Rich have too much

[Natsuu]

Rich have too much !!'
Nedd laws the money u dont use long time will be taken and goved to poor

Lets take and share to poor more taxes and taxes % to me im poor
Time for revolution !!!

What kind of revolution you want to recommend, there is a lot of revolution in the past but none have succeeded in equal distribution of wealth, it's not going to happen, people have the freedom to do what they want to do this is inherent on them, those who want more should have more and those who work less will have less, the talent and perseverance are not the same on all people, we are made to be different with each other when it comes to wealth distribution.

I have something to say regarding the bolded statement above.

So if I want more, then I have the authority to have more. 

or what you're saying is that, anyone who wants more from this capitalistic community must work more to have more? cause in this case, then farmers should be richer than anyone else, laborers and other kind of workers should have more. But the one who is the richest of the rich are the ones whose travelling accross the world, while the poorest are the one who works in farms etc day in and day night. hmmmmm

[1714743399]

1714743399

[1714743399]

1714743399

[1714743399]

1714743399

[uelque]

I don't see an equality to your suggestion. For me it feels like you want to ruin much more the equality that has been broken already. Revolution shouldn't be that way. What needs improvement is how education should be given free or even much more less expensive in order for almost anyone to keep their feet on the competetive grounds.
 
Those rich people have been in a lot of struggles in their past, they don't simply become rich in just a snap, they work hard for it, and you should to. And not simply getting small percentage of their money that they worked hard the rest of their lives just for you who does almost nothing.

Rich have too much? They deserve it. You have nothing? maybe you also deserve it coz you haven't done anything I may say.  

[iamsheikhadil]

I don't see an equality to your suggestion. For me it feels like you want to ruin much more the equality that has been broken already. Revolution shouldn't be that way. What needs improvement is how education should be given free or even much more less expensive in order for almost anyone to keep their feet on the competetive grounds.
 
Those rich people have been in a lot of struggles in their past, they don't simply become rich in just a snap, they work hard for it, and you should to. And not simply getting small percentage of their money that they worked hard the rest of their lives just for you who does almost nothing.

Rich have too much? They deserve it. You have nothing? maybe you also deserve it coz you haven't done anything I may say.  

Disagree partially. Well, some rich people have really worked hard all the way to their top, but many of them are just inheriting the money of their parents and so forth. They have worked hard no doubt, but money doesn't work like that, it doesn't always happens that output is equal to input. Human beings have limited life span, with growing population and everyone wanting to survive a good life, the rich can do more towards contributing to education and technology to make a better world for everyone. A boy gets to born in a billionaire's house and a boy getting born in a poverty filled family won't have the same life, even if the former did nothing "extra" as you said and hence having good principles is more important now than ever.

[South Park]

The rich have many legal venues to reduce their taxes, so even if they live in a place with high taxes there are ways in which they could reduce the taxes they pay while still living there, that is the whole point of companies, companies for all sake and purposes are separate entities from their owners, so while they live in a state with high taxes their company could be in a state with low or no state taxes and this will allow them the best of both worlds, pay little taxes and live wherever they want.

Does lobbying counts as tax reduction because rich people most of the time are involved in lobbying which is totally unfair because it is a sophisticated corruption. The only way for this narrative of rich people having too much money to be resolved is when the government finally realizes that they can make more money out of these companies by taxing them and not considering donations as a write offs.

It should count but technically that should be in the illegal avenues to reduce taxes, what happens is that politicians do not begin their career as corrupt but they soon see that in order to move forward they have to accept that outcome, the few that decide to not accept bribes do not make it far while the ones that do move forward, this is reverse Darwinism, instead of the fittest for the job we get the worst for it and by the time they make it to an important spot in the government they are easy to bribe by the rich.

[tbterryboy]

They have own decision how to spend their own money, even they have a lot of money. If they give to poor people its good, but if no, again its their decision. Many rich people have more money because they invest more in their business. They buy stock in market, they save more.

