r/clevercomebacks
•
u/Shalom_pkn
•
Mar 18 '22
•
2
Damn. Got personal very fast. lol
/img/h12axugmi0o81.png
115
u/i_am_a_loner_dottie Mar 18 '22
How much cake does one person need. Shit
64
u/faux_noodles Mar 18 '22
Conservative ideology isn't about the rational things like "needs". It's about kicking and screaming, saying "this is MY cake", and then going on a crusade against anyone who questions them on it even if it was objectively better for them and everyone around them if they had less of it. It's an infantile reaction to anything that involves helping other people and respecting their agency too, full stop.
30
u/bozeke Mar 18 '22
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
2
u/Bezulba Mar 18 '22
That's only for the top. The true grifters. The ones below that? Their supporters? They are exactly this dumb.
2
1
u/Painting_Agency Mar 18 '22
This has, sadly, become my favorite and probably most frequently used quote of the last couple of years 🙁
2
u/Hash_Tooth Mar 18 '22
But in this metaphor, they are also unwilling to make the cake themselves, expect to be able to underpay for the labor to make it, and would never consider baking a cake themselves.
2
u/JuniorSeniorTrainee Mar 18 '22
My toddler is two and also going through a "mine!" phase so this is very relatable.
-1
u/Fyrewall1 Mar 18 '22
I'd love to have an actual conversation about this, I don't share your viewpoint.
It's more about saying "these are the things I've worked for and I deserve to profit off of my own investments instead of someone forcefully taking my hard earned money and giving it to someone who has none." Now, I appreciate the gesture of helping people in need, but a society where you are FORCED to help people in need... I don't think that's freedom.
And even if it was "objectively better for them and everyone around them" it's still their money. It's still their cake. They should have the freedom to determine what to do with it.
Now of course, an easy response to that would be "then why are you accepting of taxes?". Well, taxes ARE necessary for a society to function. They have a point. I think taking a wealthy(in any degree) persons money for the sole purpose of giving it to someone else is, by definition, slavery. You're being forced to work for someone else with no pay.
On the same topic, weren't there studies talking about how pouring money into poor neighborhoods didn't actually improve their lifestyle? How the money wasn't used in any semblance of a smart way and prettu much wasted? I don't have sources atm but I've heard that from figures on the left and the right.
I don't think the ideology is aboug selfishness like so many left wing individuals think it is. It's really about the left having an emotional based viewpoint, when the right has a more logical one.
Now, that's a hot take on reddit, and I know I'm going to get downvoted into an oblivion for speaking my mind, but I'd love to have a civil conversation about it. What do you think?
8
u/faux_noodles Mar 18 '22
It's more about saying "these are the things I've worked for and I deserve to profit off of my own investments instead of someone forcefully taking my hard earned money and giving it to someone who has none."
As always, working class people imagine a reality where the government comes and garnishes their wages. These conversations almost always (like, 99.99999% of the time) involve the wealthiest of society; the Kim Kardashians, the Warren Buffets, the Zuckerbergs and Musks; the people who objectively do not perform the labor for the products that they profit from while also exploiting those who do contribute their labor AND generally having access to tax loopholes that even those with a six figure salary don't have access to.
You are not and will never be that form of capitalist, and you fail to realize that these hypotheticals would objectively make your life better if they were brought to fruition.
And even if it was "objectively better for them and everyone around them" it's still their money. It's still their cake.
Which is hilariously irrational, short-sighted, and self-destructive. "This is better in every imaginable way but we can't do it because my principles are better than you and society."
I think taking a wealthy(in any degree) persons money for the sole purpose of giving it to someone else is, by definition, slavery. You're being forced to work for someone else with no pay.
In two sentences you managed to A) aggressively misconstrue the philosophy of wealth allocation and B) massively downplay slavery to such an insane degree that I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. You're telling me that proper wealth allocation is exactly the same as being sold as property and beaten by a slave master who sees you as an entity with the same agency as his couch? Whew lad.
On the same topic, weren't there studies talking about how pouring money into poor neighborhoods didn't actually improve their lifestyle?
The opposite actually, which flies in the face of the typical conservative narrative that people are just lazy looking for handouts. No, people need security to be able to "get off their asses and work", and if they don't have that security, it's nearly impossible.
I don't think the ideology is aboug selfishness like so many left wing individuals think it is. It's really about the left having an emotional based viewpoint, when the right has a more logical one.
You just said that even if it was objectively proven that wealth allocation would improve the lives of basically everyone, you'd still reject it on nothing other than principle. Precisely what about that is logical?
Follow-up: why is having basic empathy bad again? I see it all the time that "being emotional" is used as a mark of derision, as if it's a personal flaw to care about others.
That's likewise ironic when capitalists and their bootlickers shut out any rational discussions on the objective benefits to society at having measures in place for wealth reallocation of the top members of society. Like, you pretty neatly fell right into that contradiction all on your own.
5
u/Painting_Agency Mar 18 '22
On the same topic, weren't there studies talking about how pouring money into poor neighborhoods didn't actually improve their lifestyle?
The opposite actually,
Conservative: essentially makes shit up
You: refutes with citation
Gee, I wonder which side is actually more "logical"?
0
u/Fyrewall1 Mar 18 '22
the people who objectively do not perform the labor for the products that they profit from while also exploiting those who do contribute their labor AND generally having access to tax loopholes that even those with a six figure salary don't have access to.
Ok, so the problem with this is that there is no objective way to determine if someone deserves what they get. That's not correct. You think that Elon Musk and Zuckerberg just create a 1 time bestselling business and then sit back for the rest of their lives while money rolls in? They work constantly, CONSTANTLY, to upkeep an extremely complicated business.
fail to realize that these hypotheticals would objectively make your life better if they were brought to fruition.
