Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: ketsuko

Better conversation for me,(because real), than fictionally speaking about how I 'hate rich people'.

Dude, you lost this when you started claiming knowledge because you're so filthy rich you swim in a vault of coins like Scrooge McDuck.

a reply to: ketsuko

excuse me for being rich and also having the conscious to suggest a cap, good luck with your washington lapdogs solving that for you.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: ketsuko

There is literally nothing left to do but donate money once you're as rich as me. I am, you really have no evidence that I'm not.

Part of this is that incentive is ruined for anyone born rich. I have nothing left to make, I was born with everything. It's just giving # away is my only job now, and it doesn't feel like an economy, it feels like being a king.

I see, the problem is that you have mental illness. Now you think you are a king.

I have come to the conclusion that you are simply someone who is trolling for your own amusement. Because you post gibberish and nonsense and make people jump through hoops trying to respond to your nonsense and gibberish.

a reply to: toolgal462

sounds like u

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

And none of that changes the fact that you still haven't answered my question:

How does attempting to enforce equality of outcome make someone free? I've explained to you several different ways how it neither makes people equal or free, but you keep whining about how you're rich and therefore think you're entitled to want this instead of addressing my point. Let me try again.

All people grow to different heights. Suppose someone in charge decides the world would be a better place if no one ever grew taller than 5'8" tall ever again. After all, no one *needs* to be taller than that, right? It would make it easier to build standard buildings, etc.

So they pass a law that no one can grow taller than that.

Obviously, some people are growing to grow taller than 5'8" no matter what they do. Those people are neither equal nor are they free. Instead they are either outcasts and pariahs, subjected to horrific medical shortening procedures or worse.

And, of course, you will have those who don't grow to 5'8" too.

Capping height doesn't make people equal or free. It just brutalizes some.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Well, I asked you to explain to me how capping income helps the world and I'm still waiting for the answer. With a detailed explanation.

Go ahead

a reply to: ketsuko

It doesn't make them free, the same way the speed limit doesn't doesn't make you more free, and only limits rights.

The way it is making you more free, is by disallowing anyone else to be SO FREE that they ruin your ability to have freedom.

If I make 100 trillion dollars, buy all the food, and double it's price, you're paying for my freedom. And I'm not paying for yours.

You also have not addressed my point that you yourself admitted that having too much lets people do bad things. So what happens to money and assets beyond 1 billion? Do you burn it or do you trust that somehow the government is incorruptible?

Don't make me laugh by telling the government is incorruptible, either.

You take that extra wealth and you create a new problem by concentrating it somewhere else. If billionaires and trillionaires can't be trusted with it, then neither can the government.

Face it. People are corrupt because they are people, and people in the government are not immune.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Gotcha! So you are against private property rights!

You do understand that that is a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? You're looking at having to create a constitutional amendment to get what you want.

a reply to: ketsuko

There isn't a reason to contract price if you're at maxed currency.

This is maybe something that isn't obvious to people who have never dealt with having max currency.

a reply to: ketsuko

Money isn't private property what the #, it's literally owned by the government, and not the individual, it's illegal to even draw on it.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
Yes, it does. The single time I expressed it as anecdotal should actually be the entire end of it.

This:

It would make more sense if they were all selfmade to stick up for them, but who are you kidding?

Is not anecdotal nor does it qualify this:

and let me know when it dawns on you 75% of Billionaires were Born that way, so this still just happens anyway.

Besides economics you also seem to not grasp basic grammar and sentence structure.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

0 chance im responding to you anymore about this.

It sucks to be wrong, I know. You will heal.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

And I'm also not intolerant? I'm suggesting a cap that's responsible. It's not targeting anyone.

you have repeatedly stated here that the only actions taken by those with more money than you are nefarious

that is intolerance

having the government enforce that is communist

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: ketsuko

Money isn't private property what the #, it's literally owned by the government, and not the individual, it's illegal to even draw on it.

Most of the wealthy do not keep the majority of their wealth in liquid assets.

a reply to: shooterbrody

no, I literally stated that potential to be nefarious with money is dynamically related to the amount, and stated nothing about individuals, you did.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
0 chance im responding to you anymore about this.

So you say, we all see how you're not very good with percentages.

When you figure out how to compose a coherent sentence that matches what's swirling around in your muddled thoughts let me know.