This post is Aladeen.

Like it? Share with your friends!

18 comments, 120 points
  • The Original Green Arrow
  • ThatGuy

    I laughed, but then I got sad

    • Max


      Also, awww. Bro hug?
      Also, grammar nazi corrector correctee hug? It’s a sacred bond.

      • ThatGuy

        Haha thanks babe.
        *Bro hug*

    • sniz_and_fondue

      Mine was the opposite..but…yeah.

    • Carlos the Dwarf

      At least you got a laugh.

    • perthaussieguy

      Realisation set in…… fiction is turning to fact

  • brilliant_observer

    Same thing being acheived in the current Plutocracy.

  • Shai Hulud

    I don’t understand this whole 1% obsession. First of all, if you live in the U.S or most Euro countries you are in the top 1% of the world, so there’s that. Second, we are talking about the top 1% of America’s wealthiest people controlling a vast majority of the wealth in America, why does that shock or annoy anyone? Bill Mothafucking Gates alone probably has like 30% of America’s wealth in a single account, why is it so surprising that the richest men have a shit ton of money? isn’t that like the fundamental principle of being super wealthy?? And what country exists where the top richest individuals have an proportionately equal share of the wealth in their country? really makes zero sense to me.
    and I know this is a satirical movie, but this is a pretty big straw man on Baron Cohen’s part

    • James Denman

      Being rich is all well and good, but it hurts the economy. The richer a person is, the more prone they are to saving, and while saving money is good for the individual its bad for the economy. Its much more valuable to have that money being spent, and circulating. When money all ends up in the pockets of a small number of people, then it stagnates, and becomes effectively worthless. Money only has value when its being used as a tool to facilitate trade and commerce. When its not its essentially paper, but less useful. Plus money gets less valuable to a person the more of it they have. Yes it increases well being and happiness up to a point, but that point is well passed by the super rich. It gets to the point where rather than making them happier it just stresses them out more, and leads to deteriorating mental health which is why you always hear about these rich people that snap and kill someone, or end up in rehab.

      The most valuable people in a given economy are middle class people because they can afford all their necessities without issue, keeping integral industries afloat, afford a decent number of luxuries, to keep innovation and progress going, and save up enough money to support themselves when they can no longer work without saving so much that they start to devalue the money as a tool for trade. The rich are important in an economy as well, but the amount of money they have has diminishing returns, and would be more valuable to the country at large if it was used to improve infrastructure and support key services and industries such as healthcare, utilities, public security ect, or if it was redistributed to the poorer citizens of the economy to turn them into more valuable middle class citizens. Plus Ive talked before about how having poor people is actually expensive as heck. Its cheaper for a government to pay for housing and education and training than it is for a government to deal with a person in extreme poverty or a criminal.

      Also the main reason for not taxing the rich more is usually given as being because if they got taxed more they would just move their business to somewhere where they arnt, which is bullshit. The rich tend to live in places with higher tax rates, and better infrastructure due to those higher tax rates, because those are better places to live. Its why you dont have all major business and rich people living in Anguilla where there is no tax. Side note people do try to use Anguilla as a tax haven, but thats illegal. Which means people would literally rather break the law and risk whatever penalties may come rather than actually just move themselves and their business there in order to enjoy the tax free nature of the place legally.

      In summery, the money is worthless when it stagnates at the top, and may actually be causing the people that have it to be worse off, the money is way more valuable to EVERYONE, including the super rich, in other places, and the main reason for not just raising taxes on the rich and cutting tax break loopholes is absolute bull. Wealth redistribution is good for everybody, as long as you dont go overboard. You dont need to make it so everyone has exactly the same income, but the income disparity in the US is ridiculous by the standards of every other developed country.

      I didnt site sources this time cause it hasnt seemed to help other times and seemed to be largely ignored by anyone I was having a discussion with, but I will happily cite them if someone wants them.

