• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Add Bernie Sander's to those the group that has no idea on how wealth works.

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,522
6,289
1,560
Can someone explain something to me?

Given these common "progressive" assumptions about taxation and government spending and basic facts:
  • Government can spend all it wants - hyperinflation will not occur
  • Programs like universal healthcare, UBI, the Green New Deal, reparations, and "progressive" military intervention (in addition to continuing to protect our "allies", like Europe, free of charge) will cost >$100T
  • The best cashflow literal Communist wealth redistribution can get out of one of the richest people on the planet is $100B, probably less than a thousandth of their programs' costs
then:
  1. What is the point of taxation in the first place when all the taxation realistically possible is a swollen-prostate piss in the ocean? There is no such thing as macroeconomic magic, only cashflows. Paying our debts does not really matter at that point as they are unable to ever be paid off, and (as progressives love to argue) the world is so linked to the US's success that it all does not even matter anyway. Taxes are logically arbitrary.
  2. How are the wealthy keeping you from having UBI, universal healthcare, etc. when all their wealth could barely pay for such things for a county in the US?
  3. How are the wealthy preventing government from spending the money anyway when government spending does not matter?
It is almost like Communism is inherently contradictory.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Torrent of Pork

OSC

Gold Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,500
643
430
Actually bill would still be multibillionaire if he was taxed 100Billion his net worth is 106Billion, but that would be stupid to do.
How are the wealthy keeping you from having UBI, universal healthcare, etc. when all their wealth could barely pay for such things for a county in the US?
The companies are currently paying a large chunk of americans a wage. In the event of high automation, that money they had for the wages does not disappear into thin air, it can still be sent to people who are at home or doing something else with their free time.
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,522
6,289
1,560
Actually bill would still be multibillionaire if he was taxed 100Billion his net worth is 106Billion, but that would be stupid to do.

The companies are currently paying a large chunk of americans a wage. In the event of high automation, that money they had for the wages does not disappear into thin air, it can still be sent to people who are at home or doing something else with their free time.
That is different from what they are talking about. There are countless Tweets implying that Bill Gates having that money prevents the government from enacting these policies when, logically, that is not possible. He could have $200B in wealth which could be seized for a one-time income and it would mean nothing against programs which cost 10x-100x that amount. per year The taxes off of his yearly cashflow are even more insignificant.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Gold Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,500
643
430
That is different from what they are talking about. There are countless Tweets implying that Bill Gates having that money prevents the government from enacting these policies when, logically, that is not possible. He could have $200B in wealth that could be seized and it would mean nothing against programs which cost 10x-100x that amount. The taxes off of his yearly cashflow are even more insignificant.
I thought he meant 100 Billion was enough to build houses for all the homeless and to upgrade water systems, but eventually there'd be new homeless, so it wouldn't solve the issue permanently.

In any case

Social security and medicaid medicare already take most of the budget, and it is said they will soon be insolvent.

Ideas like UBI and universal healthcare seem unaffordable for now.
 
Last edited:

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,512
2,769
1,500
I like how some people pretend that they somehow have a right to someone else's property, or what they have earned.

This is how conflict begins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: infinitys_7th

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Never trust a "Democratic Socialist". The agenda was always so clear.

I much prefer Marx's own quote on socialism:

True socialism, which is no longer concerned with real human beings but with “Man”, has lost all revolutionary enthusiasm and proclaims instead the universal love of mankind. It turns as a result not to the Proletarians but to the two most numerous classes of men in Germany, to the petty bourgeoisie with its philanthropic illusions and to the ideologists of this very same petty bourgeoisie: the philosophers and their disciples; it turns, in general, to that “common”, or uncommon, consciousness which at present rules in Germany.
But true socialism has in fact enabled a host of Young-German literary men, quacks and other literati to exploit the social movement. Even the social movement was at first a merely literary one because of the lack of real, passionate, practical party struggles in Germany. True socialism is a perfect example of a social literary movement that has come into being without any real party interests and now, after the formation of the communist party, it intends to persist in spite of it. It is obvious that since the appearance of a real communist party in Germany, the public of the true socialists will be more and more limited to the petty bourgeoisie and the sterile and broken-down literati who represent it.
 
Last edited:

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,504
2,233
600
Actually bill would still be multibillionaire if he was taxed 100Billion his net worth is 106Billion, but that would be stupid to do.
Actually you would never be able to get 100 Billion from Bill or Bezos. They don't have and can't get that much of their wealthy in cash to pay. The vast majority of their wealth is in stock of their companies. They would have to sell that to get the cash. Putting that much stock on the market like that would devalue the stock drastically. Also most companies put a cap on executives selling of stock to prevent devaluation.

