Europe, the not boring thread

[Martin Hash]

It will always be the losers against the winners. The winners ain’t gonna start anything because they already have control, and whatever sophistry the losers use as justification can be ignored: they simply want control now. Because they’re losers, it takes a lot more of them versus a single winner, but those numbers are raising because the winners wouldn’t share.

[StCapps]

It will always be the losers against the winners. The winners ain’t gonna start anything because they already have control, and whatever sophistry the losers use as justification can be ignored: they simply want control now. Because they’re losers, it takes a lot more of them versus a single winner, but those numbers are raising because the winners wouldn’t share.

They share more than the losers do. The best way to "share" is not through government intervention, that actually reduces the incentive to "share" by forcing people to do it against their will, and reducing the resources with which they can better "share" their wealth voluntarily, which is a far more effective way to reduce inequality.

[Martin Hash]

All the winners had to do was not engage in nepotism, and stop creating dynasties, but that’s the way our biology works.

[StCapps]

All the winners had to do was not engage in nepotism, and stop creating dynasties, but that’s the way our biology works.

Dynasties don't last long, the grandkids almost always fuck it up, and give it away voluntarily, you're just impatient and want the government to preempt that.

[Martin Hash]

Aren’t we all? It humanity’s weakness.

[StCapps]

Aren’t we all? It humanity’s weakness.

This will reduce the incentive to build wealth in the first place, if you can't give it your children, many won't bother making more money past a certain point, and that will leave a lot less to redistribute to the losers. You will widen the gap, not shrink it. Even if you insist on clinging to redistribution, this a terrible way to go about it.

[Martin Hash]

I insist that war is coming. It’s always coming because there’s always losers. Because I point out the solution doesn’t mean I think it will ever be implemented.

[StCapps]

I insist that war is coming. It’s always coming because there’s always losers. Because I point out the solution doesn’t mean I think it will ever be implemented.

If it is implemented, you'll quickly find out that results of you're 100% inheritance tax are the opposite of your intentions, and you will exacerbate the very issue you are trying to solve. The wealthy would leave America and take their capital with them, and you'd have a smaller pool to tax from, which leads to less government revenue to redistribute.

[Martin Hash]

I think I’m wiser & smarter than you, but it makes no difference, nobody listens to either of us. Nobody listens to anybody; we’re all the center of the universe.

[StCapps]

Stop worrying about the gap, and start focusing on the best way to raise the losers standard of living, and that isn't wealth redistribution.


The Iron Lady Knows.