Libertarian cucks WILL defend this

libertarian cucks WILL defend this

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0
youtube.com/watch?v=P3LyZ8hyVZM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I consider the .1% as I consider those who hoard 30 cats in their two bedroom house, mentally ill. The difference being a choice in what they hoard and collect

I don't think "the rich" deserve more taxation, only those who are at the top of the spectrum.

Also, I wouldn't attack income levels, but the collected volume.

Why?
Almost all of those people simply are shareholders in companies they built.
It's not like they have piles of gold, they have shares in companies that by and large they still run (bill gates being the exception).

If you have 200 million dollars and you're still working and trying to get more you're mentally ill.

Because it's better for the development of the nation, technology, standard of living, etc.

After a certain point it becomes a hobby, a dangerous hobby that is the biggest fuel to the leftist fire.

Think of an obese person, at some point, they aren't eating because they need to live, they are eating because its become a hobby for them

Maybe you have something to contribute to society?

>implying wealth is a zero sum game.

Buy coffee beans and milk, make a cup of cappucino and sell it for profits. BOOM you've just created wealth out of thin air.

I'm not even advocating more taxes here

I'm saying lets stop taxing the doctor/surgeon making 300k annually with 750k in the bank, and put the burden on the .1%. If that doctor ever becomes the .1%, only then will the burden be on his shoulders

You don't get that rich in the first place if you desire to NEET it up and not work. All of the wealthy are workoholics who want to achieve greater and greater success. People who earn 'just enough' then retire are people you've never heard of. They get 20 million then call it a day.

You're not creating wealth you're just stealing it from oppressed South American coffee farmers.

What is distribution of wealth? Are people who work and build their own fortune supposed to have their money taken away from them forcefully by the government and then transferred to lazy criminals? Are people no entitled to the fruits of their labour?

↓↓↓↓
This includes small businessmen and up and coming inventors

What you are talking about, isn't in defense of the .1%, it's in the defense of the doctor/surgeon/inventor making 300k annually with 750k in the bank

We already have taxes, which is technically the redistribution of wealth.

I'm saying lets stop taxing the doctor/surgeon/up and coming inventor/businessman making 300k+ annually with 750k in the bank, or even millions, and put the burden on the .1%. If they choose to continue and develop until their amassed wealth becomes the .1%, only then will the burden be on their shoulders

Insufficient bootstrap pulling!

But really OP, you should look at INCOME not wealth.

So you forcibly take the wealth of people who create jobs and increase the economy and give that money to unproductive people?

if you were familiar with the 80/20 rule, the distribution would make sense; especially considering how few people in this country are actually employed.

No you're missing my point. If we could create wealth out of thin air, what's wrong with people having too much wealth (ie the .1 %)? It's not like those .1% are debilitating the rest of the population from being rich (save when the 0.1 % has a monopoly on a certain market. In that case, anti-trust laws ought to be implimented).

>and give that money to unproductive people?
Nobody said that at all

>muh wealth distribution
If they're not motivated to get off their asses and earn, that's their own problem. It's not like they lack the opportunity here.

t. NatSoc

A lot of the wealth that those folks have is mostly sitting there not increasing anything.

'Redistributing' it to people who will then buy shit with it actually will increase the economy, productively.

Wouldn't there be a deflation if those money are just sitting around? With deflation, goods are cheaper => more consumer spending.

she just keeps getting bigger doesnt she

Absolutely, deflation is an actual risk as money amasses at the top. Why do you think we are at near zero interest rates via the FED (yeah other than 'the jews')?

You do know that deflation is really really bad for the economy, jobs, etc. right?

>'Redistributing' it to people who will then buy shit with it actually will increase the economy, productively.
Nah that's not how economy works, it'll only increase inflation. No new services are being provided in order to justify that money being injected into the market so prices will eventually go up ruining your economy. Also, the money that sits around creates more value to the money which in turn reduces the prices of things and services.

...

