I’ll do you one better. Even if you take ALL their money, that’s less than 6 months budget.
You’re completely missing the point. There are more than just 3 billionaires in the US. There are more than even 25 billionaires in the US.
You steal it from them, spend it in a few months, and you’re back where you started.
You’re the only one here talking about seizing their entire estate. So sure, your plan is bad, let’s not do it that way.
Like I always say: a bunch of ignorant, uneducated, stupid and entitled teenagers who don’t know anything about the economy want to decide how the economy works.
Dude, you’re talking to two people who are counting billionaires. This weird 'dumb teenager ’ fantasy is all you.
Make a better calculation then come back, and stop criticizing examples. If you understand statistics, you’ll see why whether 25 or 50 billionaires doesn’t make much of a difference. They all mostly follow inverse function distribution in wealth. There’s a law for it, forgot the name. So, no matter what amount you scrape from the top, it won’t make a difference.
Again, ignorance in real world phenomenon and attempts to talk policy. Please stop! Read a book!
“Taxes” are not taken from the richest rich as proposed by this dumb OP’s post. That’s why you’re wrong. What a stupid comment you made!
So are you gonna shut up now? Go read a book.
Edit: Because I know you’ll start barking anyway, I decided to fit the data of the top 100 billionaires to an inverse function. Now go read a book and learn how nature works.
Learn to read, I said they “come from the top,” not the richest. Below a certain income, we don’t tax so what I said is tautologically true.
I’m familiar with Zipf’s law, and what it means in this case is that if you have a distribution of people sorted by wealth, the wealthy are MUCH wealthier than the poor, or worded in the direction of the law the poorest will have money proportional to the reciprocal of the size of the population. You know what that means? It means the wealthy are THE ONLY GROUP that can bear the tax burden.
The more you insist that I should read a book, the more it sounds like you haven’t read any. But keep talking, eventually you’ll understand the implications of what you’re saying.
Dude, don’t tell me “you know” what Zipf law is when you questioned that whole inverse-law thing. Just shut up! Not only I shut you up by bringing it up, but I also did the math for you a fit a function for you to prove you wrong, which you, of course, won’t do because you’re lazy, assuming you even know how to fit data to a function. And now we’re changing the goal post so that you can be right. Make a plan that’s realistic, that doesn’t involve taxation as it’s done now maximized for the middle class, or fuck off and read a book! I’ve heard enough of your nonsense.
Dude, don’t tell me what I know when you can’t get the terminology right, and can’t bother to remember the name.
Oh wow! You also know how to use mathematica! To reproduce the graph on Wikipedia! I guess that means you know statistamics or whatever the name is.
Now extend your graph to people making below minimum wage. Can.you tell me where all.the tax money is going to come from? It uses calculus though, so hopefully you can be bothered to remember how integrals work (or as you probably call them, integracalc distribution functions)
You’re such an idiot you didn’t even understand what I did. I did a non-linear fit of the inverse law, not just a plot. But you’re ignorant so you can’t understand what that even means. Fuck off and read a book.
Calculus? Dude I have a PhD in physics. Calculus is children’s play. But anyway, I think it’s time to block you.
A non linear fit! Holy shit! Thats the same graph they have on Wikipedia! While I don’t believe you have a degree past high school, your arrogance does match the physicists in grad school. Probably also explains why you think using Mathematica is impressive.
You’re completely missing the point. There are more than just 3 billionaires in the US. There are more than even 25 billionaires in the US.
You’re the only one here talking about seizing their entire estate. So sure, your plan is bad, let’s not do it that way.
Dude, you’re talking to two people who are counting billionaires. This weird 'dumb teenager ’ fantasy is all you.
Make a better calculation then come back, and stop criticizing examples. If you understand statistics, you’ll see why whether 25 or 50 billionaires doesn’t make much of a difference. They all mostly follow inverse function distribution in wealth. There’s a law for it, forgot the name. So, no matter what amount you scrape from the top, it won’t make a difference.
Again, ignorance in real world phenomenon and attempts to talk policy. Please stop! Read a book!
I’ll do that as soon as you define an “inverse function distribution” and give me the name of this “law”.
Patently false. The fact that any taxes work is an obvious counterexample, cause in our progressive tax system they “come from the top”
Well you give up quickly. Why don’t you go back and find the name of your law, and then I can give you a reading list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law
“Taxes” are not taken from the richest rich as proposed by this dumb OP’s post. That’s why you’re wrong. What a stupid comment you made!
So are you gonna shut up now? Go read a book.
Edit: Because I know you’ll start barking anyway, I decided to fit the data of the top 100 billionaires to an inverse function. Now go read a book and learn how nature works.
Source of the data for 2023 billionaires: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
Learn to read, I said they “come from the top,” not the richest. Below a certain income, we don’t tax so what I said is tautologically true.
I’m familiar with Zipf’s law, and what it means in this case is that if you have a distribution of people sorted by wealth, the wealthy are MUCH wealthier than the poor, or worded in the direction of the law the poorest will have money proportional to the reciprocal of the size of the population. You know what that means? It means the wealthy are THE ONLY GROUP that can bear the tax burden.
The more you insist that I should read a book, the more it sounds like you haven’t read any. But keep talking, eventually you’ll understand the implications of what you’re saying.
Dude, don’t tell me “you know” what Zipf law is when you questioned that whole inverse-law thing. Just shut up! Not only I shut you up by bringing it up, but I also did the math for you a fit a function for you to prove you wrong, which you, of course, won’t do because you’re lazy, assuming you even know how to fit data to a function. And now we’re changing the goal post so that you can be right. Make a plan that’s realistic, that doesn’t involve taxation as it’s done now maximized for the middle class, or fuck off and read a book! I’ve heard enough of your nonsense.
Dude, don’t tell me what I know when you can’t get the terminology right, and can’t bother to remember the name.
Oh wow! You also know how to use mathematica! To reproduce the graph on Wikipedia! I guess that means you know statistamics or whatever the name is.
Now extend your graph to people making below minimum wage. Can.you tell me where all.the tax money is going to come from? It uses calculus though, so hopefully you can be bothered to remember how integrals work (or as you probably call them, integracalc distribution functions)
You’re such an idiot you didn’t even understand what I did. I did a non-linear fit of the inverse law, not just a plot. But you’re ignorant so you can’t understand what that even means. Fuck off and read a book.
Calculus? Dude I have a PhD in physics. Calculus is children’s play. But anyway, I think it’s time to block you.
A non linear fit! Holy shit! Thats the same graph they have on Wikipedia! While I don’t believe you have a degree past high school, your arrogance does match the physicists in grad school. Probably also explains why you think using Mathematica is impressive.