Discussion: If the billionaires paid for everything

[clearspira]

The top 1% actually paid about 37% of all income tax in 2016.

Very good point. Once again the 99% isn't as hard done by as people like to make out as that means that 99% of the population pays less than 66% of the tax. A pretty good deal imo.

[Rocketboy1313]

The top 1% actually paid about 37% of all income tax in 2016.

Very good point. Once again the 99% isn't as hard done by as people like to make out as that means that 99% of the population pays less than 66% of the tax. A pretty good deal imo.

Not if the top 1% have more than 37% of all wealth.
Which they do.

I would prefer a system in which the top 1% did not have so much money that they paid more than a third of all taxes. Which is a SHOCKING amount of money controlled by an intensely small number of people.

[Darth Wedgius]

Oh good, another board where people can throw out statistics without citation and someone think that proves a point.

Quoting statistics that contradict others statements seems kind of important in that it corrects errors. The rich are mostly not idle wasters, and, for the most part, they do pay a lot of taxes.

You might say those don't matter to you, and that's fine, but the truth might matter to somebody.

[Rocketboy1313]

Oh good, another board where people can throw out statistics without citation and someone think that proves a point.

Quoting statistics that contradict others statements seems kind of important in that it corrects errors. The rich are mostly not idle wasters, and, for the most part, they do pay a lot of taxes.

You might say those don't matter to you, and that's fine, but the truth might matter to somebody.

Quoting is an important qualifier there.
I don't see a lot of links to peer reviewed studies. on that first page.
But I do see a lot of random numbers and claims.

Like this:

Statistically, millionaires work more hours a day than the rest of us. They're hardly lazy, idle wasters.

Call me a nerd, but: Citation Needed on the "Statistically" part.
Second thing, even if they do work more hours that doesn't mean they aren't "wasters".
You can still waste money, even if you earned it.

See, this is why I tend to make broad philosophical points, "Billionaires are not useful to the economy, in much the same way having too many eggs in one basket is bad, there is no way they can eat or use to any meaningful good that many god damned eggs."

Rather than try and throw around bullshit numbers about rich people working X hours a week and because X > Y (the typical hours worked by a person) that means they deserve to earn 300 times what a typical person earns. None of that is useful.

[Darth Wedgius]

Oh good, another board where people can throw out statistics without citation and someone think that proves a point.

Quoting statistics that contradict others statements seems kind of important in that it corrects errors. The rich are mostly not idle wasters, and, for the most part, they do pay a lot of taxes.

You might say those don't matter to you, and that's fine, but the truth might matter to somebody.

Quoting is an important qualifier there.
I don't see a lot of links to peer reviewed studies. on that first page.
But I do see a lot of random numbers and claims.

Like this:

Statistically, millionaires work more hours a day than the rest of us. They're hardly lazy, idle wasters.

Call me a nerd, but: Citation Needed on the "Statistically" part.
Second thing, even if they do work more hours that doesn't mean they aren't "wasters".
You can still waste money, even if you earned it.

See, this is why I tend to make broad philosophical points, "Billionaires are not useful to the economy, in much the same way having too many eggs in one basket is bad, there is no way they can eat or use to any meaningful good that many god damned eggs."

Rather than try and throw around bullshit numbers about rich people working X hours a week and because X > Y (the typical hours worked by a person) that means they deserve to earn 300 times what a typical person earns. None of that is useful.

If you don't believe the statistics, feel free to look them up. It's an internet forum, not dissertation.

As far as how much money they deserve to have, I didn't address that. That falls more into opinion. I was just correcting a couple common mistaken beliefs.

[Rocketboy1313]

If you don't believe the statistics, feel free to look them up. It's an internet forum, not dissertation.

Oh good, another board where people can throw out statistics without citation and someone thinks that proves a point.

"I don't have to show you were I got my information or how I formulated my findings. You should go looking for the statistics yourself."

Again, feel free to throw out numbers and think it proves something.

[Darth Wedgius]

If you don't believe the statistics, feel free to look them up. It's an internet forum, not dissertation.

Oh good, another board where people can throw out statistics without citation and someone thinks that proves a point.

"I don't have to show you were I got my information or how I formulated my findings. You should go looking for the statistics yourself."

Again, feel free to throw out numbers and think it proves something.

Anyone can verify them, so I'm comfortable with that.

[clearspira]

If you don't believe the statistics, feel free to look them up. It's an internet forum, not dissertation.

Oh good, another board where people can throw out statistics without citation and someone thinks that proves a point.

"I don't have to show you were I got my information or how I formulated my findings. You should go looking for the statistics yourself."

Again, feel free to throw out numbers and think it proves something.

No, as Darth said. This is an internet forum, not a peer-reviewed piece for the Daily Telegraph. We are under no obligation to quote our sources especially when those sources are not arcane secrets but rather a ''stop being a lazy git and type a sentence into the Google bar'' away.

[Rocketboy1313]

No, as Darth said. This is an internet forum, not a peer-reviewed piece for the Daily Telegraph. We are under no obligation to quote our sources especially when those sources are not arcane secrets but rather a ''stop being a lazy git and type a sentence into the Google bar'' away.

I'm lazy for not looking up your sources?

I know it is an internet forum. That is why I started off by pointing out how people will be throwing around bullshit numbers that will not at all convince each other of anything.

That is why I didn't bother with any numbers in my initial post. Because they are pointless.

You seem to want to argue data... that you do not provide. Which is asinine.

Edit: I might be wrong, but there now appears to be more posts about citing sources than on the topic of the thread. But I don't have a citation. Feel free to count.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It is my belief that we are currently in a massive economic bubble, a market failure of such magnitude that we are incapable of properly perceiving it. In much the way I cannot see the whole of the United States while standing in front of the Capital Building.

We are living in a gilded age.

To be fair, that's kinda what a bubble typically is.

Also this isn't the first time Darth Wedgius has verified his statements as verifiable for our benefit.