1. Foxi4

    Foxi4 GBAtemp's Biggest Women Respecter™
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,361
    Country:
    Poland
    I'm not saying that it doesn't help - I'm saying that an outsized government response that tramples on previously fundamental civil liberties sets a dangerous precedent as there is no scale which you could apply to a crisis that measures whether it's acceptable to temporarily suspend constitutional rights. In case it's unclear why I say this, the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of assembly - right now in many states you no longer have that, or it's severely limited. Constitutional right to Freedom of Movement has also been restricted. Now, just to be clear, I'm sitting on my ass at home because I'm not an idiot, but with that said, I can think of a number of things that cause loss of life that could be subject to a similar response, none of which should be restricted. The question of "where is the line?" is very valid and prescient.

    EDIT: What? You can't buy clothes online? It's a multimillion dollar business, that's crazy talk. :P
    That's a really long way to say "I didn't understand the premise". I'm not against taxation in its totality, I'm against the income tax. The government would still impose a variety of fair taxes and have other revenue streams. That's neither here nor there - the arguments you've presented are aimed at windmills since I'm not against the existence of the state, rather I would like to see a diminished degree of state interference in the private lives of its citizens. Once again, a government doesn't build bridges - private companies compete for contracts and build said bridges. Those bridges are designed by architects, and on a more macro scale cities are planned out by city planners. In all factuality, there are some privately ran cities, or cities that are for the most part privatised, both in the U.S. and abroad. The idea that a corporation can run a multinational franchise, but can't run city services is a little silly.
     
    Last edited by Foxi4, Mar 30, 2020
  2. SG854

    SG854 I Will Show You Paradise
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,737
    Country:
    Comoros
    Can you try clothing online? Clothing is very inconsistent with their sizes. I would have to buy send back by mail, buy again send back again till I find a size that isn't to tight and too big that'll fall off my body. Trying before you buy isn't something that can be replicated in online stores which is why I never buy online.

    The problem is that theres always a precedent, give them some power now and pretty soon they'll have alot more power later on. Same like there is a precedent of having a completely open and free market now will be precedent of the rich that will take advantage of the poor. But in practice will these these happen? Or is it a slippery slope argument for this case, every case and situation is different and arguments will need to be adjusted accordingly. But I'm sure in your belief the free market corrects for abuse of the market.

    As people believe that government restrictions won't be abused also because people will riot to go back to work like what's happening in some countries. Government doesn't want that and will have to follow the progress of the virus and plan how to handle this situation the best they can.

    This is a new type of argument whether or not our constitutional rights are being violated on a situation like this and sometimes they need to be violated for the better of society. Like you said where should the line be drawn?
     
    Last edited by SG854, Mar 30, 2020
  3. Foxi4

    Foxi4 GBAtemp's Biggest Women Respecter™
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,361
    Country:
    Poland
    Since I have no objections with anything else you've said, I will say that you absolutely can try clothes online these days - many companies offer this as a service and guarantee either a different pair or a refund if the fit isn't right. In fact, many also allow you to input your own measurements, or offer bespoke items at a slightly higher price. The online marketplace has evolved tremendously in the last decade, there are few things I can think of that would absolutely require a brick and mortar establishment of some kind. Other than that, yes, "you give them an inch, they'll take a mile", "you only have rights if you're willing to fight for them" and so on, and so forth. There is a golden mean somewhere in-between running around like headless chickens spreading the plague and welding people's apartments shut China-style, it's a good debate topic. I personally err on the side of more freedom, not less - within reason.
     
  4. SG854

    SG854 I Will Show You Paradise
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,737
    Country:
    Comoros
    China is a much different country then the U.S. I don't think welding people doors shut here till they die will happen. We take pride in freedom of speech and our other freedoms, annoying to other countries that always calls us crazy, but it's what prevents total Gov control. Even if we give them an inch that inch won't turn into a mill because the U.S. is too prideful for that.

    Of course freedom and not less within reason which is always the crux of the arguments. Right now people are talking when we should go back to work. So the conversation is out there.
     