Just look at the Cloudstrike IPO earlier this year, the company got $610 million in investments putting its valuation at 6.7 Billion. If someone owned 30% of that company and had no other investments. They would now have a net worth of just over $2 Billion. They are talking about taxing over 90% of Bill Gates wealth. Lets just use 50%. So now they owe $1 Billion in taxes on that $2 Billion. You have to remember that the company didn't get $6.7 Billion in investments. It only got $610 Million. Not even enough to pay for a 10% wealth tax on its valuation, and that money is usually used to run the business not paid out to the founders/current owners. So what does the guy that owns 30% do to pay the IRS that $1 Billion in taxes?
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,448
3,765
720
Recently I've seen a semi-documentary about B. Gates.
He's investing his wealth into making life of poor people in third world countries better.
Heck, not only his money, w. Buffet pledged 30 billion of his wealth.

It is hilarious someone is picking up B.G. as a target for socialist speak.
 

Bogey

Member
May 4, 2014
239
155
290
I"m generally open to recognizing issues such extreme concentration of wealth entails. Not really because one particular guy made it big during this lifetime, but rather because these amounts are often passed down the family tree through inheritance. We still have plenty of very rich families, whose wealth originated from the middle ages (!). So, I'm all for addressing inheritance issues.

Bill Gates, on the other hand, is probably the single worst example Bernie could have picked. The guy has already pledged to give it all away after his lifetime. And for now, he's doing MUCH more good with it through the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation than any government ever would. Even aside from the fact that his professional achievements that got him to this point, had a bigger impact on the modern world than nearly anyone else's work. So yea.. probably not the best guy to pick on.
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,103
142
595
Yep Sanders is right. He didn't say he's going to do this. Obviously he would raise the riches taxes, but all he's saying here is that Gates is absurdly rich, and even if he were to be taxed that much, Gates would still be absurdly rich.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
23,584
25,128
2,165
Yep Sanders is right. He didn't say he's going to do this. Obviously he would raise the riches taxes, but all he's saying here is that Gates is absurdly rich, and even if he were to be taxed that much, Gates would still be absurdly rich.
Wealth taxes are different than income and capital gains taxes. He would be forced to sell his existing assets, like stocks and properties. Any large amount of stock he sells can crash its value, meaning many other people would lose huge sums of money indirectly and he might not even be able to pay the wealth tax as originally assessed.

Further, he's already been taxed on all of it back when it was income and capital gains. Wealth taxes would crash the economy and trigger the flight of many successful people.
 

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,435
1,670
545
I hate headlines like this. Sanders knows exactly how wealth works, he has a ton of it you know.

Whom he targets, on the other hand, is a different story. It's classic Liberalism to rile up the losers by claiming the successful people are the cause of all of their problems.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,522
6,289
1,560
So he is just lying to the gullible then?
More to stoke class strife. His argument throws the apple of potential easy and undeserved wealth amongst the envious masses.

As I noted, all the seizable wealth, of the very wealthy like Gated, in the country is insignificant compared to the cost of his social programs and spending like the Green New Deal. Thus, it is logically unrelated to and unnecessary for those programs and spending. The same applies down the line, under progressive macroeconomic assumptions - no one suffers because someone else has money.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,477
386
735
His base isn't exactly known for those who have extensive backgrounds in economics.
The brains behind Warren's tax are 2 UC Berkley professors with graduate level training in economics. So, Bernie supporters could be dumb as a bag of rocks. These aren't intellectual scrubs backing Warren up.

With that said, I'd be surprised if Bill Gates sat down with Warren because his math about paying $100 billion in tax is 100% fake. That's why she was so quick to say she'd meet up.

She's a smarter version of Bernie Sanders I have to admit. Very impressive.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: FMXVII

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,766
5,982
420
The brains behind Warren's tax are 2 UC Berkley professors with graduate level training in economics. So, Bernie supporters could be dumb as a bag of rocks. These aren't intellectual scrubs backing Warren up.

With that said, I'd be surprised if Bill Gates sat down with Warren because his math about paying $100 billion in tax is 100% fake. That's why she was so quick to say she'd meet up.

She's a smarter version of Bernie Sanders I have to admit. Very impressive.
A.K.A have never ran a business or created a company before in their lives
 

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,435
1,670
545
The brains behind Warren's tax are 2 UC Berkley professors with graduate level training in economics. So, Bernie supporters could be dumb as a bag of rocks. These aren't intellectual scrubs backing Warren up.

With that said, I'd be surprised if Bill Gates sat down with Warren because his math about paying $100 billion in tax is 100% fake. That's why she was so quick to say she'd meet up.