Yeah, I think main topic would basically be that difference exactly. How? If we combine his ideas which I do agree that looks not good, telling people to work in a world where there is nearly 1 billion people out of work nowadays is a very very bad approach, I would say his heart is definitely not in the right place and he looks like a bad person, BUT his ideas could be used for good as well.

Since rich people are trying to get richer and poor people are having hard time finding work, how about we come to a decent middle way? Tax the rich companies and people a shit ton of money if they are just getting richer, but do tax breaks for them if they hire a lot of people, in that way rich people will try to have bigger and bigger business and will hire more and more people, that way if rich people just focus on getting richer they will be charged 99% tax and will not have any money eventually and that money will be used to help the poor, OR they could just get their business bigger and hire a ton of people which will help people too, win-win either way for poorer people.

[hahay]

If the rich cannot have too much money, then how can they be called rich?
If such a law existed then I am sure there would be many rich people who would be crazier to spend their money quickly, if that was the case then it would certainly be a very useless waste. So, let them or rich people be free to save their money because after all, of course there will be moments where rich people will make large donations when needed and that will certainly be better and more useful.

[int03h]

The needs of people are always increasing and the capitalists always encourage the development of the market economy. The more wealthy people are, the more motivated people are to thrive. The poor have many reasons for being poor such as force majeure in labor for the elderly, the disabled, and the terminally ill. They are poor for sure. Others are poor due to laziness, due to too many burdens. We cannot divide wealth from the rich to the poor because we cannot do it other than donations or charities.
We can only help the poor by helping them, giving them a job, giving them knowledge.
Modern society makes people more greedy and has more material needs. They will want other things bigger than they are now. If one day the rich accept only one house and a car and simply eat and drink, then only that will have the opportunity for the poor.

[fortebettor]

Rich have too much !!'
Nedd laws the money u dont use long time will be taken and goved to poor

Lets take and share to poor more taxes and taxes % to me im poor
Time for revolution !!!

This is how it is, the poor in Africa for a few dollars will do anything, and most of the boys in the U.S. have an average of 100 thousand dollars on metamask without knowing how to live safely in the network. One has nothing to eat, the other complains that he is fat after mac cheese from MCD

[Faxmate]

most rich actually dont have too much money but what they have the most is debts and the real rich are often poor because they are free from debts . you demand a law that is crazy , what if they hold that money for emergency use in the future . even if you hate it , its still inapropriate to force someone to donate but they can just donate if they are willing  and poors shouldnt sit and depend to others but they must work hard to get out of that poverty .

yes it is right that poor people should not depend on others to get their basic necessity, their first priority should to earn money by themselves and do hard work. But there comes some condition, if the poor is unable to earn money because of some handicap or other reasons then it is the duty of rich people to help them financially.
And I think it is not a bad idea like giving specific % in money to the poor people (it is ok if the % is very very less), as we all know that ratio of poor people is much bigger that the rich one.

[Natsuu]

The needs of people are always increasing and the capitalists always encourage the development of the market economy. The more wealthy people are, the more motivated people are to thrive. The poor have many reasons for being poor such as force majeure in labor for the elderly, the disabled, and the terminally ill. They are poor for sure. Others are poor due to laziness, due to too many burdens. We cannot divide wealth from the rich to the poor because we cannot do it other than donations or charities.
We can only help the poor by helping them, giving them a job, giving them knowledge.
Modern society makes people more greedy and has more material needs. They will want other things bigger than they are now. If one day the rich accept only one house and a car and simply eat and drink, then only that will have the opportunity for the poor.

The message in this one is twisted, especially to the last phrase you stated. There are other different opportunities for poor in different scenarios, some are given scholarships, some are given grants, some are being adopted, etc. You can't dismiss this opportunity no matter how low the probability of getting one.

[uneng]

Rich have too much !!'
Nedd laws the money u dont use long time will be taken and goved to poor

Lets take and share to poor more taxes and taxes % to me im poor
Time for revolution !!!