No. Again, you weren't listening. It's not that I "fail to realize" it. I understand. The reason I oppose it is because you CANNOT force people to do what you want, EVEN if it would be better for them. A society should exist in a way for people to have the freedoms to do whatever they want, stupid or not(exceptions being violence and crime, etc etc obviously). It is authoritarian and dangerous to force everyone to act in a certain way. The fundamentals of the USA are designed to allow the people to have as much control as they can, with checks and balances in government to not have any branch have too much power. Now, the execution of that is another story, but the point is that fundamentally, you can't FORCE people to make smart decisions. And you shouldn't.
You're telling me that proper wealth allocation is exactly the same as being sold as property and beaten by a slave master who sees you as an entity with the same agency as his couch? Whew lad.
That's not what I said. I said that being forced to work for someone else with no pay or benefits toward yourself, against your will, is slavery. I'm sorry if you disagree. I'm not saying that taking someone's money makes them exactly like a slave being beaten, obviously.
You just said that even if it was objectively proven that wealth allocation would improve the lives of basically everyone, you'd still reject it on nothing other than principle. Precisely what about that is logical?
Let's assume your sources are correct. The reason I oppose it is because A) it is unfair, you cannot take the money from someone who has made it themselves because "they don't deserve it" which is an arbitrary excuse that is entirely subjective in most cases(when objectiveness is EXTREMELY important when considering law and mandates), and B) because you cannot force people to be nice. As MUCH as it would be great, it is wrong. And the left wing radicals will respond to that "Oh, you just don't want CONSEQUENCES for your racism and bigotry!" NO. That is the stupidest excuse. When society reaches a point where you are forced to follow a doctrine because "it's the nice thing to do" society is lost. Yes, if Elon Musk donated 95% of his income to poor families across the world, he could make a fantastic impact and still have more than enough money left over. NO, he should not be FORCED to do so. It's insane that you would believe that he should be.
Follow-up: why is having basic empathy bad again? I see it all the time that "being emotional" is used as a mark of derision, as if it's a personal flaw to care about others.
On a brighter note, I can understand this one. But I would say that it's not the act or the state of being empathetic that people don't like, but the mandate of it. It's good to be nice, but it's not, and should not be required. I would love it if everyone in the world would help everyone in the world out. If someone has some extra money and someone has little, then donations are amazing and I appreciate them. But it's not fair, and it's not what SHOULD happen. If one person has the generosity to donate what they will to someone, then congratulations, that's awesome, and I think we should aim for a society where those things are normalized and respected. But I don't EXPECT the wealthier person to do so, I don't require them to.
If you have further questions I'd be glad to answer them, might take a while though, since I don't normally have these long drawn out conversations on reddit often. Thanks for your input!
3
u/faux_noodles Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
Here's the elephant in the room that basically frames your entire argument: you (along with many other conservatives and libertarians) fall directly into the Just World Fallacy (scroll down to economics) which presumes that the "ideal" economic model will eventually come into being if people are left to their own devices. Even further beyond that is the suggestion that any and all regulation on one's agency is necessarily wrong.
Okay, so let's take that to the extreme. Why have traffic laws? Should the government tell you what to do with your own car? Shouldn't you be able to maintain your agency and run every light you feel like running? Nevermind the fact that these laws objectively decrease your chances of death due to inevitable human error; it's the fact that you're being told what to do that's the problem, as if having literally any oversight from any institution is a slippery slope into slavery (lol).
Nevermind the fact that that completely sidesteps the argument that you are not a capitalist and these conversations never include working class people as the targets for wealth allocation.
Following from that, I don't believe that the government should even be necessary in handling these issues (but rather that communities should govern themselves and that workers should handle and manage their own means of production), but I maintain that we as a species living in a society do need rules and regulations to survive and live efficiently, because all it'll take to entirely derail this species is a handful of psychopaths who have no regard for the people that they exploit.
Much in the same way that it's dumb to let some psychopath ignore all traffic laws, it's likewise stupid (even more so actually) to allow wealth parasites to freely exploit thousands of people and benefit from the society that they refuse to pay back into in any meaningful way, relative to their wealth. You and I pay more in taxes than Bezos or Musk despite making orders of magnitude less than either of them (even if incomes were combined), and your solution to this is to do nothing so that their agency stays unblemished?
We live on a finite Earth with finite resources, and if the sum of our existence boiled down to "your agency is greater than the rest of society", we'd have never existed this long as a species and likely would've gone extinct before we ever even got to the Agricultural Age. So yeah, this is far greater a concept than "being nice". Having basic empathy and prioritizing mutual aid literally has measurable benefits across the board for everyone involved, and if you feel like you "have to be forced to be nice" to relinquish wealth that you can't spend in 10 lifetimes, sorry, but you're kind of dead weight to humanity that needs to be removed.
Doubt I'll ever budge in that, just fyi.
-2
u/Fyrewall1 Mar 18 '22
the suggestion that any and all regulation on one's agency is necessarily wrong.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Look what I said here:
A society should exist in a way for people to have the freedoms to do whatever they want, stupid or not(exceptions being violence and crime, etc etc obviously)
I didn't think I'd have to clarify this one, but it's fine, I can. You should not be regulated, UNLESS the things you are doing are harmful to others. As in violence, crime, etc. Illegal things are illegal for that reason, no one's pushing for crime to not be punished.
That gets us into the argument of "Well, Elon Musk making so much money and keeping it from everyone else IS harmful to the poor members of society, since it directly keeps them from making money!". Now, that's a whole argument in and of itself, but my point still applies.