She's a smarter version of Bernie Sanders I have to admit. Very impressive.
Again, I'm not challenging the sources saying they are dumb. It's the people who eat it up. Warren is also very smart. Anyone who says she doesn't understand what she is doing is wrong themselves. With that, voting for her plans makes you not that smart
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,303
1,533
430
The brains behind Warren's tax are 2 UC Berkley professors with graduate level training in economics. So, Bernie supporters could be dumb as a bag of rocks. These aren't intellectual scrubs backing Warren up.

With that said, I'd be surprised if Bill Gates sat down with Warren because his math about paying $100 billion in tax is 100% fake. That's why she was so quick to say she'd meet up.

She's a smarter version of Bernie Sanders I have to admit. Very impressive.
No way. Bernie has been extremely consistent in his political leanings and beliefs throughout his career. Warren changes what she claims to stand for constantly.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: TheLaughingStock
Nov 23, 2010
4,477
386
735
Again, I'm not challenging the sources saying they are dumb. It's the people who eat it up. Warren is also very smart. Anyone who says she doesn't understand what she is doing is wrong themselves. With that, voting for her plans makes you not that smart
What's dumb about voting for Warren's plans or Pres. Trump vision if you're one of the little guys?

She is someone who helped create the CFPB despite all her faults. She'll fight for you and cut through a lot of the BS.

If you're a big baller like Bill Gates, then neither option is probably in your immediate best interest.

But, like when Pres. Trump promised to shake things up certain people are getting anxious. They're holding more interviews and getting fluff pieces in the paper. I saw a billionaire "crying" on TV the other day about being taxed.

And it's no secret why Michael Bloomberg wants to waste people's money running for president. If you take a step back and look at what's happening all the saber rattling is going to make people go with the folks who want to rock the boat.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: FMXVII

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
148
246
255
I like how some people pretend that they somehow have a right to someone else's property, or what they have earned.

This is how conflict begins.
I like how some people pretend that they somehow have a right to an overwhelming lion's share of what they've earned with the help of others, like it wasn't a collective effort.

This is how conflict begins.


See? I can do this with the reverse.

I know that's arguing with hyperbole and silly, but having a billion dollars is such an insane amount of money, it's essentially like making $1/second over the course of a 30-year career. In the time it takes you to order food, you've made more money than the food will cost. In the time it takes you to run a 4-hour marathon, you made enough to buy a small car. Spend an entire day pretending to be homeless, and you have enough money for a down payment on a million dollar home. In a month, you'll have 50% more money than what is currently recommended for retirement.

All I know is that I'd like some nicer roads to drive on.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,772
2,014
755
Again, I'm not challenging the sources saying they are dumb. It's the people who eat it up. Warren is also very smart. Anyone who says she doesn't understand what she is doing is wrong themselves. With that, voting for her plans makes you not that smart
How smart can these people be if they think these wealth tax proposals won't crash the economy?..
 
Aug 29, 2018
1,771
2,710
420
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
The brains behind Warren's tax are 2 UC Berkley professors with graduate level training in economics. So, Bernie supporters could be dumb as a bag of rocks. These aren't intellectual scrubs backing Warren up.

With that said, I'd be surprised if Bill Gates sat down with Warren because his math about paying $100 billion in tax is 100% fake. That's why she was so quick to say she'd meet up.

She's a smarter version of Bernie Sanders I have to admit. Very impressive.
So people who've lived on the public dole their entire careers, and have never contributed to generating a single dollar's worth of value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonirenicus

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,512
2,769
1,500
I like how some people pretend that they somehow have a right to an overwhelming lion's share of what they've earned with the help of others, like it wasn't a collective effort.

This is how conflict begins.


See? I can do this with the reverse.

I know that's arguing with hyperbole and silly, but having a billion dollars is such an insane amount of money, it's essentially like making $1/second over the course of a 30-year career. In the time it takes you to order food, you've made more money than the food will cost. In the time it takes you to run a 4-hour marathon, you made enough to buy a small car. Spend an entire day pretending to be homeless, and you have enough money for a down payment on a million dollar home. In a month, you'll have 50% more money than what is currently recommended for retirement.

All I know is that I'd like some nicer roads to drive on.
So what your saying is that at some point, and at some arbitrary dollar amount the government can come in and seize (let's call it what it is really though, steal)what you have earned?

What's your cutoff for what the person has earned, and what the person earned with the help of "the collective"?

What I earn, is mine. Why? I earned it.

Sure some goes to taxes so that the there is police, fire, roads, and schools. What gives the government the right to decide that after a certain point, the person who has earned the money, no longer has a right to it? Let's say, everyone worth more then 10 million has to cough up a "wealth tax" of half.

Why stop at money? Why not seize (steal) land, and assets as well? Have over 2 businesses? We'll take the 3rd and 4th. Have more then 100 acres of land? Oops, we'll take the rest.

I'm sorry but for anyone to think that they have a right to someone elses earnings, just because, is absurd.
 

