Hmm.

This can't possibly backfire.

Wasn't Denuvo cracked for this game already? The hell is the point of having ANY drm at that point?

They're basically telling you to be kinder in how you make your points, while engaging with your argument in good faith.

What's the problem?

Wut?

Alchemist and Battlemage cards were fine.

Edit: oh no. It's a pivot to AI compute 🤦‍♂️

Just don't slouch.

Why does, not taxing moving money end public funding

Because eventually everyone is below the "wealth cap". Which means no-one pays any further tax. Why would anyone accrue more wealth at that point?

Okay, it can be 2%, and this is enough.

If we're taxing all transactions, then yes, sounds about right.

Because when the government owns everything, that means the people in government become rich.

Are you suggesting we privatize everything?

Wealth control means giving them the wealth, and not owning by the government.

Ok, but how do decisions get made then?

Government are systems. Just because you change the structure, doesn't make it not a government. It sounds like you want better government, not "no government".

Which I agree with.

The fuck do you mean by "wealth control"?

Are you referring to UBI?

It sounds like what youre sctually arguing for, is an asset cap. Where any property above a certain cap goes to the government.

If the cap is 10M, how do we fund UBI, infrastructure and emergency services once everyone is below that cap?

Current economies are powered by the movement of money. So we tax the movement of money. No-one gets anything without spending their assets in some way, including the rich.

You are suggesting that taxes would somehow work better, if we taxed value that was sitting still. Which isn't entirely false, but you are also claiming that taxation of moving money should be ended entirely. Which simply won't work. That would eventually lead to the end of public funding.

You cant fix loopholes without taxing all billionaires until none exists, because they will constantly bribe government. Even if you fixed loopholes, they will create intentionally.

Exactly. How is your proposal a solution?

Of course assets have value. But to tax them fairly, that value needs to be defined! Impartially, too boot! And can you imagine the governmental overhead of constantly defining the values of shifting assets for tax purposes, regardless whether they are being bought or sold?

Your suggestion is as exploitable as the current system. Maybe worse!

And would a "wealth" tax not have an inherent loophole in that the "rich" could avoid paying tax by simply spending faster than they earn, or even staying in debt, as many "milllionares" do?

And would it not punish poor people who try to save up, by taxing them more the more they save up?

Would it not make renting vs owning even more of a problem? Poor people would be encouraged to rent as much as possible in order to have as little "wealth" as possible? While the rich could continue to charge whatever they want to cover the costs.

That doesn't answer my question.

A workers salary ≠ Income

It's one form of it.

Stocks are income. Inheritance is income. Land appreciation is income. If you give me 50 bucks as a gift, that's income.

How is your conceptual wealth tax, not just the same as what income tax should already be?

The problems you list are all loopholes in the applicable laws, not income tax as a concept.

You get me?

What is the difference between income tax and your "wealth" tax?

Is it not just the exact same thing, but applied at a different point in the process?

If you're about to answer that wealth can increase in value without income... That's still income. Which a lot of countries do tax when someone goes to liquidate an asset that has appreciated in value.