You and I pay more in taxes than Bezos or Musk despite making orders of magnitude less than either of them
This is blatantly untrue, actually. Looking here, you can see that Elon Musk paid 40.8% of his income in taxes last year.
There's absolutely no way we pay more taxes than him. Now, looking at Bezos, he only pays what looks like 8.2% of his total income, which should be(not an economist but this is off of some loose researching) about 37%, which means he's being taxed 4.5x less than what he should be. So if you want to make THAT argument, then I would actually agree with you. He shouldn't have the loopholes to essentially replicate tax evasion. But that doesn't mean your point stands, that's a specific issue.
Either way, I enjoyed talking with you. Thanks for being respectful!
2
u/HIMP_Dahak_172291 Mar 18 '22
The overall problem with wealth is it isnt just 'the fruits of your labor'. People like Bezos and Musk have an incredible amount of POWER as well. Because wealth is power. It is the power to force others to listen to you. To threaten them if they dont. If you asked to speak to your senator/representative/MP/etc. do you think they would pencil you in for that afternoon? They damn well would for Bezos or Buffet. And worse, wealth is transferable. So even if you really believe that these billionaires some how actually deserve that power, what about their kids or whoever they give their wealth to? Thise inheritors will never ever have to do anything. Some will, some wont, but the key is they will never once in their lives have to worry about showing up to work on time or debating whether to fix the AC or the car. Or whether to pay rent or buy food. Once you have wealth on that scale, losing it takes actual effort.
The key truth anyway is that billionaires dont get there on their own. They get there by utilizing the infrastructure all around them. Amazon takes in billions off of the national transportation infrastructure while paying for almost none of it. They have arranged things so that cities compete to NOT TAX them the best. They cheat the federal system by hiding profits in tax havens and ensuring that stays legal with donations to campagins. Meanwhile congress cant pass a good bill to upgrade our national infrastructure because it's too expensive with the current and apparently sacred tax set up. If millionaires are paying back into the system proportionally to their benefit from it then fine. But that isnt how this works. They use their money to skew things so that they pay less. Because they feel they need ever more of the pie.
I understand the libertarian economic ideology. I used to agree with it. The problem is the root of it assumes a set of core rules that arent possible. It's no different than anarchism or communism that way; sounds good on paper but it doesnt work out. The market isnt self correcting, at least not in a useful way. It's just too easy to manipulate if you have the means to do so. Someone who can write a check for 100,000,000 without blinking just has too much power over the system. If there was some absolute authority that enforced the rules over everyone without bias or corruption then sure, it might work. But that isnt a thing. People are in charge.
There is a difference between a million people with tens of millions each and a couple thousand billionaires. The kind of power they wield just breaks everything. Why are there so many tax loopholes for them? Because they say so and politicians listen. Why is the Netherlands considering demolishing a historical bridge? Because Bezos wants his super yacht to be able to go through where it is. Think about the power and greed inherent there. A country is seriously considering that against the desires of it's own people because one man wants something he doesnt need. Purdue pharma was directly responsible for the opioid epidemic, yet the billionaire family that owns the company got a slap on the wrist compared to the money they made off it and is now just selling treatment for opioid addiction with a different company. They were too rich to really go after. The super rich always get to play by their own rules and have as far back as history goes. And when things finally get to the point of correction it's an unmitigated disaster for everyone. See all the communist revolutions, the french revolution, the wars that toppled great kingdoms and empires. Seems to me that individuals just shouldnt ever have that level of power.
2
u/Fyrewall1 Mar 18 '22
I think you're generally right. I would tentatively agree that people who are rich have too much power and not enough restrictions, but it's not something I'm 100% experienced in. I think the laws should still apply to anyone, no matter how rich, and I don't think we do enough to protect that.
3
u/Painting_Agency Mar 18 '22
It's a "hot take" because it's frigging brain dead. You aren't able to accumulate wealth without availing yourself of the copious benefits provided by our society. You pay taxes because that's what you give back to a society where the rest of us have made it possible for you to succeed.
If you refuse to pay your share, you're a parasite. The definition of selfishness.
1
u/Fyrewall1 Mar 18 '22
What? Did you read the post? All of the things you just said, I agree with. I said taxes were GOOD because of those things. I don't think that crosses into the territory of wealth redistribution, which is different(though similar, so I understand the confusion).
2
u/Painting_Agency Mar 18 '22
I think taking a wealthy(in any degree) persons money for the sole purpose of giving it to someone else is, by definition, slavery.
No... you specifically declared taxes to be one of the greatest injustices possible to a human being. You did it by setting up a straw man whereby society confiscates wealthy people's money to give it directly to the (presumably undeserving) poor. But that's not how it works and you know it. Direct payments of cash social benefits to people with low or low income is not the majority of a government's budget.
1
u/Fyrewall1 Mar 18 '22
Now of course, an easy response to that would be "then why are you accepting of taxes?". Well, taxes ARE necessary for a society to function. They have a point.
Are you not understanding this? I specifically declared taxes to be good for society, and necessary for it to function. That is absolutely not what I said. I said that stealing money from someone JUST because they have a significant portion of it is not just, and not appropriate. It's their money, it's their life. MAYBE they have ill-gotten gains, in which case take them to court and sue them and let's have a fair trial over wether or not they did. But that's a different story. What you're recommending is that "all rich people have gotten their money from ill-gotten gains, and therefore should forfeit their right to own it". Which is despicable and selfish.
1
u/Nefara Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
It's more about saying "these are the things I've worked for and I deserve to profit off of my own investments instead of someone forcefully taking my hard earned money and giving it to someone who
has nonealready has tons of money."The funny thing is if you change that last bit in what you wrote that's literally Marxism. Marxism believes in the individual profiting from the their own labor, investments and skills, and only has issue with people who exploit other's labor to make themselves rich while they can stay relatively idle. Understanding that capitalists are the leeches taking your money, that's the difference in ideology.