  5. Foxi4

    Foxi4 GBAtemp's Biggest Women Respecter™
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,361
    Country:
    Poland
    I would like to think that, but you would have to come up with a convincing argument why the "gun epidemic" doesn't warrant the suspension of 2A or why the increase in global temperature by 3 degrees over the course of the next 100 years doesn't warrant putting the economy on hold, just like this crisis has, considering all three are based on "future casualties". Ideally I would like to see the government to have only as much power as absolutely necessary to run the bare minimum functions and as little money as humanly possible so that it doesn't spend it frivolously. I operate from the assumption that the government is terrible at everything it does and inefficient by definition as it is elected, it does not have a profit incentive, it only has a big mallet to whack people with and free reign for the duration of its term. This assumption is supported by evidence - the difference between the state and the private sector is the difference between the DMV and the convenience store - one has everything I need, the other has queues. I'll let you figure out which is which. :P All jokes aside, the situation certainly warrants caution, but I would be very careful about praising the federal government for doing things we should accept reluctantly, not with glee.
     
  6. wonkeytonk
    This message by wonkeytonk has been removed from public view by Joe88, Mar 30, 2020, Reason: Off topic.
    Mar 30, 2020
  7. SG854

    SG854 I Will Show You Paradise
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,737
    Country:
    Comoros
    The reason has to do with human nature. Humans don't respond well to long term effects. Maybe an evolutionary negative. But immediate danger that happening right now they respond faster then the speed of light.

    Something like the world being flooded by melting ice caps and become hotter is a future event, what's happening now isn't enough for people to respomd like they are for corona virus. But Hospitals being over run is happening now. That is actually a criticism that many scientists have about dealing with global warming, people don't respond quick enough till the danger actually happens and it's too late.

    Government isn't allowed to do whatever they want. People are already questioning about the lock down and the only reason we are locked down is because they have to convince people with reasoning why lock down should happen. If they had a bad reason then people will say fuck you can't tell me what to do. They cant go far with an unconvincing argument people will riot.

    They can lie but in this day in age with the internet and memes spreading information quickly, and with more people at home without work with nothing to do but browse the web it won't last long.
     
  8. morvoran

    morvoran President-Elect
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Country:
    United States
    It's better that the rich folks and corporations that make the US economy so great get some of the money rather than some crappy solar panel companies that will go bankrupt and run off with the money in a couple of months.

    I find it funny in a scary way how people (even those from other countries such as Canada with their own wasteful spending issues) will always judge how money is spent in the US without looking into the matter themselves to see the benefits of how that money is being spent. Shame on the OP and the liberal writer of the article whom happens to work for the fake news org CNN (going on the title of this thread, I could have guessed).
     
  9. Foxi4

    Foxi4 GBAtemp's Biggest Women Respecter™
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,361
    Country:
    Poland
    That's all nice and dandy, but just about anything can be called a national emergency given enough support. You're talking with me right now, and we both know the things you've mentioned to be true, but you go on ahead and convince someone who thinks that the sky is falling and they're going to drown in their lifetime - good luck.

    Naturally there are checks and balances in place when it comes to tyranny, however emergency powers of the government should not only be used sparingly, but also be closely monitored and criticised as needed, as there is very little legal redress of grievances when the local courthouse is closed due to a pandemic and you can't file suit, or even get arraigned should you be found in violation of the "too long of a walk" policy. "People dying from a disease" is very much a "future event", the efforts right now are focused on isolating the infected and telling people to stay at home - they're aimed at future, potential casualties. The exact same rule could apply to Chicago - people are dying to gun violence in turf wars all day everyday - is that an emergency? How about school shootings? How about an environmental disaster, like in Michigan? What is the number of people affected that is cause for concern and what isn't? Between 2009 and 2010 H1N1 affected 60.8 million people in the United States, out of whom 274,000 required hospitalisation and 12,469 ultimately died - I don't remember a nation-wide lockdown. Now, admittedly, COVID-19 has a much, much higher mortality rate, but the point stands.

    It's easy for you to say that "it's going to be okay", but you're forgetting that the constitution wasn't written for when everything is honkey dory - it was written *for* times of crisis, it lays down fundamental rights that the government *cannot* infringe. It shouldn't be treated lightly, and if we're going to suspend any particular section, such a decision needs overwhelming support of "we, the people" and it should come with specific caveats - how long will the suspension last and what are the exact specifics. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that kind of transparency, "we're forgetting about Amendment X because crisis" is a bad policy.

