Jump to content

obnoxious

Member
  • Total Exp

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Reputation

66 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Maybe there's a coincidence here. We're talking about bad games and AVGN is based on bad games... I mean, the character's been running for more than a decade, it's very hard not to pick something he already reviewed
  2. That's true as long as the number of such goods remains the same.
  3. Come on, leave my username alone already Also I never said it would severely impact the price of goods because it doesn't, not by itself. Economy isn't that simple. Don't strawman me, please.
  4. Yeah, that's how it works here in Brazil up to R$ 1.903,98: 0% From R$ 1.903,99 to R$ 2.826,65: 7,5% From 3: De R$ 2.826,66 to R$ 3.751,05: 15% From 4: De R$ 3.751,06 to R$ 4.664,68: 22,5% From 5: R$ 4.664,68 and above: 27,5% Good luck implementing that and promising quality health care and such... The idea is great, tho.
  5. Sorry for not specifying. How much minimum wage is enough to make it a living minimum wage? Ok, let's consider the treasurer set it to $19.84. Why not $22 or $60 or whatever? What are the impacts and consequences of going higher than $19.84?
  6. That's an old discussion in South America. So here's a question: how much is enough? Wouldn't it be easy to just set it to 3k dollars or something? How about 5k? Well, let's make it 10k. Any ideas on why it doesn't work? Oh we also still have tipping, it's usually 10%. Guess why?
  7. Socialist Russia is an extreme example but the specific example I used was not extreme, because it's being used, right now, in Argentina. They are freezing prices just like Brazil did in the 80s and totally ruined the economy. No, I'm not familiar with all US taxes history. I also don't know the economical context from your example, except that World Wars mess up every possible aspect of economy. Well then, let's wait for the laws taxing rich people to start collecting money and see where it takes the US economy. Guess they know what they are doing. Thanks for the nice talk and being respectful. We don't have to hate each other because we disagree on stuff.
  8. Do you think there's a limit that separates "money to keep wheels turning" from "we want more money because we can take it from you"? For me, there is and this is what I meant. Sorry for not specifying this. But then, we'd enter another realms of discussion like "how much is enough" or "when it's fair or not". Discussion-wise, taking money from people who already paid their taxes because they have a lot of it is just like kids making new rules when they are losing a game. That's a way it may work but not a good one. Consider the context of my statement: getting rich people's money and distributing it. It will be a one-off thing that will totally distort the production chain because the industry will see things (food, electronics, everything actually) flying off the shelves and will produce more of it. Next month most people spent their share and all that extra production will gather spider webs and a lot of money was put in producing stuff without buyers. This is the most simplistic and short way to explain one of the possible consequences. I never said that money disappears, although it's possible and also can be created from practically nothing (with consequences, both cases). Me neither, I was talking about freezing prices or just messing with it and how it causes hunger and kills poor people. Price is a consequence not a cause, it's like feeling too young/old and changing your age. Like the bell curve thing, it takes statistics knowledge, a precise definition of what's plotted in it and very good arguments to turn it into some law. You want that right line to be higher or to turn it into a linear increasing graph, I understand it. But maybe things aren't that simple and we may end up scratching our heads with another bell curve, trying to figure out what the hell happened. Look, I knows this subject makes people uncomfortable and makes them fight/dislike each other. Long story short, all I'm saying is: it was tried before, did not work. If we're going to risk messing up the economy and starving some people to death, let's do it with new ideas. And I'm taking this topic as a chance to practice my written english
  9. Not jaded, I think we have enough practical examples on why it doesn't work as intended. Good intentions do not imply good outcomes. Is every law moral? No. Is it possible to make immoral laws based on moral intentions? Yes, absolutely. I have a personal rule: I don't agree to laws made under a government I "like" that a government I "don't like" would abuse. Today we have a "tax the rich" law, tomorrow we'll have a "tax everyone who has a car and college education". It's a very dangerous slippery slope giving such powers to politicians. I don't mean to be rude and I'm totally not being rude but if you buy that or not is totally irrelevant. I really like this quote: "Ideology is the adequacy of the thing to the thought. Philosophy is the adequacy of the thought to the thing." Reality is what it is, we must accept it, risking making very bad decisions by ignoring it. We do have examples in the past when governments messed with the reward mechanism of the free market and it always ended up bad to the lower and middle classes, and I'm talking about socialist Russia stuff here. If reality clashes with my solution to something, I must reconsider my solution, putting aside good intentions. Personally, I think that "tax the rich" has nothing to do with inequality, for the elites who advocate for it. It solves nothing. Sum up every fortune in the US. Now split it equally among every citizen. Everyone gets a little and that money will be spent and never seen again. That money is better serving society making services/goods cheaper (by raising efficiency). Here's a simple example: let's say that distributing Jeff Bezo's wealth will force Amazon's delivery chain to end. What will that do to the cost of shipping by different companies? This is a complex subject, everything I'm writing doesn't even touch the tip of the problem. All I'm sure is that governments should find a way to raise money besides stealing from people, no matter where they money came from.
  10. We are having a civilized discussion here. I guess.... "we’ve become so divided we can’t get out of our own way to help each other anymore." Disgusting really
  11. "Working" is subjective. It depends on parameters of what it means "to work". We can say that 'not getting money that was already taxed' is fair. It is "working" if we consider that people already paid their "debt to society" when they paid their taxes. It is "not working" if we think that distributing half this money would people make every poor less poor, forever. I was once for this kind of stuff, it works well in our imagination and good intentions, but does not in reality. Economy is a very unstable mechanism and messing with it will cause problems that will demand more laws to correct it, which will cause more problems... and so on. But ok, don't trust what I say. Let's see that in practice and it's outcome (ignoring all the times it was tried and went wrong).
  12. Create the laws and see this statement getting mangled by politicians. Why the 0.01% (which once were the 1%) want laws to enforce it to themselves when they could just donate that money? Doesn't make sense to me.
  13. It doesn't matter where the money came from, considering it's not from a crime. Pizza shop? Taxes paid Previous inheritance? Taxes paid Lottery? Taxes paid Doesn't matter where the money came from. It's theirs. If there are plenty of ways to donate there's no reason to make laws forcing everyone to do it.
×
×
  • Create New...