0
u/Fyrewall1 Mar 18 '22
"The funny thing is if you change the key terms so the point is exactly opposite of what the person is actually saying, it turns bad!" -You. You're stupid.
Another funny thing is when you change out "Capitalists" to "Socialists" you get "Socialists are the leeches taking your money". AHA! I knew you were capitalist the whole time
1
u/Nefara Mar 18 '22
I'd love to have an actual conversation about this, I don't share your viewpoint.
I'd love to have a civil conversation about it.
Also you:
-You. You're stupid
Lol. Okay you can throw your food on the floor and cry, when you want to actually have that conversation then you can put on your big kid pants and talk like an adult some time.
1
u/Fyrewall1 Mar 18 '22
LMAO
I had my civil conversation with the other dude, but that was my extent, sorry
But the thing you actually said was stupid so I stand by it
-1
u/Leather_Ad_1374 Mar 18 '22
Respecting ones free agency while also calling for mandatory charitably, just goes to show how incredibly shallow your virtue signalling politics are
5
u/faux_noodles Mar 18 '22
Paying back into the society that you're deliberately exploiting for more power and capital is what any sane, logical person who understands how reality works would advocate for. You live in and benefit from society? Well congrats, you contribute back into it like everyone else has to if you want to continue.
Yet it's always rich people and their bootlickers who pretend to be the biggest victims for being challenged on this, as if they have some pre-ordained right to exploit as they see fit according to their "agency". Yeah, and what about the agency of the people they're fucking over? Their fault for being exploited?
Clear it up for me wise one.
2
u/JuniorSeniorTrainee Mar 18 '22
What
3
u/faux_noodles Mar 18 '22
I swear bootlickers are sociopaths in denial that think this Earth popped out of the void solely to inflate their dividends and net worth.
13
6
u/guitarguywh89 Mar 18 '22
I need as many as four tens. And thats terrible
3
2
u/-cocoadragon Mar 18 '22
Hey hey, we are are here to take the cake, not steal pies. Focus Mr. Luther, Focus.
264
u/HomeNo2196 Mar 18 '22
Conservatives keep forgetting, in their dinky little analogies, that a socialist tax policy would overwhelmingly lean on the wealthiest people in society.
No one is having 90% of their birthday cake taken away. Unless they had 20 billion birthday cakes. And they would have 200 million cakes leftover. Oh, is that not enough?
59
u/timecronus Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
People just love to believe that it will be them one day, so they think they are just "setting up the system" to profit off later.
Wake up people. you are not rich, you will never be rich. Make the world better for you today instead of chasing some potential fantasy 20+ years in the future.
24
u/SaiyanKirby Mar 18 '22
The worst part is realizing that even with a wealth tax, the disgustingly rich will STILL be disgustingly rich, just less so, and that's not okay to them
24
u/TalentedTongue21 Mar 18 '22
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -John Steinbeck
1
3
u/Friendstastegood Mar 18 '22
It's not that they think they're gonna get rich, it's that a wealth tax implies that if you do get rich you didn't earn it fair and square, which means we don't live in a meritocracy with upwards mobility, which means they might be stuck on the bottom due to systemic issues.
5
u/timecronus Mar 18 '22
Upward mobility is a fallacy. You can do better than your previous generation, sure, but there's a point where you get to a steep brick wall. Then you either have to start a business and get lucky, or DINK for many years.
Both of which won't come close to the bracket that's most referenced for the wealth tax.
3
u/Friendstastegood Mar 18 '22
I know that, you know that but they don't want to know it, which is why they oppose a wealth tax; because of what a wealth tax implies about society.
1
u/BroodjeFissa Mar 18 '22
Wow, never realized this perspective. I bet there's a big portion holding out this hope. While in reality they could be achieving a lesser form Wich would still be way better than what they're in for now .
8
u/Flossy420 Mar 18 '22
These people genuinely think your average 60 year old boomer from bumfuck South Dakota will have his taxes raised and America will turn into Venezuela if Bernie was to get elected
3
u/MrWilsonWalluby Mar 18 '22
No they simply don’t care about anything besides controlling women and hating the gays the GOP is literally running with one of their campaign goals being to tax the poor more.
And republicans are eating it up.
2
Mar 18 '22
The analogy is just dumb anyway. I don't eat a whole birthday cake. I give most of it away. It's for sharing with friends. Oh, wait, I see where Mike is confused now.
0
u/physicscat Mar 18 '22
We have a progressive tax system. It already goes.
4
Mar 18 '22
Who is we? Not in the US. The wealthiest pay a lower effective tax rate, unless that's what you mean by progressive.
0
u/squeamish Mar 18 '22
That is the opposite of reality. The wealthy pay almost all of the income tax in the United States. Like it's not even close.
3
u/Elliott2030 Mar 18 '22
"Effective tax rate" isn't about dollars, it's about percentage of income and the rich most assuredly pay a smaller percentage of their income to taxes.
2
u/squeamish Mar 18 '22
Again, that is the opposite of reality. There is a tiny little wedge at the very top where the ultra ultra rich pay a slightly lower effective rate than the ultra rich, but American income tax is incredibly progressive by any reasonable metric.
1
u/Elliott2030 Mar 18 '22
Dude. Have you never heard of loopholes? Or LLC's? Or trusts? The wealthy have WAY more options to make sure their extra money isn't taxed than we do. You're just kidding yourself that the progressive tax rate is the only metric to consider.