This is how it is, the poor in Africa for a few dollars will do anything, and most of the boys in the U.S. have an average of 100 thousand dollars on metamask without knowing how to live safely in the network. One has nothing to eat, the other complains that he is fat after mac cheese from MCD

You don't need to go too far from Africa in order to find rich boys. African leaders are pretty wealthy, while the people starves and depend on foreigner financial and medical assistance to survive.
Africa is a rich land full of minerals, but the leaders and terrorists don't want to share the profits with the rest of the locals. And why do the people allow such things happening in their own territory homeland?

[AndySt]

The needs of people are always increasing and the capitalists always encourage the development of the market economy. The more wealthy people are, the more motivated people are to thrive. The poor have many reasons for being poor such as force majeure in labor for the elderly, the disabled, and the terminally ill. They are poor for sure. Others are poor due to laziness, due to too many burdens. We cannot divide wealth from the rich to the poor because we cannot do it other than donations or charities.
We can only help the poor by helping them, giving them a job, giving them knowledge.
Modern society makes people more greedy and has more material needs. They will want other things bigger than they are now. If one day the rich accept only one house and a car and simply eat and drink, then only that will have the opportunity for the poor.

The whole modern market social model is built on banal human greed and is quite competitive and viable. Personally, I am not happy with some of the costs of such a model of modern capitalism, such as the excessive wealth of individual members of society, but all sorts of social experiments, such as socialist regimes and all sorts of restrictions on wealth, led to even worse results. Therefore, I am against such proposals as one house and one car, and I am in favor of creating conditions for the state to improve the well-being of the rest of the population. That is, not a restriction, but rather a stimulation of the other layers.

[int03h]

Modern society makes people more greedy and has more material needs. They will want other things bigger than they are now. If one day the rich accept only one house and a car and simply eat and drink, then only that will have the opportunity for the poor.

The message in this one is twisted, especially to the last phrase you stated. There are other different opportunities for poor in different scenarios, some are given scholarships, some are given grants, some are being adopted, etc. You can't dismiss this opportunity no matter how low the probability of getting one.

Every class of society has its own opportunity and I believe that the poor also have a chance to rise, but why are the poor still so numerous? All matter is finite on our earth and time does not favor the poor because they have a very low starting point. They cannot afford housing opportunities if the rich are constantly amassing finite assets such as real estate. Many people work their lives just enough to buy them a home.

The whole modern market social model is built on banal human greed and is quite competitive and viable. Personally, I am not happy with some of the costs of such a model of modern capitalism, such as the excessive wealth of individual members of society, but all sorts of social experiments, such as socialist regimes and all sorts of restrictions on wealth, led to even worse results. Therefore, I am against such proposals as one house and one car, and I am in favor of creating conditions for the state to improve the well-being of the rest of the population. That is, not a restriction, but rather a stimulation of the other layers.

The purely socialist regime annihilated the other roles of the private economy and was led only by the state economy. That holds back economic growth. Currently, socialist countries such as Vietnam, China, and LAOS are constantly expanding their development scale and receiving investment from abroad. They are already rich and have fewer poor people. Countries like Korea and Cuba are embargoed by the US and they have not developed to their full potential.
I don't blame each regime because the way they run is not the same. Just after the pandemic, see how Americans went out on the streets of Europe faced starvation and unemployment.
Proof that the capitalist economy is bad is that the Texas electric utility has raised the price of electricity hundreds of times to make a profit.

[Grafen]

Rich have too much !!'
Nedd laws the money u dont use long time will be taken and goved to poor

Lets take and share to poor more taxes and taxes % to me im poor
Time for revolution !!!

Satoshi has already invented bitcoin for this. You just have to wait until the FRS machine dies

Patience my young padawan

[blckhawk]

If the rich cannot have too much money, then how can they be called rich?
If such a law existed then I am sure there would be many rich people who would be crazier to spend their money quickly, if that was the case then it would certainly be a very useless waste. So, let them or rich people be free to save their money because after all, of course there will be moments where rich people will make large donations when needed and that will certainly be better and more useful.

