MovieChat Forums > Heisenberg > Replies
Heisenberg's Replies
I already acknowledged its advantages.
You have ignored my point about ts biggest flaw: it leads to people refusing to do anything, it kills ambition and the human spirit.
LET ME PUT IT IN YOUR LANGUAGE: IT CREATES A WHOLE SOCIETY OF BIGI THAT DO NOTHING AND EXPECT IT FROM THE STATE.
It seems like you do not read what I write.
I agree with all your points.
But progressive taxation does NOTHING to solve the problem, unless it becomes extreme (like tax 99% above 10 million).
But that is a milder form of communism, and it will bring society to the same results as any other form of communism.
Like I said, your solution to this problem is a Pandora box to a horde of other WORSE problems.
I hated it because it was on 24 7. And it was creepy.
Same as Nirvana videos.
"I'm starting to think that you actually have no evidence and are even more stupid than usual."
You are starting now??????
Yes, and I'm suggesting that what you are suggesting is not different than what Marx suggested.
The reality is this: no matter how much you proportionately tax the rich, the gap will always be there. Unless you go crazy like you or Marx suggested, which is take away everything they have.
Then you have to take away everything everybody has.
Then nobody does shit anymore, like in communism.
Just see it as a whole: you are changing the system to correct its unbalance, but breaking its fundamental basis of incentives, thus you are effectively breaking the system.
Can't have it both ways: either you have people working for themselves, or you have people having others work for them.
In the first system, you have a higher economic output because everybody has to work and has a chance to actually becoming rich, thus more wealth is produced (which also goes around).
In the second system, you have a bunch of slackers (which would love to be given a chance to become rich, but the system prevents them) and way less production overall (unless you start whipping people like slaves, which most commuist countries do anyway).
I prefer the first system.
So there is something wrong with the system.
Correct!
And this is why Marx proposed an end to this system.
Sure!
Is the solution worse than the problem?
Fuck yeah!
This issue is similar with government systems.
Democracy is the worst kind of government-except for all the others.
Capitalism is the worst kind of economy-except for all the others.
Correct!
Finally!
Single people with no children do whatever they want KNOWING THAT THEY CAN LEAVE THEIR SHIT TO WHOMEVER THEY WANT.
Take that away and they will sit on their ass right away.
Like you said, MJ did it for himself AND his immediate family.
Anyway, I am not saying that people ONLY do stuff for their heirs. I am saying that a huge incentive to keep doing is the notion that that stuff is YOURS to use or to give, instead of yours temporarily to be taken away from you when you die. That to me makes it not mine right away: I build a house that I own, it's MINE to use or to give away, not the fucking state's.
Nope.
Society is there to help and push each and everyone to their goals.
This strive to reach these goals in turn pushes society forward.
One of the clearest goal is economic success.
You take away this push in ANY way, and the result is inevitably people stting on their ass because...what is the use to do anything?
1 Blanket, nor anybody else on the planet, does not need 150 m.
2 His father EARNED that money
3 His father had the right to do whatever he wanted with HIS money
How do you solve this conundrum?
I give the precedence to the earner and HIS rights with HIS stuff.
You give it to the Blanket and his needs (or lack of thereof).
Regros?
What is vile about ass to mouth?
That's just romantic. Isn't there a sonnet by Shelley or Wordsworth about it?
Like I already told you.
IT IS WAY MORE DAMAGING TO SOCIETY TO TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT, THUS TAKING AWAY AN INCENTIVE TO DO MORE.
If I know that everything I own above 1 million dollars will be taken away from me and redistributed, why would I ever strive to do more than that?
THAT IS THE MAIN REASON WHY COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK.
Look, I agree with the meritocracy but I am saying is, what about the right of EARNING my property and giving it to whoever I want?
You do understand that your smallminded point of view would demolish one of the biggest incentives for people to do anything?
Ownership means something is MINE and I will do and give it to whomever I want, now or when I die. No caps.
Succession taxes are there to somehow, possibly in a just and proportional way, redistribute some of that wealth.
But I don't think it's fair that somebody, smart or capable enough to own more than another, would be levelled down to that other's same level.
That is at the base of what is wrong with communism: it takes away the incentives that make people strive for achievement.
So what should happen to the money any rich or poor person earns after death?
A dead man walking.
It can't be real, this movie makes THAT option completely impossible.
How so?
Right on the money.
If I make a movie called The Social Network, I do not want to see 2 hours of Zuckerberg arguing with his neighbours about the height of his fence.
This movie is a total miss, it should be named Wife vs Ferrari.