it’s worth a try, and better than doing nothing.

10 million total wealth

sounds reasonable IMO

but why not?

want to do business and earn money in this country? guess what, you gotta pay taxes here.

is roughly the same

the first results in 0.5, the second one in ~0.6.

but you’re right, from an analysis point of view.

wages can go lower, but what will the people eat?

the people would need subsidies by the rich, which hurts the economy!

ok so this is inconsistent

i read two fucking weeks ago that economists around the world are waking up to the idea that people should have fewer children because otherwise the rich and corporations might have to pay taxes to provide income to the people that the wages don’t. if there’s fewer people, they don’t need to pay people subsidies so much. trump should talk to his economists.

edit: context: wages are predicted to drop so low over the next 20 years that people will not be able to feed themselves on wages alone. social unrest is painful and to avoid it, some sort of Universal Basic Income will be unavoidable. That would have to be paid for by taxes that the rich would have to pay, since literally nobody else has any money. You see where this is going: the rich don’t like their wealth to be taxed.

Elmo give 2.5% of his wealth?

You seem to be misreading.

Give 2.5% of their wealth, each year, not just give 2.5% of their income. There’s a huge difference.

Wealth gets taxed every year, unlike income which gets taxed only once. So in 20 years, the wealth tax is roughly 20*2.5% which is 50%. And in 30 years it’s closer to 75%.

redistributing all excess wealth perpetually.

what would keep it from re-flowing into the hands of a few?

billionaires have a lifetime of 80+ years. At this rate, you’re not gonna tax Zuckerberg or Bezos in their, or your, lifetime.

FYI both Islam and Switzerland have a wealth tax.

Islam prescribes people must pay 2.5% of their wealth (above a certain exempt amount) as annual tax to the poor and needy. Wikipedia

Switzerland has a 0.5% wealth tax in most cantons, although the details vary. Link

You may use that knowledge to show that wealth tax does exist in some places already, and the idea isn’t unheard of.

chances are high he also wouldn’t have been able to finish the talks in a meaningful way due to his health condition.

i’m between downvoting because it mentions “terrorists” (which are often just people trying to do right) and upvoting because it’s interesting information that switzerland has a wealth tax. i didn’t know that.

interesting. i had heard that Islam does apparently not have private land ownership (?) and a friend told me that 200 years ago, they didn’t even have actual borders between countries (and, i assume, villages or administrative districts?) thus it was all a continuous area with names and region designations being rather vague. i wonder whether that has to do with the idea that land cannot be possessed by some kind of monarch or king? do you know more about this?

yeah, i recognize the problem of power imbalance. in fact, i recommend people sleeping at their aunt/uncle’s house for that reason, because there’s not so much of a power imbalance. just an idea ;-)

We have done nothing new or innovative.

are you serious?

Yes, i do believe that poor people’s lives become better if you provide them with extra resources.

bruh i think you’re making a mistake here.

you’re wrongly assuming that people have sex to make children, hence they should wait till after marriage to get financial stability.

but that is not the case at all. humans are very social animals, and just like we have re-purposed our mouth and throat to speak and communicate, instead of just swallowing food, we have also re-purposed our sexuality as a form of communication, to exchange personality. that is why it is an important part of human life, even in the absence of wanting to make children.

Then why would you wait till after marriage?

there isn’t a single shred of evidence to support it.

Well, to be fair, what would such evidence look like? Would you like to see secret documents (conveniently found in a rich banker’s living room) that detail that single-family homes get easier credit benefits so that more people buy them? I’m afraid that kind of proof will be difficult to get hold of, if the banks or whoever might be behind it don’t show it to us out of their own free will.

Who would look for such evidence? Who can pay for a search after that evidence? The banks won’t investigate themselves and find that they manipulate people.

As such, it is directly natural that there is no proof. That doesn’t automatically make it wrong though, just without proof. The question is: is it likely? is it perceivable? is it consistent?

i suppose you’re one of the people who insists that they are always right solely based on the fact that “it has always been like this”. i.e. you claim “it’s natural that we all live in individual houses”, though that’s actually a fallacy:

people are naturally tribal animals and we used to live in rather large groups of around 30 people or more for most of human history. it’s an incredibly young thought that people live in 4-person homes. (i couldn’t track down the exact time when this started but it must have been sometime within the last 200 years, i guess.)

what are your actual arguments in favor of the single-family home?