Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,206,412
@1,206,375 (D)
I know you're joking and this post isn't directed at you. But it blows my mind that people complain about taxes in situations like this. I have a relative that won a large sum in the lottery about thirty years ago, and he bitched and moaned for years, until the day he died, about the government taking "his" money, despite still having enough to retire earlier than 99% of americans get to and living in a big mansion without ever having to worry about money again. I don't know the figures so I don't know if the 700mil net is accurate in this scenario, but assuming it is, that is still a FUCK LOAD of money that you didn't earn and didn't have yesterday. Are you really going to complain about getting 700 million fucking dollars? People are so god damned greedy, it's disgusting.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,206,414
@previous (C)
There ought to be wealth caps. There's literally no reason any single person should ever directly control more than like $10M in personal assets.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,206,419
@previous (G)
I agree in principle but I'm not sure where the cutoff should be. The majority of people just cannot be trusted with large amounts of money. If the mega rich actually contributed to society meaningfully instead of hoarding wealth, it would be a different story. But they don't do that. Bootlickers will say "they create jobs!" but the vast majority of those jobs barely pay enough for someone to survive. Bootlickers will say "they give to charity!" but those charities are owned/run by those same mega rich and they collect a large amount of the proceeds for themselves/their own companies as administrative costs, using the contributions to lessen their tax burdens and hoard more wealth. Bootlickers will say "it's their money and they earned it!" but there is no amount of hard work or societal contribution that should morally lead that amount of wealth when there are millions of much harder working people who can't even afford to eat or put a roof over their heads.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,206,420
@previous (C)
The hardest workers in society (bricklayers, ditch diggers, construction, etc.) earn the least, so "hard work" has nothing to do with being rich.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,206,422
@previous (H)
Exactly. Hard work leading to wealth is a myth perpetuated by the wealthy to keep the working class subservient and maintain the current social hierarchy.
> I agree in principle but I'm not sure where the cutoff should be.
Need not be a cutoff. The tax rate could be a mathematical function of total assets asymptoting, but never exactly reaching a 100% tax rate.
> There ought to be wealth caps. There's literally no reason any single person should ever directly control more than like $10M in personal assets.
you're one of those morons? what happens when you get that law passed and then the dollars are hyper-inflated? you think your government will respond with any haste to save you from their carefully engineered economic collapse? you'll be stuck with the wealth cap and everyone will be "millionaires" while not being to afford even a loaf of bread. Such a precarious situation you want to enter into just to stick it to a few people you hate
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,206,459
@previous (I)
If at any time in the next 50 years the average American has $10 million due to hyperinflation, the law won't matter because the existing US government will already be overthrown.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 40 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,206,466
@1,206,463 (I)
People right now are very grouchy with under 10% inflation. You are talking about like 10,000%. I'm very comfortable saying that in the event of sustained 10,000% inflation, the US government as we know it would cease to exist.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 21 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,206,470
@1,206,465 (G)
I doubt he has a theory or has given it any thought at all. He just heard someone else say it and it sounded good to him so he's repeating it.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,206,472
@previous (C)
if you really think there's zero threat of runaway inflation in the united states... you're ignoring a lot of history and recent/current events
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,206,475
@previous (G)
Because you've (intentionally) misunderstood my post, and you're asking me about something I didn't write... there's no way to answer you satisfactorily
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 45 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,206,476
@1,206,469 (I)
The way you worded it made it seem as though you were saying that somehow a wealth cap would lead to hyperinflation. I see now that isn't what you meant, but your wording could be improved. It still seems like a very dumb reason to be against the idea though. Not implementing something that is helpful to 99% of people right now today just because there is a slim chance of something going wrong 30 years down the road seems more than a bit silly.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 9 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,206,482
@1,206,477 (I)
Considering at least two people interpreted it that way initially, I would argue that yes, it did sound like that. Regardless it's a shit take.
