Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 5573. (Read 26607651 times)

-snip-
This is where nullius really stops following the Wall before it eats all his time again.

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

the evening wall report

Well...im trying dang it..but its hard to get into bear mode with bitcoin still trading over $50k  

10 friends go out every day for dinner. The bill would be SEK 1,000. The bill was divided in the same way that taxes are paid. The first four - (the poorest) pay nothing; - the 5th pays SEK 10 - the 6th pays SEK 30 - the 7th SEK 70 - the 8th SEK 120 - the 9th SEK 180 - The 10th person (the richest) pays SEK 590.
The ten friends ate dinner at the restaurant every day, happy with the deal. Until one day, when the owner of the restaurant gave them a discount. “You are such good customers. I give you SEK 200 off your dinners. ” Dinner for 10 people now costs SEK 800.

They still wanted to pay for the dinner the way taxes are paid in Sweden. The first four people were not affected. They were allowed to continue eating for free. But what would the other 6 do - those who paid? How would they divide the discount of SEK 200 so that everyone would get their share? They realized that SEK 200 divided by 6 would be SEK 33.33. But if they deducted it from each person's share, the 5th and 6th person would be paid to eat. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill proportionately. He calculated the amounts each person would pay:

The result was that the 5th person also got to eat for free - the 6th had to pay SEK 20 - the 7th paid SEK 50 - the 8th SEK 90 - the 9th SEK 120 - the 10th person paid SEK 520 instead of the previous SEK 590. Everyone got a lower price than before and now the first five could eat for free. Outside the restaurant, they began to compare what they had saved. "I only earned a tenth of the discount!", The 6th person began. He pointed to the 10th person, "… but he earned 70 kroner !!!" - "Exactly, I also only saved ten", said the 5th person. "It's unfair that he got seven times as much as I did!"
"It's true!" Shouted the 7th person. “Why should he get SEK 70 back when I only got SEK 20? The rich always gets the most! ”-“ Wait a minute ”, shouted the first four,“ We ​​got nothing! This system exploits us poor! ”

The nine people scolded the 10th and called him a cold-hearted egoist, a capitalist pig, a bloodsucker who kicks those who lie down. The next night, the 10th person didn't come to dinner. The other nine said " how nice", sat down and ate. When the bill came, they discovered something. They couldn't pay it. SEK 520 was missing.

If the person inheriting a fortune doesn't learn how to manage the money and be successful then the money goes back into society through mismanagement anyway.

Sure they got a head start but that's no guarantee of success.

[...much snip...] But I doubt that we can have a world without government, and it seems that the more dense the population (such as in BIG cities), the more needs there are for a variety of government services.  There does not seem to be enough land for each person to have self-sustainability and voluntariness without attempting to account for various public goods, whether we are talking about roads or air and water or even questions about access to property that could be classified as either public or private depending on the structure - and I question whether removing government even resolves property rights and access matters.

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it.

And what about generational wealth, you cool with putting a tax on "dead" money (when someone uber rich dies)?

Or is successful a term that applies to anyone you are associated with, no matter what they did to generate that success?

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

That's for one trip, if you go more frequently it gets cheaper. Or you could just take the train, 12 euro/ 14 bucks That's just two hours of work, you can probably manage.
And it's not like it was free before the bridge was built. The ferry wasn't exactly cheap for cars.

The bridge have increased the traffic fivefold and cut the traveltime not to mention the goods that can now go by train between the countries with all the benefits to the economy that brings.
And lastly, it's in my book just fair that the people who uses the bridge pay for the bridge. Why should the taxpayer collective in Denmark and Sweden pay for that?

Edited.