    This is of course all hypothetical legal mumbo jumbo. Everyone absolutely should stay safe and follow guidelines to minimise their risk of infection - I can't stress that enough. This is more of a civil rights concern than an invitation to start licking doorknobs.
     
  10. urherenow

    urherenow GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,843
    Country:
    United States
    No, I did not. I said that it was the theme used for the impeachment. He didn't change the value, or fail to honor it. He delayed the payment for... reasons. I'm just throwing the Democrat's words back in their face, that's all.

    Hold it right there, tiger. First off... spineless? You come off as one of the people who (even to this day) calls Trump a puppet for Putin. He's the only president since the cold war to be responsible for operations that caused the death of Russian soldiers. And while the rest of the world (and Media) is bowing down to China about the virus' origin, Trump is NOT backing down and he's calling a spade, a spade. To be honest, he's pretty darn arrogant. Doesn't fit anywhere near the definition of "spineless".

    Done nothing? He tried barring travel from China a mere 10 days after the problem hit the US. Tell me what administration has EVER acted faster? He was called every name in the book for it too, like Biden saying he is xenophobic... Where is Biden now, I wonder? He also placed travel bans on European countries... look how the infection is spreading around there (especially Italy).

    He is trying to balance his power, with the power of the individual States. He is in direct communication with the GOVERNORS and urging them to act. Would you be happier if he declared martial law and told the entire country to stay indoors, with military enforcement? No you wouldn't. If not enough is being done in your State, you need to look at what your governor is doing.

    And whatever your choice of news source is, STOP listening to the peanut gallery. Trump, and the professionals he's working with to base his decisions off of, have been on the news (most all major networks, I believe) every day now. Listen to THEM, to know what they are doing, and not opinions and "interpretations" of the reporters.
     
    Last edited by urherenow, Mar 30, 2020
    JayMathis likes this.
  11. SG854

    SG854 I Will Show You Paradise
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,737
    Country:
    Comoros
    Even if they are both a future events the virus spreading and hospitalizing people happens at a faster rate then global warming, it's slow and gradual. The threat of it is immediate while global warming isn't, that's the difference between the two.

    It could be for past diseases doctors didn't respond to it quick enough and regret they did nothing but this time wanted to handle this current situation better. This is just a guess of mine.

    Places with high gun violence just happens in certain areas it isn't a state wide issue that happened in every city. There maybe a shooting here and there but won't reach the high crime rates some areas do. It's a big part of the gun advocates argument that shootings isn't everywhere and it's why we shouldn't ban it, and instead find what causes them in these areas and prevent it.

    Same with environmental disasters, when they happen they happen in some areas and not the whole country. Corona virus is like a hurricane hitting many countries at once causing disaster in the human body and is a world wide issue. That is the difference between them.

    And despite all you said you still believe social distancing should be a thing. So my question is how do you think this situation should be handled? Should we open all businesses now and hope people will stay apart from each other and not infect one another? You can argue about the constitution being infringed all day but the virus how should that be handled? How should we handle other viruses that are as disastrous as this one that come along? What should be done about these situatuons?
     
    Last edited by SG854, Mar 30, 2020
  12. Foxi4

    Foxi4 GBAtemp's Biggest Women Respecter™
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,361
    Country:
    Poland
    I would like to say that I trust people not to be stupid, but I don't. Sadly, I don't have an answer for you. There are two extremes that I've mentioned - Mad Max-level liberty that would very likely kill large swathes of the population and absolute lack of liberty that would probably save lives, but they wouldn't be worth living. The solution is somewhere in the middle, and I don't necessarily disagree with the steps taken so far, I'm simply worried about their long-term effects. I think there were some sensible precautions that could've been implemented that effectively limit the spread without putting the economy on-hold. It's nice to think of this in the context of "saving lives", but you also have to consider long-term effects - how many people are going to suffer or die because they work hourly and now suddenly don't have an income? How many people instantly lost their healthcare coverage due to being laid off, all because some idiot in Washington came up with the brilliant idea of employer-based health insurance? There's more to it than just the virus, there are other factors besides the virus that impact everybody. For now, it's good to see an emergency "Trump Bux" package that allows tax payers to get some of that tax money back, that should at the bare minimum tide them through the rough. Here's for hoping vaccine development is fast tracked and we can all get immunised as quickly as humanly possible.
     