→ More replies1
-44
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
Right. And what happens when nobody has any incentive to work hard to earn a lot of money in order to support your system, when they could just sit around doing nothing all day? What happens when they start leaving the country or moving their money abroad? The US is built on the idea of hard work in order to move up in life; it is not a feudal system. Remember when capitalism first emerged, people had opportunity to improve their life, no matter their social standing which still prevails today (if you really want to). Incentive is one of the key problems with Socialist/Communist theory. Once all the rich leave or are made poor by such a high tax rate, what do you do? Increase tax on those with lower incomes, and then your whole system is negated.
24
u/decepticons2 Mar 18 '22
Honestly curious. You think if someone is creating the next Amazon, they are going to be "well shit I am only going to make 200 million instead of 200 billion. I shouldn't bother" The logic doesn't seem ludicrous to you?
You are right about them hiding their money though. As it seems with the little they have to pay some already do. And this is the real part of the problem. How far is any governemnt going to go to stop that.
The thought that tax would be so high that everyone would be bellow the poverty line is again just ludicrous. If you are not completely twisted inside look up the owner of Costco. Realistically that is all people could wish for.
-2
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
Yes, you are right about an extremely high income tax making there rich poor…. stupid example on my part. But regardless, it would definitely discourage people from innovating and competing in the economy as the basis of those idea is, well, profit. Sure, some might have a bright idea that would make a lot of money, but as soon as that starts getting taken away in droves, you really think they are going to keep it in the country — humans are selfish creatures, we want to keep what’s ours. It is extremely idealistic to believe that people will want to jeopardize their own well-being in order to marginally improve the lives of others, especially where they could take their income elsewhere
2
Mar 18 '22
[deleted]
0
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
Do you think that every millionaire makes it off some great idea? No. They make their money through investments, high paying salaries, etc. You will be losing that majority
1
Mar 18 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
Um... Warren Buffet. And how would what we're talking about not affect that?
→ More replies1
u/vgee Mar 18 '22
What's the point of innovation if everyone else is living in poverty?
2
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
But they are not and they do not have to be. That's what hard work does. Most people in the US can afford their basic necessities at the very least. Your doom and gloom view of market economics is too heavily influenced by propaganda and ideology. Take a step back.
2
u/Lone_wanderer111 Mar 18 '22
Having to work 2-3 jobs to pay rent isn’t the American dream. Most people are barely scraping by. If you are okay with that you are part of the problem.
17
u/wsotw Mar 18 '22 edited Apr 12 '22
I think you meant "The US is built on the MYTH of hard work in order to move up in life." ...and your absurd belief that anyone from any social standing can move up the ladder if only they "want it" is at odds with reality (and thank you for including your clear bias in parentheses for easy identification). Our system was designed so the rich STAY rich and the poor STAY poor. Hell, our GI Bill after WWII wasn't even available to non-whites. ...but sure, explain to me again how poor people are poor by choice.
If only there were examples in the world of Democratic Socialist countries where the rich didn't flee in droves leaving the country to keep moving down the list on who to tax. IF ONLY those examples existed. (that was sarcsasm)
1
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
So you are saying that nobody could possibly work hard in high school, go to community college and get qualified and come into the workforce with a specialization, allowing them to earn a good living? All of which, by the way, is government supported and this very cheap. Your example of the GI Bill was clearly a product of racial attitudes of the time, not a failure of market economics. Your examples of Social Democracies (Northern Europe I presume) do not tax anywhere near what the original post/comment was suggesting — Finland is 53% top bracket, Germany 45%, etc. That’s a far cry for 90%, and that would make a hell of a difference. People would move their money offshore or leave the country. No foreigners would invest. US dollar falls, further increasing inflation at home. What does Federal Reserve do? Print money. Buy bonds; Quantitative easing. More inflation. Government revenue would really not end up that much higher than it is now, negating your utopian economic ideals.
2
u/wsotw Mar 18 '22
You speak AS IF the tax brackets were not high for the rich during our most prosperous decades.
0
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
What, 70% maximum in 1980? What happened? Oh, right. Massive recession. Rates lowered… massive growth. The original 77% rate was put in place to finance WWI. That lasted because of the Great Depression with New Deal, WWII, Cold War spending, etc. When Reagan slashed the rate in 1980, GDP PPP grew dramatically (think 90s). Regardless, the revenue from those high rates was not just being distributed to the people, so you cannot say there is a clear correlation in your argument
1
u/wsotw Mar 18 '22
Odd cherry picking of data points. Also odd that you consider 1980 our golden years. In 1950 highest tax bracket was 91%. Post war economy was booming. How could it not be. By the mid sixties the top rate was 70%. It stayed that way for awhile and our economy generally boomed. ...now thank you for bringing up the 80s recession. You know, the one you are somehow connecting g to high tax rate on the wealthy. The same one that ALSO coincided with the Reagan tax cuts that slashed the top tax bracket to 50%. Weird how you would use the recession that coincided with a tax break as evidence that tax hikes would cause a recession. Odd indeed. ...you do understand that your evidemce is suppose to support your position,, right?
11
u/stanagetocurbar Mar 18 '22
No rich person has ever been made poor by a high tax rate you cockwomble. That's not how taxes work. Money makes money.
-13
u/Volksempfanger9070 Mar 18 '22
Yes, because most rich people have a limit as to where they'd let the government rob them until they take their money elsewhere. By your logic, taxes won't make poor people wealthy or even remotely as comfortable as the wealthy folk they take it away from either. That's not how taxes work.
7
u/Lord_Bawk Mar 18 '22
How… how would taxing the rich more and the poor less not help the poor…?