>It's not like those .1% are debilitating the rest of the population from being rich
It's taking money out of the economic cycle for no discernible reason. Why make extreme amounts of money if you don't have the ambition to develop something amazing? Bill Gates for example, Microsoft mouses/keybords/etc are just the same ole rehashed trash made in China. It's cheap and affordable and that's why he keeps making tons of money.

I'm not saying MORE taxes, and advocating a re-prioritization of who we are taxing.

With the new tax hikes on them specifically, they would actually be motivated to spend their money on ambitious projects. It's all about reward/punishment for their economic impacts

Read the thread, you missunderstand

The value of that money is based on trust, fiat currency. It's not backed by anything tangible, not gold nor even oil. Once you start talking about mass wealth distribution then watch the value of the dollar collapse. See Russia circa 1917.

Actually, people buying and selling things is exactly how the economy works.

It does not work that well with heaps of money sitting around.

>Also, the money that sits around creates more value to the money which in turn reduces the prices of things and services.
Not in the slightest. I am guessing you have not made it to college or econ 101 yet? If you have demand a refund from your university.

Russia currency circa 1917 collapsed because there was a huge civil war and the currency of record was on the losing side. When people determine that you are about to lose a civil war your currency goes to shit - logically.

Currency is backed by the strength of the issuing government. Hence why everyone wants based dollars.

But what if their money are mainly invested into other things? You're implying that the 0.1% would just store their money in vaults, which is hocus pocus. More often than not, they'll use their new earned money to invest in things, including, inter alia, golf courses, shares and even storing their money in banks (which in turn, the kikes would use those money to invest in other things). The money which they used for those investments are now back into the economic cycle.

Right but it's also based on trust. There is no physical object involved, just the ability of people to buy and sell products and services. If you start confiscating that wealth, the trust in that currency is completely lost, it becomes meaningless.

I admit it might just work if every country agreed to do it at the exact same time, but otherwise the wealthy disappear somewhere else and the currency collapses.

>but all those people on welfare have nice cushy lives that I pay for!!

Holy fuck conservatives are fucking retarded

You do realize this happened because of multinational corporations own politicians and thus can bypass regulations as well as granting them a monopoly over a certain commodity

There have been more regulations on small businesses for the past few decades

>they'll use their new earned money to invest in things, including, inter alia, golf courses
This is exactly what I want, for them to spend their money, I don't even care how
>storing their money
This is what I'm against, their vast amounts of hoarded money should be put to use in the economy.

My main priority isn't to just "take their money away", my main priority is for them to spend their money, however they do that is up to them

The richest people in the world create nothing but debt and they are a cancer on this earth.

That is the truth. Industrialist are cool because they create things and then reinvest their money to create even more things.

Usury was never cool

I agree its based on the trust that the issuing government will back it up, true. The US can do so. The Confederacy circa 1863 could not nor could Russia circa 1917.

You can believe this is a problem but most people accept it and move on, so it really does work.

But how do you know those 0.1% are indeed storing their "paper cash" in vaults? The picture you've posted is "wealth" distribution not "paper dollar" distribution, and the distinction between the two are not merely nominal.

If those 0.1 % are smart enough to become rich, I'm sure they're smart enough to invest their money, lest inflation would eventually devalue their money.

I understand that most wealth is digital. In my case I'm not counting of the value of stock. I consider that a product. If they want to avoid the responsibility of the .5% tax burden by spending all of their money on stock, so be it.

MOST, not all but most, of the ultra rich inherited it. Their parents/grandparents were hard workers and smart.

I doubt they are as smart as you think. Who do you think buys treasury bonds that lose value with inflation?

Pfft nah, the only people who are wealthy are those who contribute the most to society!

That's why corruption is common among the rich! After all, corruption increases productivity!

>I want to forcibly redistribute the money of other people because that's just ethical and shiet
t. welfare niggers and women

>Not in the slightest. I am guessing you have not made it to college or econ 101 yet?
Well have you?

Watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0
from 12:00
>when the amount of spending and incomes grows faster than the production of goods(redistribution of wealth), prices rises which creates inflation which causes the central bank to raise interest rates which causes fewer people to borrow money which causes people to have less money to spend

to 13:06
>when people spend less(the money sitting around that you want to have redistributed), prices go down which causes deflation which causes the economy to slow down leading to a recession which causes the central bank to lower interest rates allowing more people to borrow money and create credit which brings the economy back on track again

I'll admit that I really don't know much about how economy works but from the looks of it I don't see how I'm wrong here.

Read the thread before posting

>Don't take our money goy
>Borrow it and pay us back even more

I understand your concern, but we aren't talking about "take from the rich and giving to the poor". We are talking about "Take the tax burden from the middle class and give it to the rich"

Yes poorer people will have more spending money, and yes that will shift the balance of supply and demand. But that balance is already out of place, and will go back to where it should have been originally. That extra revenue to those companies will only allow for their development and expansion

My goal is the end of monetary empires, and the expansion of product empires

>Well have you?
Yes. I have an MBA and took multiple econ courses in undergrad and at the graduate level.

>watch this youtube video.
No thanks. I read if I want to learn something. YouTube propaganda is poorly sourced, if at all, and in overwhelmingly filled with pseudo science and garbage.

Link me to a peer reviewed article if you want to make your point. I will go out on a limb and say its doubtful that you will find one. If your youtube video does not describe WHY deflation is bad then you may need to do some reading on the subject. Would you like some recommendations?

>we aren't talking about "take from the rich and giving to the poor". We are talking about "Take the tax burden from the middle class and give it to the rich"
If you take money from those who produce more via a taxation reform and redistribute that money to those who produce less isn't that by definition taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? Also, doesn't tax laws already take much more money from the rich when compared to the middle class and poorer people? I don't know the laws in the US but according to this video they already pay 50% of their income: youtube.com/watch?v=P3LyZ8hyVZM
How much more they need to pay? And also, what guarantees do you have that they would just keep all that money in your country instead of just fleeing to another country?

Nice appeal to authority. If the video is not correct then explain why.

And by what do you mean as "products"?

Gold? Well, they'll have to use paper cash to buy them.

Properties? It's a form of investment and paper cash are required to purchase them as well.

I do not think unequal wealth distribution is bad for the economy, at least not significantly. I think the crux of the debate is the fear of those wealthy people eventually becoming so powerful (they have too many stocks, properties .. etc) such that even the government is incapable of preventing their exercise of despotism -- the fear of them eroding the liberty of the people.

>How much more they need to pay?
Oh no, they will have 60 billion now instead of 120 billion. Now they can't build that space station they were planning, that's why they were amassing wealth in the first place

>take money from those who produce
see
We would basically take the burden off companies like razor and put it on Microsoft who amass their wealth by making garbage mouses/keyboards and selling them cheap. Thus, people will have more money to spend on high quality products

Product empires > Monetary empires

Okay I'll use one of your examples
>Properties
They will have to buy land, hire construction workers, contractors, architectures, building materials, tools, machines, etc. All of that money going into the economic cycle instead of sitting around for decades.

I ain't gonna watch the video son. I WILL read any scholarly peer reviewed article that you would like to present defending your case.

>If you take money from those who produce more
I would instead take money from those who have more wealth. Having wealth =/= producing more. Sometimes it does but most wealth, as I said, is inherited.

>Also, doesn't tax laws already take much more money from the rich when compared to the middle class and poorer people?
Not in any relative sense, no.

>what guarantees do you have that they would just keep all that money in your country instead of just fleeing to another country
Huh? Poor people generally find it hard to be geographically mobile. The overwhelming majority of 'redistributed wealth' is spent. This has a stimulating impact on the economy far outweighing potential losses through remittances, etc.

>If you take money from those who produce more via a taxation reform and redistribute that money to those who produce less

Funny meme.

The rich do not produce more. They simply own more. They own so much that the passive income from merely existing is enough to keep them going.

That is not what any sane person would call production.

All rich people do is allocate money. That's it. If that's what you consider "production" or "value creation", then you simply do not understand.