US Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
cerebus said:
He's not even trying to away the wealth of billionaires to the point that they stop being billionaires. His wealth tax for instance would cost Bill Gates around $7bil of his $100bil - a lot to be sure, but still leaving him with more money than any human could spend.
Click to expand...

Wtf should Bill Gates give away a cent to anyone?

Maybe people should get off their fat arses and write a book and they can also be millionaires
 
ShaunSA said:
Wtf should Bill Gates give away a cent to anyone?

Maybe people should get off their fat arses and write a book and they can also be millionaires
Click to expand...
Bill Gates can give as much as he wants to.

What the good Comrade and his loyal dogs want to do, is put a gun against his head and force him to hand it over.
 
konfab said:
Bill Gates can give as much as he wants to.

What the good Comrade and his loyal dogs want to do, is put a gun against his head and force him to hand it over.
Click to expand...

I love dogs. Calling someone a dog is a strange way to insult them.
 
Unhappy438 said:
You just going to keep asking me the same question?
Click to expand...
Are you going to answer? Bernie is a self described democratic socialist which even the ultra-left New York Times says is basically akin to communism. Yet my pointing that out makes me partisan?

Edit: I'm not neutral between centrally planned economies and market economies. I am neutral between US democrat and republicans. I'm equally drawn to (and repulsed by) some of their respective policies. However, if the democrats go all communist I guess I won't be very neutral anymore.
 
Speedster said:
Are you going to answer? Bernie is a self described democratic socialist which even the ultra-left New York Times says is basically akin to communism. Yet my pointing that out makes me partisan?
Click to expand...

Repeating partisan propaganda makes you partisan. Democratic socialism is not basically akin to communism.
 
konfab said:
It is hypocritical for him to have money since he advocates for the state to take money from rich people. Why doesn't he show that he actually believes the B.S he sprouts by starting with himself?
Click to expand...

Haha, at no point did he suggest people shouldnt have money, how dumb. The law will also apply to him.

Speedster said:
Then you should take the New York Times up on that. Or is the NYT also suddenly right wing?
Click to expand...

They certainly arent neutral and have a large anti Bernie bias.

Speedster said:
However, if the democrats go all communist I guess I won't be very neutral anymore.
Click to expand...

Guess you will remain "neutral" then.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Haha, at no point did he suggest people shouldnt have money, how dumb. The law will also apply to him.
Click to expand...
He is demonstrating that he views rich people as a means to an end. It doesn't matter that they actually earned that money by providing value to other human beings.

And he doesn't need a tax law to donate all his wealth.
 
Speedster said:
Are you going to answer? Bernie is a self described democratic socialist which even the ultra-left New York Times says is basically akin to communism. Yet my pointing that out makes me partisan?

Edit: I'm not neutral between centrally planned economies and market economies. I am neutral between US democrat and republicans. I'm equally drawn to (and repulsed by) some of their respective policies. However, if the democrats go all communist I guess I won't be very neutral anymore.
Click to expand...
If you view the NYT as "ultra-left" then I think your Overton window has shifted somewhat and perhaps you should reconsider your neutral status.

NYT does lean left, but it does have some Conservative columnists who post right leaning articles. So to call it "Ultra-Left" is somewhat of an over characerisation and you will have to look at the reasons for your view on that and perhaps you will see that your self characterisation of your nuetral status is off.
 
konfab said:
He is demonstrating that he views rich people as a means to an end. It doesn't matter that they actually earned that money by providing value to other human beings.
Click to expand...

Anyone and everyone can provide value to other human beings, so this is largely irrelevant.

konfab said:
And he doesn't need a tax law to donate all his wealth.
Click to expand...

At no point has he suggested people should donate all their wealth, so why should he?
 
konfab said:
Why stop there? Why not tax it at 100% -$2m? $2m is still more than enough for anyone to live very comfortably for their whole lives?

This is the problem with your socialism. You think that you can bring heaven to earth, thus there is no cost too great to violate. What if the government actually needs Bill Gates to cough up $99bn? Well it is still heaven on earth you are comparing it to, so again, you can morally do it.

What if it is his first born child? Well gee, it is one person vs the literal socialist paradise!! I mean what caring person would value the life of one innocent person over the benefit of society?
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Why not impale our CEOs on stakes and mount them on the gates of the cities as a terrible warning? You don't have to resort to total caricature you know.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Anyone and everyone can provide value to other human beings, so this is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Yes, and people who get rich in a free market are rich because they have provided value to other human beings. Why should they not have the benefit of that?

Unhappy438 said:
At no point has he suggested people should donate all their wealth, so why should he?
Click to expand...

No, he just wants to put a gun to people's head because the "rich need to pay their fair share".
 
cerebus said:
Why stop there? Why not impale our CEOs on stakes and mount them on the gates of the cities as a terrible warning? You don't have to resort to total caricature you know.
Click to expand...
You are the one defending the principle that it is OK to violate someone's rights in order to benefit a collective. I am not.

And I am right now living in a country that is going through this very motion, so it isn't a caricature, it is reality.
 
cerebus said:
I'm not.
Click to expand...
Yes you are.

Your defence:
He's not even trying to away the wealth of billionaires to the point that they stop being billionaires. His wealth tax for instance would cost Bill Gates around $7bil of his $100bil - a lot to be sure, but still leaving him with more money than any human could spend.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X