-4
u/Volksempfanger9070 Mar 18 '22
No one claims that taxing the poor less won't help them. Very few are also against the idea of taxing rich people, though not excessively. The thing is, the real premise behind most people's problem with taxation is the false idea that giving the government money and forcing them to spend mindlessly on social programs will help the poor. Throwing money at problems doesn't fix them, much less throwing money that you don't justifiably own and have carelessly taken away from people who earned them. That said, don't think I believe that billionaires have largely "earned" their money so much as they've slept with government to help them operate without real competition.
4
u/Lord_Bawk Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
Omg the world you live in sounds weird as hell. Most people’s problems are that there AREN’T social programs. Read a book or take a sociology class instead of reading social media posts. Also the goal isn’t to be just as wealthy as the rich, it’s to not have to live paycheck to paycheck, living in debt, and being one hospital bill away from financial ruin. Ffs the privilege and ignorance.
3
u/GreaseCrow Mar 18 '22
Then can we somehow force companies to de prioritize reducing human resource cost and find inefficiencies elsewhere? Because paying everyone peasent era wages in a modern world isn't really working.
Can we not agree that people deserve a basic level of security such as food, water and shelter, and maybe, just maybe, a cushion for a rainy day?
4
u/Resethel Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
Well, in a finite world, being excessively rich is kind of a robbery anyway. If you hold on a lot of money, that’s all the more money somebody else can’t have, and at somepoint it just don’t buy you more stuff.
Moreover, imagine owning $2 Billion. An average American owns $52k/year (median is $35k/year) which means in 40years of average American will earn $2Million. Owning $2Bilion means you’re owning 1000x time what a person would earn in its life. Some basically if you shared more you’d still be able to get like, 20x times what the average earns over a working life in the meantime you’d have helped 980 people get a better life (it’s flawed and it would be less because you’d raise the average but let’s keep that aside for now…)
2
u/Volksempfanger9070 Mar 18 '22
It seems that your issue isn't with rich people being rich then and is with how rich people got rich. In that case, yes, most rational people would agree that those pricks are robbing us with the help of government control, and we mustn't be okay with it.
1
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
Bro I know, bad example, see other replies because I don't wanna type out all this again.
3
Mar 18 '22 edited Feb 17 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
Wdym? I only used to US as an example given it was the nation being discuessed in the original post, I didn't sasy that it was the only economy based on those ideals. Read between the lines my man.
3
u/janeohmy Mar 18 '22
the US is built on the idea of hard work
Yeah, no shit. Tell that to all the workers who get abused to fuck's end. Hence why you have so much labor laws and protections. Why? Because employers will always fuck you over when they can.
-1
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
If you don't like a job, you don't have to accept that as the be all and end all. Find a substitute. Get qualified and move up. Hell, partake in some union action if you really want to stay there. And, seriously, do you really think that every single employer is the devil encarnate. My god, hasn't old Marx indoctrinated you... Employers are people too. They need their business to be profitable in order for it to survive so that they themselves can live. If you want to start a business, go right ahead, nobody is stopping you.
2
u/username8914 Mar 18 '22
Do you really go to work thinking you will be a billionaire?
0
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
That’s not the point; the point is that there is no incentive to try hard if you are going to get taxed at such a high rate — you may as well take the government ‘base income’ or whatever and live off that
2
u/Mikkelet Mar 18 '22
That's just not true, there's absolutely incentive.
Nordic countries have a high tax rate but are also very entrepeneurial! People want to work, want to try hard even when the tax high.
Money is money, and some paying top-tax tax bracket is still making more money than a lower-tax bracket, so that's the incentive. More money.
1
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
I addressed this earlier; those countries have no where near as high a tax bracket as is being discussed here... Finland is 53% as opposed to US 37%. That is not that great a difference. Once you start distributing money, all it causes is an excess of demand that exceed's the market's ability to produce, causing inflation. And why would anybody want to fill the gaps in the market when they can just get paid their government cheques instead of going through the hassle of starting a business? Scandinavia is always used as an example, yet they are very similar to most market economies
1
u/Mikkelet Mar 18 '22
Jesus Im no expert in macro economics, but Im getting a headache arguing with these viewpoints.
YES, there might be inflation, but most likely the inflation will be LESS than salary increase, so it's a net positive for the working class. It's the same debate as raising the minimum wage or generally increasing salaries. Sure, prices will rise, but usally not above the increase, thus netting a positive increase for the employee. Inflation is only bad when it's uncontrolled and economists even recommend inflation of 2% every to encourage investing. But CURRENTLY our salaries dont reflect that inflation, and neither does the tax system.
And why would anybody want to fill the gaps in the market when they can just get paid their government cheques instead of going through the hassle of starting a business?
Not everyone wants to goddamn start a business. Some just wants a stable job and stable income. Government is perfect for this, and our society NEEDS this. We need people who wants to give us our passports and driver's licenses, school teachers and firemen. In your world, should we have a 0% tax rate so everyone have the incentive to start a business??
I honestly don't know why Im engaging in this, it's obvious that you're just parroting
1
u/The_Blip Mar 18 '22
Literally no one thinks this.
"Oh, I don't want to be a millionaire because I could live in a housing estate and off food stamps."
More money is still more money. Your life as a multi-millionaire is still going to be better than someone on a fixed basic living income. The fact you didn't get to be a billionaire doesn't negate the fact you still made more money and your life got better.
I personally could have never worked a day in my life and live off my parents. But I didn't because I don't want that, I want more. Maybe you're a lazy shit happy to live life doing nothing, but I'd say that's your own personal flaw and not a problem with people or society in general.
1
u/Piz_Palu Mar 18 '22
You really think that most people wouldn't take their free money and do fuck all if they had the opportunity? Additionally, how many people are realistically going to become a billionaire — you seem to think everyone will. If you'd likely earn up with some average job if you worked real hard, I think most people would take the easy route, especially considering you seem to be advocating for social democracy, rather than a one party state where loyalty and hard work can be encouraged through propaganda and threats.