Precisely. I don't think rich people are the only one who is the problem here because not all rich people doesn't get all their money from corruption or any illegal activities because there are rich people who work really hard just to have that lifestyle. While poor people, on the other hand, there are few people who only rely on the support of the government or donation and they don't even do anything but sit there waiting for relief, to put it simply some of them are just lazy, so wouldn't be unfair for wealthy people if such law exist? However, there are poor people who really strive in order to have a good life but lack of money stopping them to do so. And that kind of poor people is the ones who should get the benefits.

[Alert31]

If rich don't have too much, how can be they called rich? People in this world has a different walks of life and we can't force the rich to just give to the poor. Poor should strive for their livings. Nor can the government force the rich to pay more taxes, so there are laws we have to follow, the rich and the poor have to follow.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Rich have too much !!'
Nedd laws the money u dont use long time will be taken and goved to poor

Lets take and share to poor more taxes and taxes % to me im poor
Time for revolution !!!

As one of my favorite book authors Robert Kiyosaki says, "It is better to teach how to fish and not give away a single fish to satisfy a day's hunger."
You cannot give gifts because you teach to be dependent, and currently if you do that, people are based on habits and just as there are good habits, people learn faster and get used to bad habits.

For this they can help with loans and financing obtaining profit percentages, but always working. Being rich is not bad, nor are the rich bad either, of course there are exceptions, but for those reasons it is that there must be effort for work.

[aesma]

About taxes, I know people here often don't like them, it's always painful to pay of course. Plenty of politicians and normal people think rich people should be taxed more. In fact many rich people agree !

A wealth tax is being proposed in the US, in my country we've had one on and off for decades. It doesn't really work. The US one is bigger.

An argument against such a tax is that when you own lots of stocks, like rich people often do and that's how they're getting richer, you don't have "realized" your gain until you sell the stocks, just like with crypto. So you might be down after having been up. First of all most of these people clearly are always up. And since the tax is flat, if their wealth is down, they will pay less, it seems fair to me.

[Gyfts]

Hmm, unfortunately, redistribution of wealth has some dire economic consequences.

First of all, the rich are very good at hiding their assets, so good luck trying to steal their money when it's on offshore bank accounts or tied up into physical assets (or perhaps some even tied to bitcoin). Second of all, the best way to make a rich person flee a country (therefore no contribution to the tax pool) is to massively raise their taxes. You see this on an individual level in the United States because each state has discretion on their local tax rates. In fact, the way the US works, even municipalities can create their own tax rate. But what you end up with is the rich leaving highly taxed states for states with lower tax rates. In Europe where the entire country has the same effective tax rate, as I mentioned before, the rich will just shove their assets offshore.

For a country such as the United States, the risk of rich people renouncing their citizenship in order to avoid paying higher taxes is very low. Even rich people have their businesses and most of the immovable assets within the US. Renouncing the US citizenship would mean that now these businesses and assets would no longer be taxed under a favorable regime. Same can be said about the European Union, where the taxes are much higher than what they have in the United States.

They don't need to leave the country, they will just leave their state in order to avoid paying high taxes on the state level. See California residents leaving to states with lower taxes because democrat leadership has made the tax rate completely insane to pay for their woke green policies.

[Issa56]

I don't think you have to collect from the rich and give the poor the rich always take the risk to make more money why the poor are always scared to invest the little they are having so that they won't lose there money and definitely life itself is all about risk if you can take the risk you will definitely make it. The rich are definitely working for there there money so I see no reason why you have to collect from them and give the people that are scared to take the risk. Lots of rich people always invest in Cryptocurrency and they always make huge money and poor are are scared to invest in Cryptocurrency because so even say cryptocurrency is a scam and they are not ready to waste there time and money there so why will you collect from the person that can risk his/her life and give the person that is scared to take risk.