LogFAQs > #958184129

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	7 ways men in America live without working
wpot 09/18/21 7:51:32 PM #36:	Mead posted... LinkPizza posted... And I sure hope I don't get taxed to hell and back... even after having made $500 million? That seems very greedy dude What I would say is that after reaching nine figures additional money is more about competition with other uber rich people: it doesn't provide much day to day benefit anymore. And even if it did, that money could make a HUGE difference to the workers in the company said millionaire probably owns. Societally we should encourage (make?) the uber wealthy share the load. There is still plenty of incentive to get to the cap (whatever it is in the first place). And in MY system the uber wealth person "losing" money has a hand in deciding what charity (or government) benefits. adjl posted... Most suggestions for wealth caps I've seen are in the $50-100 million range. That'd mean people couldn't take joyrides into space, but that's really about the full extent of the quality of life impact that would have. Nobody's suggesting that people shouldn't be able to become rich enough to live in luxury for the rest of their lives (there's ample room to question whether or not a given person in that position deserves it, but by and large, the concept of becoming successful enough to live such a life is perfectly valid), just that there's zero benefit and a whole lot of harm to be had from people hoarding a thousand times that much. ...so yeah, that. :) 11110111011 posted... Money can be hidden in so many different ways that capping maximum wealth isn't realistic. Oh I know: my cap isn't realistic. Its the RIGHT thing to do, but it would have huge implementation issues. Mead posted... wpot posted... although wed have to argue as a society which particular physical/mental conditions everyone deserves to have treated. disagree Does everyone deserve all chiropractic treatments? Preventative treatments? Costly experimental treatments? Treatments for conditions that debatably exist? Costly testing for conditions that Drs think are unlikely to be found in a patient? Appearance enhancements? Weight loss? The left (of which I am a member) needs to understand there MUST be a difference between basic medical and optional medical if we ever hope to succeed with a more nationalized system. Some of those things are hugely expensive and the cost far outweighs the benefit in any scientific sense. Yes, I'm aware I'm ignoring practicality with my wealth thing and focusing on it here. :) --- Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it. <cite>wpot posted [p:958184129] in 7 ways men... [t:79667312]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... And I sure hope I don't get taxed to hell and back... even after having made $500 million? That seems very greedy dude</quote>What I would say is that after reaching nine figures additional money is more about competition with other uber rich people: it doesn't provide much day to day benefit anymore. And even if it did, that money could make a HUGE difference to the workers in the company said millionaire probably owns. Societally we should encourage (make?) the uber wealthy share the load. There is still plenty of incentive to get to the cap (whatever it is in the first place). And in MY system the uber wealth person "losing" money has a hand in deciding what charity (or government) benefits. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Most suggestions for wealth caps I've seen are in the $50-100 million range. That'd mean people couldn't take joyrides into space, but that's really about the full extent of the quality of life impact that would have. Nobody's suggesting that people shouldn't be able to become rich enough to live in luxury for the rest of their lives (there's ample room to question whether or not a given person in that position deserves it, but by and large, the concept of becoming successful enough to live such a life is perfectly valid), just that there's zero benefit and a whole lot of harm to be had from people hoarding a thousand times that much.</quote>...so yeah, that. :) 11110111011 posted... </cite> <quote>Money can be hidden in so many different ways that capping maximum wealth isn't realistic.</quote>Oh I know: my cap isn't realistic. Its the RIGHT thing to do, but it would have huge implementation issues. Mead posted... </cite> <quote>wpot posted... although wed have to argue as a society which particular physical/mental conditions everyone deserves to have treated. disagree</quote>Does everyone deserve all chiropractic treatments? Preventative treatments? Costly experimental treatments? Treatments for conditions that debatably exist? Costly testing for conditions that Drs think are unlikely to be found in a patient? Appearance enhancements? Weight loss? The left (of which I am a member) needs to understand there MUST be a difference between basic medical and optional medical if we ever hope to succeed with a more nationalized system. Some of those things are hugely expensive and the cost far outweighs the benefit in any scientific sense. Yes, I'm aware I'm ignoring practicality with my wealth thing and focusing on it here. :) --- Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1