Anyhow, I've enjoyed this debate, but I'm signing off now — I might check back in the morning. Evening
1
u/The_Blip Mar 18 '22
You seem to think this increase in tax would effect everyone; it wouldn't. It would only effect the highest earners and it would only tax their earnings above a threshold, not the total sum of their earnings.
I don't think most people or even a very significant amount would choose to take a bare minimum standard of living over earning more and increasing their quality of life with luxuries. The only people who would do this are people with mental health conditions that you're adamant they not get.
Again, I could sit at home and do nothing all day, playing on the internet. But that's against the natural human condition to want more.
Would you truly be happy living in a studio flat doing nothing all day? Would you never want more? Either you would and need therapy or you wouldn't and are extremely pessimistic about other people compared to yourself, which seems narcissistic.
2
u/Natenate25 Mar 18 '22
No dawg then you put a gun to their heads and force them to do the jobs they used to Their incentive is their own life. Welcome to utopia!
-3
u/Doublespeo Mar 18 '22
No one is having 90% of their birthday cake taken away. Unless they had 20 billion birthday cakes. And they would have 200 million cakes leftover. Oh, is that not enough?
no but numerous countries in Europe you get 50% tax + contribution even if you have a small income.
People dont understand that there is no even wealthy peoples to pay for all “socialist welfare” programs.
take 100% of the wealth of all Billionaire in the US and you would not even be able to pay the US debt.
2
u/toproper Mar 18 '22
That’s not true, which European countries are that?
3
u/MrWilsonWalluby Mar 18 '22
Not a single country in the EU has a lowest bracket of 50% it simply doesn’t exist he’s talking out of his ass.
Entry tax rate is between 10-15 percent for most European countries.
1
u/Doublespeo Mar 20 '22
Entry tax rate is between 10-15 percent for most European countries.
You forget VAT, employer tax and contributions.
all that get you above 50% real quick
1
u/MrWilsonWalluby Mar 20 '22
No you financially illiterate dingus that is annual effective tax rate.
0
u/Doublespeo Mar 20 '22
No you financially illiterate dingus that is annual effective tax rate.
Yeah, the total amount of money lost to tax.
the only relevant metric.
And in EU you pay an enormous amount to support the system.
and everybody, not only the rich.
1
1
u/Natenate25 Mar 18 '22
This is impossible, because there's no way this would pay for our current tax burden, let alone the tax burden we'd see under the same governments spending. Everyones taxes are going up, dreamer. That's always been the rule.
27
u/-Suspicious-User- Mar 18 '22
well the linked image is gone, so who knows wtf you all are talking about
12
5
u/deHydratedAntelope Mar 18 '22
2 things 1 people here are mad about cake 2 I only make cake if I have a party where I can share 90% of my cake with my guests. I dont need the extra cake on my ass and I don't need to be wasting time and resources on a cake when I could be doing something else.
2
Mar 18 '22
I dont need the extra cake on my ass
100% identify with this, gaining weight has made me far more generous with cake haha
16
u/gregnealnz Mar 18 '22
Man how many times will this tired old meme be reposted...
2
u/timecronus Mar 18 '22
till people understand.
1
-4
Mar 18 '22
Funny how I never see you conservatives whine when the same meme hating on women pops up on r/all for the thousandth time.
3
-2
u/MyBikeIsntOrange Mar 18 '22
If n = the number of times people complain about reposts as if it matters, then n+1.
4
19
u/Cuttis Mar 18 '22
This has been posted on here a lot
-13
Mar 18 '22
lol You conservatives won't miss a chance to come whine in a post that hurts your feelings.
8
u/Cuttis Mar 18 '22
I’m a bleeding heart liberal but I like a little variety
1
u/DoJnD Mar 18 '22
Why, hello bleeding heart liberal! I'm hippie liberal douche.
2
u/Nonsuperstites Mar 18 '22
Good morning, Bleeding Heart Liberal and Hippie Liberal Douche. You may call me Special Snowflake Libtard.
3
u/mangoandsushi Mar 18 '22
Probably the guy who eats 3 out of 6 donuts when with 3 other people when they're his but when someone else bought 6 donuts he expects them to share the last 2.
3
u/Montanabioguy Mar 18 '22
Sorry, don't we all give away 90% of our birthday cake? I mean, I don't eat an entire Costco sheet cake by myself.
Although it's made with a cheesecake filling and is delicious, I would never....ah....sorry, what point was I making?
Forgot that. You can get your own cake.
2
u/russels_silverware Mar 18 '22
Wasn't this originally a Ben Shapiro tweet? With essentially the same response, too.
2
u/MinderReminder Mar 18 '22
Is it really a "clever comeback" when it is an intentional setup for an easy retort?
2
u/Between3-20chrctrs Mar 18 '22
“If you are looking for an image, it was probably deleted”
Really personal
2
1
Mar 18 '22
It's a great analogy because you also don't tend to make your own birthday cake, so it'd just be Bernie taking something someone else made and giving it away to other people.
1
u/angeliqueV78 Mar 18 '22
I make my own cake but I never eat it all I take some to my neighbour so my bf and I don't eat it all.
1
u/ExplosiveTirkey Mar 18 '22
I'm so glad I get to see this post every other day. Not annoying in the least.
1
0
u/nmvalerie Mar 18 '22
How many times am I going to have to see this post
1
Mar 18 '22
Another white man that can't handle other people having a different opinion. Trump isn't coming back by the way. Get used to it.
-7
u/IFTTTexas Mar 18 '22
My friends don’t force me to give away cake.
