Ontopic Political Poo Flinging

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amstel said:
the 'rich' can't have a cadillac unless they give someone else their money in exchange for it. They can't have a nicer home unless they give someone else money in an exchange to build and maintain it.
Click to expand...
My point is, nobody needs a cadillac or a nicer home. People need food, water, basic shelter. Obviously other things, but not cadillacs and mansions. What you are describing is the rich giving money to other rich people/corporations. Homeless people don't see that money.
 
OOD said:
I'm totally down with what you're saying. I just don't think enough people will ever be willing to do it.

The idea though is to make it were people can't make more than a certain amount of money. That way people will do jobs they care about and not what can make them the most money at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
In this scenario, Elon Musk would never have shot the world's most advanced rocket into space. Bill Gates would not be able to donate the millions and millions of dollars that he donates to different non-profits every year.

There are a lot of good people with insane amounts of money that do many many good things that the government would never do. With an income cap, there's no incentive to push beyond a certain level, causing a stagnation in many fields, including medicine and technology. We would be outpaced by China, Japan, Mexico... hell, we'd be outpaced by North Korea.

There are a lot of valid and important reasons why an income cap is a terrible idea. And a government funded minimum income is just as terrible an idea.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
OOD said:
My point is, nobody needs a cadillac or a nicer home. People need food, water, basic shelter. Obviously other things, but not cadillacs and mansions. What you are describing is the rich giving money to other rich people/corporations. Homeless people don't see that money.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs a wedding ring or a lazy susan or an iphone or a 30 pack of AA batteries. There are a lot of things "nobody needs". In fact, nobody "needs" most things. But where do you draw the line? Some people needed the Ford Excursion. most people bought them for image, but there were people that actually needed them.

It's not up to the government to decide what people do and don't need. It's up to the individual.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
thintoast said:
In this scenario, Elon Musk would never have shot the world's most advanced rocket into space. Bill Gates would not be able to donate the millions and millions of dollars that he donates to different non-profits every year.

There are a lot of good people with insane amounts of money that do many many good things that the government would never do. With an income cap, there's no incentive to push beyond a certain level, causing a stagnation in many fields, including medicine and technology. We would be outpaced by China, Japan, Mexico... hell, we'd be outpaced by North Korea.

There are a lot of valid and important reasons why an income cap is a terrible idea. And a government funded minimum income is just as terrible an idea.
Click to expand...

Those examples are a drop in a very empty bucket. And I don't see putting a rocket in space as important when people are starving.

Yes those contries would have more toys than us and also more hungry people.
 
Amstel said:
Apparently not enough people . . . :p
Click to expand...
lol.

The point is that you can't say "nobody needs it". If even only one person needed it, then someone needed it. Just because something doesn't conform to your values doesn't mean it can't conform to anyone elses. And like I said, it's not up to me or anyone else to decide what people need and what they don't.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
OOD said:
Those examples are a drop in a very empty bucket. And I don't see putting a rocket in space as important when people are starving.

Yes those contries would have more toys than us and also more hungry people.
Click to expand...
Until their military comes in and takes over and we all become starving slaves. But that'll never happen, right? Because that's never happened in the history of the planet.

And the rocket going into space was important. It showed that what the government can do, the private sector can do faster, safer and for far less money. Spending less money on a necessary space program means that we can spend less money everywhere by eliminating the government from those projects. Including food and shelter subsidization.
 
thintoast said:
Nobody needs a wedding ring or a lazy susan or an iphone or a 30 pack of AA batteries. There are a lot of things "nobody needs". In fact, nobody "needs" most things. But where do you draw the line? Some people needed the Ford Excursion. most people bought them for image, but there were people that actually needed them.

It's not up to the government to decide what people do and don't need. It's up to the individual.
Click to expand...

I never said people needed those things. I gave a good list of basic needs earlier if you want to check it out. The line would be drawn by a majority vote and/or an even disbursement.

Nobody decides what people need. We just happen to need a few things to not die and have decent mental health. I'd like to see everyone have that, no matter their situation.
 
OOD said:
I never said people needed those things. I gave a good list of basic needs earlier if you want to check it out. The line would be drawn by a majority vote and/or an even disbursement.

Nobody decides what people need. We just happen to need a few things to not die and have decent mental health. I'd like to see everyone have that, no matter their situation.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see that too. But again, that's not the job of the government. The government is not responsible for feeding it's people. It's responsible for keeping the peace and to protect it's people from outside threats. The PEOPLE are responsible for taking care of one another, but the people have decided that they would pawn that job over to the most inefficient entity to handle it so that they don't have to.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Ledboots and nukes
thintoast said:
Until their military comes in and takes over and we all become starving slaves. But that'll never happen, right? Because that's never happened in the history of the planet.

And the rocket going into space was important. It showed that what the government can do, the private sector can do faster, safer and for far less money. Spending less money on a necessary space program means that we can spend less money everywhere by eliminating the government from those projects. Including food and shelter subsidization.
Click to expand...

We can have a stong military with what I've suggested. There's no reason we couldn't.

You are comparing a broken system controlled by people who don't care about what happens to that money. You can't compare them with what musk did. That's like telling a guy he couldn't beat you at boxing and then saying he's not allowed in the ring.
 
thintoast said:
I'd love to see that too. But again, that's not the job of the government. The government is not responsible for feeding it's people. It's responsible for keeping the peace and to protect it's people from outside threats. The PEOPLE are responsible for taking care of one another, but the people have decided that they would pawn that job over to the most inefficient entity to handle it so that they don't have to.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of what the government is for. What I've suggested is to change that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back