• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
sarahbell

Maths

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

Image may contain: text


So if we distribute all the rich people's wealth, how much do we end up with each?
And how many people will die (being paid by the rich to defend their wealth?)
and who would fight them?

 

I don't really want the rich man's castle, I just wish he'd stop taking the shirt from my back by redistributing my wealth to Robotlyra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty likely that Robotlyra is in the top 1% in terms of wealth on a global scale, so I'm assuming they are already distributing their wealth with people in the third world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the "master plan" is to get the 99.9% all at the same level, regardless of whether they work or not. 

Those calculations previously posted on here regarding the £90k p/a solicitor and the child minder having similar disposable incomes shoes how it works.

I'm not convinced the 0.1% have thought through the "end of game" situation though. Unless of course they are planning on bailing out of all the countries that are trashed through these policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

I don't really want the rich man's castle, I just wish he'd stop taking the shirt from my back by redistributing my wealth to Robotlyra

Often quoted that the richest 80 people have as much wealth as the bottom half of the world population.

If you could redistribute this wealth then you could double the wealth for poorest 50%

But you cant just redistribute wealth like that.

 

 

Edited by snaga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, snaga said:

Often quoted that the richest 80 people have az much weslth as the bottom half of the world population.

If you could redistribute this wealth then you could double their wealth for poorest 50%

But you cant just redistribute wealth like that.

 

 

Exactly -- through wealth distribution you change incentives, which in turn changes behaviours.  You end up with everyone doing as little as they think they can get away with.  As it does take time and effort for 'stuff' to get done, this actually results in the median person getting less.  This is the paradox of socialism -- If the end goal is 'for the social good', the median person actually says 'stuff that for a laugh'.

I would suggest that part of the solution is through redistribution of unearnt wealth.   Taxation of capitals gains and perhaps inheritance*.  Stupid thing is, we're doing the opposite in actually celebrating unearned wealth.  

[* inheritance is complicated -- Part of the 'effort - reward' mindset that makes effort work is that we can build a better future for our children.  Taking this away is similar to taking away the reward for the person doing the effort at the time -- with the result that they'll try less hard, which is exactly the situation we're trying to resolve.  Moreover, a family business, say, only continues to exist and make money because of the intergenerational effect.   I'd say inheritance taxes should be moderate but also extraordinarily difficult to get out of -- as it stands they're really easy to get around for those with the wealth to do so.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dgul said:

Exactly -- through wealth distribution you change incentives, which in turn changes behaviours.  You end up with everyone doing as little as they think they can get away with.  As it does take time and effort for 'stuff' to get done, this actually results in the median person getting less.  This is the paradox of socialism -- If the end goal is 'for the social good', the median person actually says 'stuff that for a laugh'.

I would suggest that part of the solution is through redistribution of unearnt wealth.   Taxation of capitals gains and perhaps inheritance*.  Stupid thing is, we're doing the opposite in actually celebrating unearned wealth.  

[* inheritance is complicated -- Part of the 'effort - reward' mindset that makes effort work is that we can build a better future for our children.  Taking this away is similar to taking away the reward for the person doing the effort at the time -- with the result that they'll try less hard, which is exactly the situation we're trying to resolve.  Moreover, a family business, say, only continues to exist and make money because of the intergenerational effect.   I'd say inheritance taxes should be moderate but also extraordinarily difficult to get out of -- as it stands they're really easy to get around for those with the wealth to do so.]

changing tax systems to tax unearned wealth more is a great idea, something the GX could do in unison, can't be done unilaterally without capital flight. 

Corbyn will try it, watch the disaster that unfolds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dgul said:

Exactly -- through wealth distribution you change incentives, which in turn changes behaviours.  You end up with everyone doing as little as they think they can get away with.  As it does take time and effort for 'stuff' to get done, this actually results in the median person getting less.  This is the paradox of socialism -- If the end goal is 'for the social good', the median person actually says 'stuff that for a laugh'.

I would suggest that part of the solution is through redistribution of unearnt wealth.   Taxation of capitals gains and perhaps inheritance*.  Stupid thing is, we're doing the opposite in actually celebrating unearned wealth.  

[* inheritance is complicated -- Part of the 'effort - reward' mindset that makes effort work is that we can build a better future for our children.¬† Taking this away is similar to taking away the reward for the person doing the effort at the time -- with the result that they'll try less hard, which is exactly the situation we're trying to resolve.¬† Moreover, a family business, say, only continues to exist and make money¬†because of the intergenerational effect.¬† ¬†I'd say inheritance taxes should be moderate but also extrÔĽŅaordinarily difficult to get out of -- as it stands they're really easy to get around for those with the wealth to do so.]

This

I think it is said that the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich because the former trust their children less than the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gilf said:

Pretty likely that Robotlyra is in the top 1% in terms of wealth on a global scale, so I'm assuming they are already distributing their wealth with people in the third world.

More likely she's/he's campaigning to bring the third world to the UK to share in the magic money tree's largesse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I worked this out once. If the entire walmart board were paid minimum wage, and their packages redistributed equally to all other employees, how much would all their salaries increase by. I think it was like $24 a year. Hardly transformational. 

 

Fact is, there arent that many rich people to go round. 

 

That said, just declaring any argument for taxes as 'jealousy' is, IMO, a cop out. When you get people like Warren Buffett arguing for increased death duties, is that really borne of 'jealousy'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with wealth distribution is that for most people wealth management is not a natural talent. Wealth taken from people that know how to manage it and given to people that don't will result in everybody becoming poorer. eg. Zimbabwe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my¬†‚Äėlike-minded‚Äô¬†friends anger towards the elite is not because they are denying overpopulated shitholes¬†a lifestyle they have not earnt. Most of the¬†anger is focused on why the elite repopulated and then overpopulated Europe with immigrants from shithole countries¬†after¬†WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the level of wealth of the rich it's that they begrudge any little amount of stuff the rest might have to the extent that even if you work hard for a living they'll try to make that experience as unpleasant for you as possible.  Similarly if you don't work for a living.  Congestion and overpopulation is just one of their many ploys in the pursuit of that objective. 

That's what psychopaths do of course.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, twocents said:

It's not the level of wealth of the rich it's that they begrudge any little amount of stuff the rest might have to the extent that even if you work hard for a living they'll try to make that experience as unpleasant for you as possible.  Similarly if you don't work for a living.  Congestion and overpopulation is just one of their many ploys in the pursuit of that objective. 

That's what psychopaths do of course.

Exactly! Technological advances in every aspect of life and a sustainable population should have ensured a better life for the working and middle classes. The elite seem to begrudge this to the extent of destroying ours and eventually their existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.