25
8
u/faux_noodles Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
You also don't have so many billions of cakes that you can artificially inflate the price of other cakes (simultaneously limiting others' access to them), all while underpaying thousands of bakers while you absorb the majority of the value of their labor.
But IF you did, you think you'd be the victim if an adult in the room regulated your grossly abundant capital? Woe is you, poor ex-cake tyrant who brings home one billion a year instead of 10 billion! How would you ever make it?
0
u/Moldy_Gecko Mar 18 '22
Then start a bakery, make your own cakes til you get so big you need to hire other bakers and pay them well.
2
u/Trash_Emperor Mar 18 '22
They do look at you weirdly and with contempt when they see you eating an entire birthday cake by yourself though, even if they personally don’t need birthday cake.
-1
Mar 18 '22
Still not a reason to force somebody to share his birthday cake.
1
u/Trash_Emperor Mar 18 '22
It is kinda, if the cake was baked by underpaid bakers who will never see a piece of it and the existence of the cake was hidden so that it doesn’t have to be shared.
1
Mar 18 '22
That's another reason, because we were talking about friends, not underpaid bakers. I do partly agree with you. Nonetheless, the bakers know they won't get a piece of the cake if they sell it to him. If a cake is really that valuable, they shouldn't sell it to people who don't share it with them. Maybe they should just eat the cakes themselves.
-1
-1
u/Ghostkill221 Mar 18 '22
... Listen, to clarify. I agree with the premise that Mike's a prick.
But that not how birthday Cakes work. You don't have it taken away from you and then have someone else choose who gets which pieces.
1
u/DunnyHunny Mar 18 '22
Exactly, because people aren't shitty enough to do that with birthday cakes.
The fact that we do it with money is worse.
-7
-5
-11
u/honkyklown Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
Uh.....no it’s not. You find out what you need, order twice as much so you have left overs for yourself. Lol this person thought they could adult.
Sorry I thought the joke was obvious but apparently reddit is retarded
2
u/Stickguy259 Mar 18 '22
Wait so you order two birthday cakes? You're definitely spending too much lol, why do you do that to yourself?? The normal way of thinking is that I'll share the whole cake, if I need to order two then I have selfish friends.
Why don't you want your friends to have cake and then selfishly think only about how much cake you're gonna get? You're kinda just admitting you only care about the bottom line of what you're gonna get...
0
u/honkyklown Mar 18 '22
Order two birthday cakes? No, let’s say you need half a sheet, then you order a full sheet. Also how’s it selfish to think of everybody there and order the cake accordingly then over order to have left overs?
1
u/Militantpoet Mar 18 '22
I order cake for my guests. I make sure there's enough for everybody. I don't care for left overs. In fact, I'll offer my guests the leftovers. The point is, birthday cakes are meant to be shared. What sad monster wants to sit there and eat more than half a birthday cake for themself?
0
u/honkyklown Mar 18 '22
Its called left overs, like a day or three after the party. I’m not going to invite them over every time I eat a slice of cake after the party.
1
u/Mastahost Mar 18 '22
I have never heard of anyone ordering two birthday cakes so that they can eat more of it alone later.
It's probably just you, buddy.
1
u/honkyklown Mar 18 '22
I never said two birthday cakes
1
u/Mastahost Mar 18 '22
So, what, you figure out how many folks come to your party and figure how much they maybe want to eat and then over order so you have some leftovers for yourself? 😂
1
u/honkyklown Mar 18 '22
I literally said that and it was a joke. But typically you over order anyways for parties
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Jonhyfun2 Mar 18 '22
Isnt that what actually happens in a birthday party?
4
u/Buffythedjsnare Mar 18 '22
Not at Conservative birthday parties. If you are given a cake that is your cake and only your cake. Every day you have a little more and if it goes stale before you finish it then you just toss it out.
1
1
1
u/BigBillyGoatGriff Mar 18 '22
I think most people with friends do give away 90% of their birthday cakes. This person must have grown up with no friends or put on terrible birthday parties.
1
1
u/Tymexathane Mar 18 '22
I've given away 100% of my last few birthday cakes. I don't see the problem?
1
u/needlessOne Mar 18 '22
This is the kind of thing I'd say sarcastically and most would not get the joke even though it is obvious, then someone like that guy comes and makes fun of me and suddenly I'm rolling my eyes for the rest of the year because I have no intention of explaining my joke.
1
1
u/Doublespeo Mar 18 '22
Better analogy is to say you have to give away 90% of your cake BEFORE you get a chance to enjoy it with friend and familly.
1
u/BigMACfive Mar 18 '22
Lmao who eats ALL of their birthday cake anyway? Isn't the entire point of a birthday cake to share it with those who you care about?
1
u/DerKoonig Mar 18 '22
In this relation the rest would be still enough for his entry Familie for the next decades, wouldn't it?
1
u/gthaatar Mar 18 '22
Classic cynicism is the fundamental inability to believe anyone could act against their own (re: selfish) interests.
Its gross and it is extremely common in America. And yes, its a both sides thing as liberals can be just as bad about having the same cynical attitude, especially towards Sanders and other progressives.
1
u/ApolloMorph Mar 18 '22
Generally the birthday person gets the same as all the guests. One slice so.....
1
1
u/ILiketoLearn5454 Mar 18 '22
Bernie wouldn't know. Bwahahahaha, seriously though, I wish he had friends.
1
1
1
u/Segolin Mar 18 '22
If all Cakes would be equal, he had a point. If a billionaire cake would lost 90%, he still could feed generations with the 10%. If i share mine 90%, people wouldnt even get more than 3 atoms of cake.
1
1
1
286
u/Far_Ad_5906 Mar 18 '22
Mike is the type of person that refuses to socialize with his coworkers, but gets shocked and confused when he sees the empty donut box in the garbage out back.