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,435
1,670
545
How smart can these people be if they think these wealth tax proposals won't crash the economy?..
We didn't fall 23 trillion in debt because people cared about financial responsibility. Pandering for power is good enough
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
41,624
18,914
1,395
The Pentagon
I like how some people pretend that they somehow have a right to an overwhelming lion's share of what they've earned with the help of others, like it wasn't a collective effort.

This is how conflict begins.


See? I can do this with the reverse.

I know that's arguing with hyperbole and silly, but having a billion dollars is such an insane amount of money, it's essentially like making $1/second over the course of a 30-year career. In the time it takes you to order food, you've made more money than the food will cost. In the time it takes you to run a 4-hour marathon, you made enough to buy a small car. Spend an entire day pretending to be homeless, and you have enough money for a down payment on a million dollar home. In a month, you'll have 50% more money than what is currently recommended for retirement.

All I know is that I'd like some nicer roads to drive on.
they earned it, the meritocracy works
 

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,849
94
890
A wealth tax is stupid, the fuck we have people running on that platform when we need a reinterpretation of tax law that's not punitive to anybody.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,477
386
735
I like how some people pretend that they somehow have a right to an overwhelming lion's share of what they've earned with the help of others, like it wasn't a collective effort.

This is how conflict begins.


See? I can do this with the reverse.

I know that's arguing with hyperbole and silly, but having a billion dollars is such an insane amount of money, it's essentially like making $1/second over the course of a 30-year career. In the time it takes you to order food, you've made more money than the food will cost. In the time it takes you to run a 4-hour marathon, you made enough to buy a small car. Spend an entire day pretending to be homeless, and you have enough money for a down payment on a million dollar home. In a month, you'll have 50% more money than what is currently recommended for retirement.

All I know is that I'd like some nicer roads to drive on.

One of the things I think Bernie and his supporters miss is that a lot of this money is coming from government assistance.

He doesn't frame it in terms of IP laws, copyright and preferential treatment towards investments. He wants to tax all the money away. But, if you change the other laws and let the market decide, then the numbers would fall dramatically. People would be getting software like Windows for free or really cheap.
 
Last edited:

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,635
3,717
425
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
148
246
255
So what your saying is that at some point, and at some arbitrary dollar amount the government can come in and seize (let's call it what it is really though, steal)what you have earned?

What's your cutoff for what the person has earned, and what the person earned with the help of "the collective"?

What I earn, is mine. Why? I earned it.

Sure some goes to taxes so that the there is police, fire, roads, and schools. What gives the government the right to decide that after a certain point, the person who has earned the money, no longer has a right to it? Let's say, everyone worth more then 10 million has to cough up a "wealth tax" of half.

Why stop at money? Why not seize (steal) land, and assets as well? Have over 2 businesses? We'll take the 3rd and 4th. Have more then 100 acres of land? Oops, we'll take the rest.

I'm sorry but for anyone to think that they have a right to someone elses earnings, just because, is absurd.
I am not going to argue they didn't earn vast amounts of wealth, because they did, but in many cases of extreme success, there were unethical practices at play.

Everyone knows Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon (the 3 first companies with trillion dollar values) have all done shady shit. All three have gotten in legal trouble for it. But in every case, the punishment doesn't match the action, proving its better to cheat and ask forgiveness than play fairly.

I admit I admire that attitude to a degree, the saying "if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'" is true, Lance Armstrong and Tom Brady are still worth a shitton more than their peers. We are just at a point where the financial power companies wield is so strong, they are changing laws in their favor and crushing the opposition legally and financially. Angry with your shitty internet? The reason you can't do better is because of those reasons I just stated.

I am rambling a bit, but I do agree that stealing/confiscating those earnings feels wrong. I don't really know a perfect solution, I just believe that economies and the wealth gap need to swing back and forth for a society to remain healthy, and I think its pretty obvious that the gap needs to swing towards workers and especially rural families.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MB1

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Nice article that came across my feed: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/as-warren-gains-in-race-wall-street-sounds-the-alarm/ar-AAJO1fS?ocid=spartanntp

Really think if the Dems want to give Trump some competition then Elizabeth Warren would be a good choice. Both would be taking the anti establishment/outsider angle. Would be interesting to see who comes out on top.
Back in 2016, folks said that Hillary vs Trump was like a modern Democrat vs a 90s Democrat.

Wouldn't it be amusing if the 2020 race was a modern Republican vs a 90s Republican?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: TheLaughingStock

.rain

Banned
Nov 6, 2016
564
294
330
Yes!!!

Let the governement choose what should I eat today and when can I piss. Yes!!!
 

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
578
657
365
That’s right just remove the incentive that drove him to work 12 hour days 7 days a week creating a company that changed the world.

If the government takes all their money rich people will just work hard because they like too.

What could go wrong?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com