  13. SG854

    SG854 I Will Show You Paradise
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,737
    Country:
    Comoros
    Didn't you have an answer earlier that people not making money from this shut down that could suffer and die from not affording to eat should move to online. Basically in your view if they don't adapt then they deserve to die, I'm assuming. So shut down and making money shouldn't be an issue right. Only peoples freedom of this shut down is the issue?

    Let's just say the top paragraph is something you don't believe in and a middle ground is something you want. The fear is the power being abused by the Gov. Since the way this virus spreads makes it hard to contain people aren't relied on to keep distance and not be infected, it's just isn't feasible the way some businesses run.

    And many workers still working right now are putting their lives in danger to provide for things we need so that we can function somewhat. There is still much we don't know about the virus because even young healthy people are being affected by it too, we have no idea who it's going to negatively affect and it's changing the way people are thinking about the virus.

    So giving Gov a few feet is necessary there is just no way around it to stop the spread. And of course I'm thinking about the negative impact it has on the economy if shut down for too long, I made a thread about it a few days ago. Trump is talking about it right now, he knows we cant be shut down too long.

    Do you think Gov will be evil and make us not work ever as part of their evil plan? Or weld peoples doors in the U.S? We aren't a 3rd world country where these things slide. We can use our phones record and post a video on YouTube to cry for help when that happens. It's guaranteed to go viral.
     
    Last edited by SG854, Mar 30, 2020
  14. Foxi4

    Foxi4 GBAtemp's Biggest Women Respecter™
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,361
    Country:
    Poland
    Reductio ad absurdum - you're caricaturising what I said. What I actually said was that, as a general rule, being able to adapt to changing circumstances is the key to success. What I also said was that if this is long-term and you find yourself out of work, you must necessarily consider a career change as you can't simply rely on assistance from others. I specified that I don't mind the stimulus package because it effectively returns tax money back to the tax payers, and as a staunch critic of the income tax I can't help but approve of that. What I didn't say is that people "deserve to die" due to unfortunate circumstances - that's something you wrongly inferred. I would give you a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" routine, but that's a little silly - the point is that even in times of uncertainty and calamity people should be incentivised to take their own destiny by the reins and find ways to monetise their talents and contribute. The economy can't be stopped indefinitely, we have to start functioning normally at some point, and by all available measurements it's looking like we'll have to long before we have a vaccine and effective treatments, so what's step two? You have step one nailed - everyone's in their houses and all major events are cancelled, now what? The function of the lockdown, and it is a lockdown not a "stay at home", or whatever they want to call it, is to spread infections out a little bit to lower the burden on the system. You don't want 20% of the population to require hospitalisation all at once, that's what this is for. Now that we're at this stage, we have to start thinking about how to proceed. As for liberty, and its potential loss, government overreach via the use of emergency powers or executive order can have long-lasting ramifications for every emergency that follows, and since we have no exact definition of what constitutes an emergency, it's dangerous by definition. It's not really a matter of what I imagine could happen in the future - that's unknowable. All things considered, I think we have a very similar opinion on how this crisis was addressed - not too shabby. I'm simply less enthusiastic about the possible repercussions that may come later.
     
  15. rrdein

    rrdein Member
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2018
    Messages:
    28
    Country:
    United States
    Not sure about it targeting the 1% specifically, but it would make sense for the bill to provide some kind of tax break to those making, say, over $120,000/yr, since they will bear most of the cost of the bill through their tax dollars, but also do not get the money that most people are getting from the bill.
     
  16. SG854

    SG854 I Will Show You Paradise
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,737
    Country:
    Comoros
    Reductio ad absurdum while people see as a negative logical fallacy is a step for me to understand your perspective more. I can say, so this is what you believe in? Then you can reply well not really it's actually this way I think of this. Since your beliefs isn't all too clear to me on certain areas I have to make assumptions which then you can clear up in another post. It helps bring out what you really think. I could be spot on in my assumptions or not. I even left that as a possibility in my post that it might be not what you believe in.

