Horseshit. A few thousand billionaires doesn’t constitute a “class” in a world of billions of people. That’s not a matter of “class,” it’s a fucking oligarchy.
I do not hate billionaires for being billionaires. But I’m against a system that unjustly and inefficiently concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people while basic necessities such as housing become unaffordable because the beneficiaries of that system are turning it into an investment through which extract more wealth from the people below themselves.
Billionaires create many things millions use. Just because they have a lot of money didn’t make them intrinsically bad.
To illustrate how bad this argument is. Middle Ages nobles made contributions to society in the form of collecting taxes, managing land and organizing armies. That doesn’t mean that feudalism isn’t a bollocks system nor that you shouldn’t come up with ways of collecting taxes, managing land and organizing armies that don’t incentivize privilege and corruption.
If you’re are literally working so hard that you’re 100 times more productive than someone earning minimum wage, take a vacation. If you don’t want to, it’s clear that money isn’t what motivates you the most when you choose to continue working.
Of course, you must be really ignorant to believe that people earn 100 times more than someone earning minimum wage because they’re 100 times more productive. Your capacity to produce is not the same as your capacity to earn money.
If we’re talking about X, you argue A, I counter with B, and instead of counter-arguing you just jump to a different point or framing, you just don’t want to admit that your premise didn’t hold much weight to begin with. “I want a system that rewards hard work” “This system doesn’t reward hard work” “Whatever, I want risk-taking people to be rewarded” You aren’t so much arguing as you’re rationalizing your position, rather than sincerely taking a look at your own argument when it’s challenged.
Horseshit. A few thousand billionaires doesn’t constitute a “class” in a world of billions of people. That’s not a matter of “class,” it’s a fucking oligarchy.
Wow you’re pretty angry.
You should try to be happier, your hate is making you dumb
It’s not that complicated
It’s a rich Vs the poor trope.
It’s trying to incite hate and disillusionment in society.
Billionaires create many things millions use. Just because they have a lot of money didn’t make them intrinsically bad.
I do not hate billionaires for being billionaires. But I’m against a system that unjustly and inefficiently concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people while basic necessities such as housing become unaffordable because the beneficiaries of that system are turning it into an investment through which extract more wealth from the people below themselves.
To illustrate how bad this argument is. Middle Ages nobles made contributions to society in the form of collecting taxes, managing land and organizing armies. That doesn’t mean that feudalism isn’t a bollocks system nor that you shouldn’t come up with ways of collecting taxes, managing land and organizing armies that don’t incentivize privilege and corruption.
I agree that concentrated wealth isn’t an efficient distribution.
So what can we do, 100% taxes over a million?
What’s the incentive then to work harder if you earn over a million?
If you’re are literally working so hard that you’re 100 times more productive than someone earning minimum wage, take a vacation. If you don’t want to, it’s clear that money isn’t what motivates you the most when you choose to continue working.
Of course, you must be really ignorant to believe that people earn 100 times more than someone earning minimum wage because they’re 100 times more productive. Your capacity to produce is not the same as your capacity to earn money.
But that’s the point, you’re spray taking 100 types the risk when starting a business.
That’s what’s greenbelt not taken into account.
The start up costs, the risk involved, the investment capital.
The owners of the business hold all this risk so they should receive the reward as well.
50% of business don’t survive the first five years.
Investing isn’t working, and you were talking about working harder.
I’m talking about risk. The workers don’t saddle the risk.
And just because you haven’t said it yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
So we can only talk about one thing?
That’s a ridiculous position.
If we’re talking about X, you argue A, I counter with B, and instead of counter-arguing you just jump to a different point or framing, you just don’t want to admit that your premise didn’t hold much weight to begin with. “I want a system that rewards hard work” “This system doesn’t reward hard work” “Whatever, I want risk-taking people to be rewarded” You aren’t so much arguing as you’re rationalizing your position, rather than sincerely taking a look at your own argument when it’s challenged.