Comments

  • I think I speak for most Christian Americans, when I have 100 billion dollars through god's holy grace, amen. I do not want anybody touching even one billion of it.
  • Unright: Should, not could.


    Why not both?

    If they should but couldn't, that would be bad.
  • It's already 6am, you'd think all those white knights for Job Creators™ would already be here tsk-tsking
  • ArcadianRefugee: Unright: Should, not could.

    Why not both?

    If they should but couldn't, that would be bad.


    Well, okay, yeah.
  • The problem with that line thought / math exercise is that you run out of rich people very quickly.  You can shear a sheep a hundred times but your can only butcher it once.  We need to work on increasing the shearing efficiency, not sharpening the butcher knives.
  • Unright: ArcadianRefugee: Unright: Should, not could.

    Why not both?

    If they should but couldn't, that would be bad.

    Well, okay, yeah.


    Ah, but wait. I don't want them to have that loophole where it's their turn to actually pay their fair share but they go "whoops, all my money is tied up and not very liquid at the moment, I'll get you next time" and there never is a next time.

    fark the rich. Make them pay their fair share.
  • So the State could confiscate 100% of the lifetime assets of its most productive citizens and it would barely pay for 1/3 of a single year of the new spending programme being proposed by the democrats?

    This seems to highlight as much about the sheer size of this bloated, profligate proposal as it does the wealth gap in America.
  • Shaggy_C: So the State could confiscate 100% of the lifetime assets of its most productive citizens and it would barely pay for 1/3 of a single year of the new spending programme being proposed by the democrats?

    This seems to highlight as much about the sheer size of this bloated, profligate proposal as it does the wealth gap in America.


    Billionaires are not 'productive'. Workers are productive. Billionaires are exploitative parasites.
  • "wealth" isn't liquid cash.
  • bighairyguy: The problem with that line thought / math exercise is that you run out of rich people very quickly.  You can shear a sheep a hundred times but your can only butcher it once.  We need to work on increasing the shearing efficiency, not sharpening the butcher knives.


    But if one sheep is eating 99% of the feed you put out and the rest of your herd is starving, you're better off butchering it than shearing it.
  • RedZoneTuba: bighairyguy: The problem with that line thought / math exercise is that you run out of rich people very quickly.  You can shear a sheep a hundred times but your can only butcher it once.  We need to work on increasing the shearing efficiency, not sharpening the butcher knives.

    But if one sheep is eating 99% of the feed you put out and the rest of your herd is starving, you're better off butchering it than shearing it.


    I've been informed that one sheep produces 10,000x the amount of wool of your other sheep combined.

    I mean technically he's been eating all their wool before you can even shear them, and won't even shiat it out for you to use as fertilizer, but comparatively, so much more wool. And you'd lose it all if you butchered him, that's just math.
  • We should have a contest where at the end of the year the Government seizes half of the assets of the top billionaire.

    It would be great fun watching them try to hide their immense wealth.
  • Well I could go for a nice MLT right now.
  • Shaggy_C: So the State could confiscate 100% of the lifetime assets of its most productive citizens and it would barely pay for 1/3 of a single year of the new spending programme being proposed by the democrats?

    This seems to highlight as much about the sheer size of this bloated, profligate proposal as it does the wealth gap in America.


    You think the $3.5T is the annual cost of the proposal? Why?
  • Unright: Unright: ArcadianRefugee: Unright: Should, not could.

    Why not both?

    If they should but couldn't, that would be bad.

    Well, okay, yeah.

    Ah, but wait. I don't want them to have that loophole where it's their turn to actually pay their fair share but they go "whoops, all my money is tied up and not very liquid at the moment, I'll get you next time" and there never is a next time.

    fark the rich. Make them pay their fair share.


    Oh, def.
  • Yes, there's nothing wrong with taking the money of people who don't want you to take it, dumbassmitter, just because they're rich and you don't think they deserve to have it.

    I'm not happy with the situation either, but forcibly taking the wealth of the elite under the guise of "redistributing" it has never worked out well in the history of ever. It didn't work in France, it didn't work in Russia, and there's no reason to think it will work here.

    Find another way to get the wealth out of the top and back to the bottom besides the point of a bayonet.
  • Shaggy_C: So the State could confiscate 100% of the lifetime assets of its most productive citizens


    O_o
  • You guys do realize that this article isn't an action plan, right? It's not a proposal to take all of Jeff's and Elon's money, just an illustration of how unevenly the pie is sliced.
  • Billionaires shouldn't exist. Keep tax laws the same, but the >$999,999,999.99 tax bracket is 100%.
  • Most of billionaires' wealth is part ownership of companies.

    Take away Elon Musk's share of Tesla and the stock value plunges. Try to sell that stock in order to pay for your budget plan, and it plunges again.

    What you should be doing instead is closing all the tax loopholes. Oh and hike up the death tax, Junior will still have more than enough to live on but he shouldn't be automatically entitled to a life of luxury while doing nothing.
  • JerkStore: Billionaires shouldn't exist. Keep tax laws the same, but the >$999,999,999.99 tax bracket is 100%.


    You'd still have billionaires because, again, most top-end wealth is in owning companies and not selling (which would generate a tax event).
  • TabASlotB: You think the $3.5T is the annual cost of the proposal? Why?


    Because I'm an idiot, that's why!

    I realised my mistake while out on my morning run. One of those "oh shiat" moments. Oops...
  • bighairyguy: The problem with that line thought / math exercise is that you run out of rich people very quickly.  You can shear a sheep a hundred times but your can only butcher it once.  We need to work on increasing the shearing efficiency, not sharpening the butcher knives.


    You can always get more sheep.
  • Shaggy_C: TabASlotB: You think the $3.5T is the annual cost of the proposal? Why?

    Because I'm an idiot, that's why!

    I realised my mistake while out on my morning run. One of those "oh shiat" moments. Oops...


    Gotchya. It's not an uncommon misunderstanding. When you do the (right) math, it amounts to an increase in federal spending by ~5%.
  • Load 25 of 53 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.


Close