Banana, if you knew what Bill Gates thinks about taxation, you'd get an aneurysm.
Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
With enough efficiency gains, people would prefer to do things and give things away for free. There are costs to putting prices on things. With enough efficiency gains, people would get more subjective benefit from not pricing something than by pricing something. We see this in action already, like with Bill Gates. It costs him more subjectively to not do all the charity work he does. This is showing us that Bill Gates gets more benefit out of helping people eradicate a disease than he does the amount of his monetary wealth it costs him. Not only does Bill Gates not want to make more monetary wealth off of eradicating disease, but the subjective benefit is so great that he prefers to spend monetary wealth for his subjective emotional-type gains.

Something I think worth thinking about.
That system works if you look at people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Shuttleworth, but it's not universally true that people who come to great wealth are going to put money into humanitarian aid. To go back to Mumbai where Mukesh Ambani, estimated at 41bn net worth builds himself a 1bn mansion and then decides he doesn't want to live in it because it doesn't quite meet his idea of feng shui or something along those lines. So you have this bizarre monument to wealth in a city where the per capita income is $3k. Even if you look at it purely economical, I have a hard time believing that that kind of expenditure is equal to... anything else really. The people who built it got paid, but that's where it ends. Compare that to taxing the fuck out of that guy and putting the money into humanitarian aid for the region and education. People are a resource, right? If you have more people with a higher education and practical skills, that has to be good for the economy.

The one thing I'm curious about is... you guys want welfare completely gone, right? So what would happen to people who currently rely on welfare? And let's cut that down to the those who are not gaming the system but genuinely cannot be employed. There has to be at least one, right?