    But let's be honest in a normal circumstance I'm sure you believe that if you want to eat you have to work for it. People that don't work don't deserve to eat. And I'm sure you don't want them to die and will say they have to pull up their boot straps but if they don't do that well then death will happen. In a unexpected situation with the corona virus you agree to help and a stimulus which is basically returning our money we worked for back to us.

    I think Democrats should stop blocking aid. They are too concerned about what the 1% will get when getting money out to people as quickly as possible should be the biggest concern. Forget the 1%. We don't have all day to be bickering. We need this money now.

    So how do we define what constitutes to an emergency? Any ideas on defining it?
     
    Last edited by SG854, Mar 30, 2020
  17. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,512
    Country:
    Laos
    Ok - then we have most of the problem eliminated. ;)

    Why is income tax needed -

    Because of the retirement issue. Its harder to argue it today - where you dont have the base model of "young working population pays for old people" (who are few) anymore in countries, where the older population becomes much larger demographically, where you then have pension funds, that are only allowed to invest money by a very conservative set of investment strategies.

    Because that, basically, could also be you. (Giving them the money. To do so, out of your own will.) You basically pay for your retirement structurally anyhow at that point.

    The issue we are then coming up against is "people taking risks". So if you've accumulated wealth up to a point in your life you are willing to take more risk to look for a return (interest > better retirement), and from a certain point more towards retirement you become more risk averse.

    There will be people taking 50:50 bets on 'winner takes all' configurations - and they will not know that they are making those bets, because they are bad at modelling economic development the same way pension funds do. (Heck even they are bad at it.. ;) )

    So the issue really becomes - what do you do with those people.

    So if you are not taxing work, you need to progressively tax - "whoever 'all the wealth' ends up with", with the problem being, that thats, very, very hard to do - short term (because they have all the money).

    Long term its easier. (Very rich people usually got very rich not from investing in generational trends, but in big structural changes, those dont come along as (company driven) investment opportunities very often.) The others mostly 'loose' their wealth within three generations.

    Also the issue with consumption based taxing is, that people can chose not to consume. Then accumulate more money, thats then out to look for returns, that then floods the housing or the stock market, mostly in search for highest returns, ...

    Hence the system becomes more unstable.

    If you solve the 'old people' problem (look at how land ownership and family structures worked in feudalism), you might have it your way, but its hard to do so without taxing work.

    And workers becoming more wealthy just was a result of them realizing that they dont need king and church, when they have the means of production. So they got 'wealthy', but with that also came structural responsibility.

    (Todays stock market works entirely differently - and arguably has primacy over the political system - while workers got more and more replacable (machines, globalization), so something broke.. ;) (Might not be "bad necessarily" - depends.) I'm not arguing that the system is perfect.)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Mar 30, 2020
  18. Xzi

    Xzi GBAtemp's Resident Plok Expert
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    11,787
    Country:
    United States
    Not referencing any comment here in particular, but I love the ridiculous absurdity of the argument that America can't have decent/universal healthcare coverage because we've got "too much freedom." Seems to apply to every other form of social safety net we could possibly implement, too. The truth is that the number of freedoms you enjoy in the US is directly tied to how many zeroes are in your bank account balance. If you're poor you're barely even considered human, and given the pandemic we're dealing with, we're about to generate a whole lot more poor people and whole lot of epiphanies related to class consciousness.
     
    DarknessPlay3r likes this.
  19. Pipistrele

    Pipistrele GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2019
    Messages:
    698
    Country:
    Russia
    So, there's 1 in 100 chance that I'll get tax break? Gotta cross my fingers D:
     
