• @Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      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.

    • @qfjp@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      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.

        • @qfjp@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          29 months ago

          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.

            • @qfjp@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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.

                • @qfjp@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  29 months ago

                  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)