Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The last sentence gives the first sentence the non-literal anecdotal context. This is the fourth time I've explained this, I think you need a refresh course or something.


There are only two sentences, missing the context there is kind of sad. Can you manage to read them together now, and try to understand the meaning?
I feel like you failed to interpret the meaning of the single sentence. When reading it alone, the context of the first one becomes obvious, but you seem to think it's literal. Can you explain why you think it's literal, and then providing a comment on the second sentence you claimed to have read would also be good. There's really no indication in your reply you read or understood it. If you directly address the second sentence with an opinion, missing the context becomes a near impossibility.

At this point it's also pretty obvious you're trolling, so I formatted this reply like a 5th graders assignment. If you follow the instructions correctly, you should get your answer.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

I was thinking that the individual could do what they wanted with their extra money

that is noble of you!
allowing someone to do what they wish with their possessions!
what a concept!

a reply to: shooterbrody

we already don't just let everyone do whatever they want with money, this limitation would hardly be the first or most drastic suggestion, it literally would never even effect you. It would effect a couple thousand people in a population of billions.

you're more likely to be struck by lightning twice while being attacked by a shark as a gay person than be a billionaire, but continue to act like this would ever directly effect you.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Is that not the Treasury Department that owns and issues money?

My understanding is the actual monies belong to the government.

Hence the reason its illegal to deface banknotes and the like.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

we already don't just let everyone do whatever they want with money

really?
who knew?

it literally would never even effect you

oh
so that is the standard?
whew....and all this time I had been worried about my ability to get an abortion.....

It would effect a couple thousand people in a population of billions.

yeah cause rights should be a ratio by population .........

More people die to shark attacks and are gay.

do the l ,b, and t people know this?
they will not be happy they were left out

a reply to: shooterbrody

the ratio is currently the cause of most of the drastic stratification of wealth, obviously.

this opinion you hold doesn't seem to be one based on logic.

If it instead was a couple thousand people, and but a single person, that's literally a fking king, are you some kind of fascist?

This scenario sounds 'equal' to you? The whole analogy to monopoly and it being an even game is great, but it literally is not described that way, you literally sat down at a game already being played, for years, and started at 0, so you have no chance. Infinite money just means infinite power and no checks or balances. You're literally arguing for a scenario where a single person can own everything. How in your right mind is this 'thinking of others'?

a reply to: andy06shake
Is that you Richard Murphy?
What if you put it in the bank? Does the bank own it then?
I submit I own the value of the promise noted on the device, which is much more important than the device.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

'equal'

and you dare speak of logic
lol
mkay

"MOMMA THEY GOT MORE THAN ME AGAIN!!!"

a reply to: shooterbrody

ahh, ok, so if the post is too correct or complex for you to read, then you use a meme.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere
you brought the "equal"
dont cry about it now

you simply wish for a communist system
dont hide it
be proud of it

a reply to: shooterbrody

Everyone being capped at the same amount is equal. your argument it isn't is trash.

If the cap is 1 quadrillion dollars, guess what, still an equal cap.

If it was capped at 100 dollars, everyone is still equal.

The idea this is an equality thing is super incorrect, it's more of your opinion, the fact you try to go to this equal stuff is just factually incorrect, sorry, it is equal, unless you have some misunderstood idea of what it means to be equal. It means you get the same rights, and everyone would have the same access to the same amount of money, thus equal. So you don't really have a single foot to stand on claiming this isn't equal because it simply means you misunderstand it. It is equal. What part of that do you think you don't understand? I never once claimed extra taxes, or giving money to government, you said that, I never once claimed anyone would receive your money, and I never said any single person would effected by the cap that others wouldn't. In all respects, this is equal. SO what the hell are you talking about.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Equal opportunity is freedom.

Equal outcome is fascism.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The government issue the bonds, put them in a bank, which then lends 90% on the dollar if memory serves.

It's all fugazi and pulled right out there arse if we are honest, and based on exactly sweet feck all, other the accumulation of more debt.

I'm about as far from being a chartered accountant or political economist as you can get really.

Tax avoidance and tax evasion are the bain of the society and the real crux of the problem.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

It means you get the same rights

we have the same rights here now

and everyone would have the same access to the same amount of money, thus equal

different subject all together
rights dont equal property
rights protect my property from the government
sorry
that only flys in communist nations

funny you are so scared to admit that
dont be shy
just admit you prefer a communist system, you know for "equality's" sake

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's only not an equal opportunity, if some people are allowed to exploit it,

not having a freedom, IS an equal freedom.

you DO NOT have the freedom to just go around shooting up a neighborhood, you will be apprehended for it. This applies EQUALLY to everyone else that DOES NOT REALISTICALLY HAVE THIS FREEDOM.

Sure you can do it, there are consequences. The majority of society agrees with this consequences, you however disagree consequences should exist? because freedom? what? nonsensical.

a reply to: andy06shake

It's all fugazi

then why mention it?
deflection?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Equal opportunity is freedom.

Equal outcome is fascism.

game
set
match

well done
as usual sir!

a reply to: shooterbrody

Deflection form what?

Getting bumped silly from the bankers?

I mention the current financial and socio-economic predicament in which a substantial number of our respective populace find themselves because its pertinent to the thread.

I don't think it's me that deflecting, can i hand you a mirror?

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: DBCowboy



not having a freedom, IS an equal freedom.

Da fu-. . . . ?

You've lost it man.

Sorry, but Elvis left the building with that remark.

Take a lap, hit the showers and clean out your locker because you obviously can't play the game.

a reply to: andy06shake

Is that not the Treasury Department that owns and issues money?

My understanding is the actual monies belong to the government.

Hence the reason its illegal to deface banknotes and the like.

so what was this then?

jog on