  20. Foxi4

    Foxi4 GBAtemp's Biggest Women Respecter™
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,361
    Country:
    Poland
    Everything you've said is completely untrue - the fact that I'm against public retirement plans/healthcare aside, Social Security is funded by the payroll tax, not by the income tax. The payroll tax is another terrible penalty on productivity which deflates on-hand wages, but that's besides the point. Other retirement options include 401(K), Simple IRA and SEP IRA, all of them have one thing in common - they're tax-deferred. You *do not* pay income tax on earnings saved towards your retirement. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the government should provide *0* retirement options as your savings are your business, but at the very least under the current system they're not taxing you for thinking ahead, which is a pretty good incentive. As far as stability is concerned, that's a matter of your individual perspective - to some it's desirable, to others instability is precisely how you multiply your savings. Your assumption is that everyone must necessarily be a winner - I don't subscribe to that principle. I'd rather have unequal outcomes that are generally good than have equal incomes and live together in squalor. While we're on the subject of Social Security, since the system is ran by the government, it's extremely inefficient and on track to run out of money by 2035. Your Social Security contributions are not funding *your own* safety net at this stage, you're paying into the pot for other people. The entire system has to be restructured in the foreseeable future or it will go bankrupt, which you claim is unheard of for government-ran programs, and it's not even the first time this has happened. Ultimately you yourself will see $0 that come from your contributions - it's set up to get contributions from the generation that follows, which is a fantastic idea when you're simultaneously promoting the idea that the world is overpopulated and birth rates are on the decline. I'm sure this approach will work great in an oversaturated market where a large portion of the youth can't find well-paying jobs and *isn't* contributing much to their pot, which in reality is your pot. All sarcasm aside, It's a giant mess far inferior to private retirement funds which offer better ROI. Again, a discussion for another thread that has nothing to do with the current stimulus package.
    I agree - the government could create a better healthcare system than it has today. Step 1 would be to roll back its interference in it, but we've had that conversation before, so we can leave it at that. :P
    There is a difference between what I'd want and what is fair. I certainly don't want people to starve, but at the same time if the system is fair, it will necessarily have winners and losers. If you want the most clear explanation possible, it's "you reap what you sow". I'm in no way responsible for the financial future of my neighbour and, by extension, shouldn't be held liable for their bad financial decisions. I happily help people electively, but I don't enjoy being coerced for the "greater good" - there's no greater good than liberty, and my savings, the result of my hard work, should benefit myself and my family. I hope that's a little clearer.
     
  21. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,512
    Country:
    Laos
    Honestly - I didnt differenciate between the two. Made for a simpler argument. :)
    Payroll taxes (at least in my country) as the name implies are taken from people that are employed, income tax from people that are self-employed. Apart from that - no difference as far as my argument is concerned.

    What you are now shouting against is progressive income tax.

    Which is the only thing that counteracts a systems error that can be described as 'money draws in more money' - meaning the advantage of high income people while investing is cumulative. ('The rich are getting richer, without taking on risk').

    If you now are against that as well - you kind of don't understand what the underlying problem of our times is.. ;)

    You dont pay income tax on earnings saved towards retirement, because that would be akin to 'double taxation'. The government would take Income away to (mainly) provide for your retirement, while you are already providing for your retirement, so the state acknowledges that and doesnt force you to pay income tax - on the part you are already saving towards retirement. Only specific vehicles are accredited (namely ones where you are not at risk, loosing all (/significant) amounts of that money (speculation)).

    I don't advocate for 'everyone to be a winner', just for the losers to be able to live without resorting to 'fights' over food, shelter or water. In rich societies. Again - I dont have to use an individual argument, structurally it makes more sense, if you prevent cities from becoming derelict, if lets say 30% of the workforce drops out of work (and in your world most others would choose to leave). It allows for a quicker 'upstart' when someone manages to do something in that region that brings it on a growth path again. It destroys less wealth.

    I'd also argue for free medical treatment for your poor - also because of structural issues. See pandemic. (If in parts of your town, smallpox is still a thing, ...)


    You are just a little shmuk, that hides behind definitions of words at this point, ones he doesnt even understand, that doesnt want to take on responsibility for anyone but yourself and are whining, that the world doesnt work according to your ideology (which is outdated by several hundreds of years) - because look at all the money you'd be missing. You use words like 'terrible' for base systems of todays society - you have no idea how you'd tackle any of the issues arising, if you take them out. You havent even thought about it -

    yet you feel entitled as hell. :)

    You must work in middle management? ;)

    Do you live in a gated community by any chance? ;) Or is that your aspiration for when you get more wealthy. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Mar 30, 2020
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - stimulus, includes, break