The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Don't try playing this game with me. Can you explain how anyone doesn't need it?

Yes. You need food water and shelter to survive. Everything else is gravy.

The only place that may cost $1billion is if you wanted to move to the moon.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Don't try playing this game with me. Can you explain how anyone doesn't need it? WHO decides what YOU need?

Maslow decided in 1943

[MelBridgeman]

someone doesn’t understand net worth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Don't try playing this game with me. Can you explain how anyone doesn't need it? WHO decides what YOU need?

You're going to pretend like you don't understand the difference between NEEDs and WANTS?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You're going to pretend like you don't understand the difference between NEEDs and WANTS?

Literally taught this to us in grade 2.

[PsYcNeT]

I guess with inflation we can change it to "Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaires" now.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You're going to pretend like you don't understand the difference between NEEDs and WANTS?

Are you going to pretend that anything above what's needed for survival is WANTS?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Itse

What exactly is the problem with that? Other than somewhat limiting rich people's ability to get richer, there's very little downside.

Personally I'm all for the idea that there should be a one billion dollar maximum to how much any single person own. Nobody needs more than one billion.

What people need is less than that.

I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to decide how much it’s citizens are able to earn or own.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What people need is less than that.

I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to decide how much it’s citizens are able to earn or own.

I'm way more bothered by politicians becoming uber rich than people doing it via private sector.

[AltaGuy]

Inequality is the very best predictor of violence, social unrest, populism, and pretty much every other serious societal ill.

I've got nothing against billionaires in principle, but I'm certainly of the belief that the ever-increasing inequality in Western nations isn't going to end well and should probably be addressed before we eff ourselves up really badly.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Are you going to pretend that anything above what's needed for survival is WANTS?

I don't even think that it's controversial to say that everything above survival requirements are "wants".

The controversial part is more the suggestion that everything you have, above basic survival requirements, should be open for being taken away from you by the government because you don't really need it and people like Itse and Rando think they have a better use for it.

That said, this is sort of like climate change. It's clearly a serious problem that needs to be addressed, it's just that some peoples' suggestions to address the issue, including (apparently) making it effectively illegal to have more than $X, seem a bit over the top.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

...
I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to decide how much it’s citizens are able to earn or own.

I'd take it a bit further even. Starting form basic human survival needs is a trap. Many concentration camp prisoners who didn't get to die in gas chambers survived on food and water rations provided to them by nazis, who quantified prisoners' needs to keep them alive and working. They allowed different quantities of needs for Jews and WASP prisoners, by the way. That's not a good baseline for "needs", is it? At least, let's agree that some subjectivity of needs determination enters the consideration here.

Other people should be trusted to decide what YOU need for yourself only if YOU are a child, a mentally incapacitated dependant or a person in full government care for any reason (soldier, prisoner, nursing home resident etc.). There are other factors, of course, like distribution of goods during emergency supply shortages (I can think of a few more). But again, that leads back to basic survival.

Many say "government" like it's some kind of a supreme being, who's much smarter, much better and much more benevolent than you. That is dangerous thinking. Governments are consisting of all kinds of people. You empower them to decide what you need, and very quickly, you will be needing less and less of everything, while they will be having more and more.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Don't try playing this game with me. Can you explain how anyone doesn't need it? WHO decides what YOU need?

Can assure you it's not a game. I'm at a complete loss how anyone can need a billion dollars.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Rando

I'm at a complete loss how anyone can need a billion dollars.

Sure. Does that make you a good judge?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Rando

Can assure you it's not a game. I'm at a complete loss how anyone can need a billion dollars.

The question you should be asking is what you would do if you become one. Would you give 99% of it away? Or do what nearly every billionaire does.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I'd take it a bit further even. Starting form basic human survival needs is a trap. Many concentration camp prisoners who didn't get to die in gas chambers survived on food and water rations provided to them by nazis, who quantified prisoners' needs to keep them alive and working. They allowed different quantities of needs for Jews and WASP prisoners, by the way. That's not a good baseline for "needs", is it? At least, let's agree that some subjectivity of needs determination enters the consideration here.

Other people should be trusted to decide what YOU need for yourself only if YOU are a child, a mentally incapacitated dependant or a person in full government care for any reason (soldier, prisoner, nursing home resident etc.). There are other factors, of course, like distribution of goods during emergency supply shortages (I can think of a few more). But again, that leads back to basic survival.

Many say "government" like it's some kind of a supreme being, who's much smarter, much better and much more benevolent than you. That is dangerous thinking. Governments are consisting of all kinds of people. You empower them to decide what you need, and very quickly, you will be needing less and less of everything, while they will be having more and more.

I'm curious where you would set the bar between needs and wants, especially if you think it could take a billion dollars to satisfy the former.

If you look at the hierarchy of needs basic survival is just the first tier. After that, you need things like security. At the top things become more about emotional need. Should we be concerned if someone requires billions of dollars to meet those higher-level needs? I think so. I don't have a problem with rich people in most cases, especially those who are philanthropic. But there are definitely some who could learn a little bit about not exploiting, and actually sharing with, your fellow man.

I agree that governments are just people, just like corporations are. Both groups can be corrupted by greed and power which needs to be checked.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I'm curious where you would set the bar between needs and wants...

Let's not adore Maslow's diagram, which is over-simplistic. The point I am making is not about drawing a line at something acceptable to some people, but exactly the opposite - not attempting to draw one. It's a dead-end.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Let's not adore Maslow's diagram, which is over-simplistic. The point I am making is not about drawing a line at something acceptable to some people, but exactly the opposite - not attempting to draw one. It's a dead-end.

But if you're going to implement a tax, especially a progressive one, you have to draw a line. I don't think the top rate should be anywhere near 94% but unless you can show me someone who really needs that much money I'm not going to feel sorry for the uber-rich crying on their yacht.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

But if you're going to implement a tax, especially a progressive one, you have to draw a line...

I wasn't.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I wasn't.

Yes, but governments do. You say you don't want to play a game, but you deke like Gaudreau here.