      • Shai Hulud

        damn idk what econ principle you are using to say “rich people are bad for the economy” but that is a very loaded statement we could debate all year. I do agree that rich people save more, (hence they’re rich), but typically rich people are the people that have the capability to invest anything back into the economy. Spending is just as dangerous as saving, and in fact the latest economic crises was a perfect example of that; people constantly took loans out they couldn’t support for luxuries they couldn’t afford
        . Plus you sort of contradicted yourself “Rich people save more money……money gets less valuable to a person the more they have of it”. well then rich people should all be spending like crazy no? lol.
        As for rich people avoiding taxes, that is absolutely a real thing lol. That’s why major corporations like Sony and most small arms manufacturers don’t do any production in California, as the taxes are literally not worth the hassle of even doing business here. Not to mention that wealthy people typically don’t hold their assets in cash value, so you’re arguing about the usage or possible depreciation of a currency that they may not even have, as we could be talking about the people with the highest net worth. CEO’s constantly turn down high salaries for better stock options to avoid income tax, and the rich do everything to hide their money when they can despite any real estate choices which is likely a social decision vs financial.
        “rich peoples money has diminishing returns”………dude what are you talking about? money has no diminishing returns, money is the method of return. If you are saying the money is not as useful in their hands as it would be if redistributed, then that’s a way more in depth argument than you are giving credit for. The second you open the door on “we will take your money and give it to whomever we see fit”, there is a myriad of other problems to boot. We already have income redistribution, it’s literally all those things you listed, welfare, healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, etc. I get if we had more money going to those programs we’d be better off but I never understand why people think we should be pulling the money from people that are greasing the cogs of enterprise, and nobody thinks we should maybe be redistributing some of these outrageous political salaries and spending programs.
        All in all I think you are trying to make a case on why rich people are bad for the economy, I don’t think it’s working. There is no socio-economic class that is “better” for the economy as they all help and hurt in their own way, so that argument is pretty weak. Saying that we should be utilizing the private wealth of citizens for the benefit of the public, again is a very polarizing argument and not very strong, because at some point you are making the decision for me that I need to live my life to improve someone else’s. I agree that we need to lower the income gap in America but giving money to people without money is kinda like taking water from the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end hoping to equalize the pool depth.
        TLDR: Rich people help the economy just as much as any other class, poor people are poor on aggregate because of their poor financial decisions, more money wouldn’t change their financial know how. Income redistribution is a moral and borderline epistemological discussion that you can’t summarize as wholly good or bad.

      • Shai Hulud

        btw on the subject of the whole “rich people/corporations don’t leave countries due to higher taxes”
        watch this documentary, doesn’t take an economist to realize these corporations are exploiting countries that don’t have the strict labor laws/tax codes that we have.

    • Severin Parra

      Ok, how about this statistic. 50% of the US population lives below the poverty line ($30,000yr). In the richest nation in the world, half of the country is poor.

      • Shai Hulud

        ok but again, you are using our poverty line. compared to internationally (where the line is $1 a day according to a 2015 study), that’s amazing. So if we are going to make comparisons idk if that’s going to solve anything.
        Also, we are definitely not the richest nation in the world. did you look anything up beforehand or just wing it?

        • Severin Parra

          Per capita, no we’re not the richest nation in the world. But we have the most billionaires, the largest stock market, and most importantly the largest gold reserves. Using that metric, which makes more sense than a per capita measurement, yes we are the richest nation in the world.

          Just because our poverty line is higher than the rest of the world, doesn’t mean that our poor are doing well. It doesn’t make any difference to a family in Michigan that they are comparatively rich to a family in Somalia if they still can’t feed themselves or keep the heat on.

          • Shai Hulud

            Well if you have less per cap purchasing power then the number of billionaires you have living in your borders is pretty moot. Besides with the debt we owe to China and Japan and other nations, idk how you can still think we are the richest countries. And largest stock market how? in terms of most companies being traded? idk how that ties in.
            But actually that’s exactly what that means, if you are above the global poverty line, then comparatively you are doing well. You might feel like you are doing poorly but it’s likely a conflict of subjectivism.
            My point is, if you look at any “super-economy” then they are all going to mimic a lot of the same behaviors. there are a lot of mitigating factors to a wage gap, so saying “the top has too much it just needs to be spread around” is incredibly na├»ve and short-sighted.

          • Shai Hulud

            and btw it def doesn’t make more sense than comparing purchasing power or GDP. Billionaires don’t contribute to the national wealth/debt. It’s not like we count every dollar in America and see what the total is.

      • Shai Hulud

        “half of the country is poor……..compared to the richest half”
        you see why that still isn’t that jaw dropping?

Choose A Format
Photo or GIF
GIF format
Youtube, Vimeo or Vine Embeds
The Classic Internet Listicles