• qfjp@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year 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
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year 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)

                  • qfjp@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    A non linear fit! Holy shit! Thats the same graph they have on Wikipedia! While I don’t believe you have a degree past high school, your arrogance does match the physicists in grad school. Probably also explains why you think using Mathematica is impressive.