stupid comment you made!
So are you gonna shut up now? Go read a book.
EDIT: Because I know you'll start barking anyway, I decided to fit the data of the top 100 billionaires to an inverse function. Now go read a book and learn how nature works.
Source of the data for 2023 billionaires: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
Learn to read, I said they "come from the top," not the richest. Below a certain income, we don't tax so what I said is tautologically true.
I'm familiar with Zipf's law, and what it means in this case is that if you have a distribution of people sorted by wealth, the wealthy are MUCH wealthier than the poor, or worded in the direction of the law the poorest will have money proportional to the reciprocal of the size of the population. You know what that means? It means the wealthy are THE ONLY GROUP that can bear the tax burden.
The more you insist that I should read a book, the more it sounds like you haven't read any. But keep talking, eventually you'll understand the implications of what you're saying.
Dude, don't tell me "you know" what Zipf law is when you questioned that whole inverse-law thing. Just shut up! Not only I shut you up by bringing it up, but I also did the math for you a fit a function for you to prove you wrong, which you, of course, won't do because you're lazy, assuming you even know how to fit data to a function. And now we're changing the goal post so that you can be right. Make a plan that's realistic, that doesn't involve taxation as it's done now maximized for the middle class, or fuck off and read a book! I've heard enough of your nonsense.
Dude, don't tell me what I know when you can't get the terminology right, and can't bother to remember the name.
Oh wow! You also know how to use mathematica! To reproduce the graph on Wikipedia! I guess that means you know statistamics or whatever the name is.
Now extend your graph to people making below minimum wage. Can.you tell me where all.the tax money is going to come from? It uses calculus though, so hopefully you can be bothered to remember how integrals work (or as you probably call them, integracalc distribution functions)
You're such an idiot you didn't even understand what I did. I did a non-linear fit of the inverse law, not just a plot. But you're ignorant so you can't understand what that even means. Fuck off and read a book.
Calculus? Dude I have a PhD in physics. Calculus is children's play. But anyway, I think it's time to block you.
Sounds to me like we need a new system in place. So yes, let it crash and burn.
When you say that, I assume you’re willing to live like a sub-Saharan African family for a couple years, if not a decade.
The sad reality is that your revolutionary wish will kill millions of people in the process due to the failing economy, since no economy means no food delivery, no functioning infrastructure, etc. Well. I'm no moral judge here so it's up to you. I'm just telling you it's really expensive. Careful what you wish for.