How should we help the super rich?

[Narz]

In my thinking. changes that create partial fixes are worth it. There are gains to be made that can be made through voluntary changes, and those gains are worth it. "A billionaire who decides to spend differently" is a win, and independent of structural change.

Yeah I think we have to celebrate every win

 

[Narz]

You're trolling right? Why do the super rich need help?

They need help to think right, feel right and act right because they have an outsize influence

 

[Broken_Erika]

I made a meme!

Spoiler :

 

[El_Machinae]

How do you square this with their decidedly undemocratic influence on said democratic systems?

I don't think there is anything to square. The term might mean something differently between how we use it.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's the thought that counts; even making jokes about helping the super-rich is helping the super-rich

 

[Synobun]

How do we help the super poor?

By making them not poor anymore.

The same applies here.

 

[Kyriakos]

The Synobun function for the rich is defined as f(x)=¬x, x ε [100.000 euros/year, +∞)

 

[Hygro]

You're trolling right? Why do the super rich need help?

It's like when you are trying to get someone help, you aren't necessarily helping their intended goals, you're trying to save them and others from their own destructive ways.

 

[danjuno]

They need help to think right, feel right and act right because they have an outsize influence

We should restructure society where so much wealth doesn't concentrate in the hands of a few people to begin with. But if we're talking about short-term harm reduction, then stop cutting taxes for a class that are already doing extraordinarily well.

 

[Farm Boy]

Most disabled, retired and artists aren't super-rich and can't live off income generated by assets.

The majority of the disabled and retired in this country live off government payments, not rent from assets. Ditto artists who are neither idle nor live off rents: they live by selling their artworks, little different than anyone else selling their labor or its fruits.

Most. More. The "rich" are by definition a small subsection. It's a relative measurement. "Super rich" even more so. But we're talking about society being structured in such a way that certain people "live off" the work of others and that this isn't cool, right? Whether or not they enjoy their sublime artisty doodling or their such wonder parenting skills, there's a difference between allowing space for something(ie churches) and active subsidization of something, thus requiring other people to support them with their labor in turn through the bureaucracy.

 

[Kyriakos]

Do it like in ancient Athens, where the super-rich had to become demiurgoi (fund public works).
It may even be cool for the US, instead of having to pay for the construction and maintenance of a trireme, they will do that for a modern warship. Also pay for movies (ala payment for classical drama in Athens)

And bring back from ancient Athens also the state paying the citizens to vote (more money for the poor + more interest in public affairs)

 

[Lexicus]

Most. More. The "rich" are by definition a small subsection. It's a relative measurement. "Super rich" even more so. But we're talking about society being structured in such a way that certain people "live off" the work of others and that this isn't cool, right? Whether or not they enjoy their sublime artisty doodling or their such wonder parenting skills, there's a difference between allowing space for something(ie churches) and active subsidization of something, thus requiring other people to support them with their labor in turn through the bureaucracy.

The entire point I'm trying to make is that resources should be distributed on the basis of egalitarianism and human right, not based on some form of producerism.

 

[Kyriakos]

The entire point I'm trying to make is that resources should be distributed on the basis of egalitarianism and human right, not based on some form of producerism.

At least up to a degree, eg there should be a guaranteed universal monthly income, with which one can live, and after that you can get more money if you do x work.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't think there is anything to square. The term might mean something differently between how we use it.

Your suggestion was to democratically restructure things so that something beneficial happens.

My argument is that people use their excessive wealth to bypass any and all such restrictions, as they exist outside of said democratic influence by dint of their wealth. I don't see how there is nothing to square, here.

 

[Farm Boy]

The entire point I'm trying to make is that resources should be distributed on the basis of egalitarianism and human right, not based on some form of producerism.

Ok. So now we have two competing interests. First, controlling the consumption over time of real resources(physical and finite), and Second, corralling the relative share of control of those resources. Right? Compounding returns through efficiency(or inefficiency) which tradeoff control are a function of this, downstream.

Controls for the first may work cross purposes to the 2nd, still, right? Consumption based taxation is heavily regressive, as an example.

 

[r16]

for the days when things will go worse

a-do not call for the destruction of the rich or whatever because that's Communism

b-especially do not do that with Star Wars memes

c-especially from the Sequels

d-because good old Sheev's machinations can be supposed to be in action in real life

e-and if you really want to be helpful , become so rich that the super rich can not compete and instead go and become nice people .

 

[El_Machinae]

Your suggestion was to democratically restructure things so that something beneficial happens.

My argument is that people use their excessive wealth to bypass any and all such restrictions, as they exist outside of said democratic influence by dint of their wealth. I don't see how there is nothing to square, here.

Yes, it definitely means something different to you than to me. It strikes me that you are noticing a difficulty in implementing what I think to be the actual solution.

"To Square" is more often used to reconcile contradictory positions, in my lexicon.

 

[Gorbles]

It strikes me that you are noticing a difficulty in implementing what I think to be the actual solution.

Not a difficulty, no. A fundamental roadblock.

Making water evaporate is a matter of generating heat. Transmuting water is something else entirely, and generally the realm of the fantastical. Yours is the latter here, which is why I was interested.

It's contradictory because your solution is contradicted by the state of the world and the rich people in it. It doesn't exist unless you break that first. Which means unless you can reconcile it, it isn't actually a solution.

 

[Narz]

The entire point I'm trying to make is that resources should be distributed on the basis of egalitarianism and human right, not based on some form of producerism.

Total egalitarianism, like if your farm harvests & sells 100,000 ears of corn and your neighbor sells 10,000 you both get to keep the same amount?

Also are you sure you're using producerism correctly? According to wiki it's valuing labor and creation of wealth over inheritance of wealth.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

The super elite, the ones you and I don't know about who live outside the spotlight, cannot be saved. I should rephrase that. It is very very very very difficult for them to be saved and turn into nice people. Why?

Because they love their riches and glory too much to give it up. Thus why should they change their attitudes or behaviors? To please us peons? They won't do that.

Now rich people, that don't have the kind of f u money like gates does, do have a chance to reform their attitudes and behaviors because their not so far intoxicated with their riches and powers.