Hacker News Reader

Comment by kleiba | Hacker News Reader

The second sentence ("First, you work all month, and then you give half of the money to those who didn't work.") is already so blatantly wrong and reactionary that I almost have to force myself to read on - after all, if the premise is already flawed what good can come of it?

View on HN

Seriously.. it wouldn't be such an aggravating statement if people didn't actually believe it. (To state the obvious, the idea of the taxes is that the money is used to pay for the roads to get you to work, for the education that provides you and your employees the skills to work, and for all the other things that allow society to function so you can work. Yes, including helping people who are looking for work, so that the economy in which you work can function. It's not altruism - you're paying for the system which supports your job existing in the first place.)

And, in Berlin, pays for health care.

That is a story that is told, and when you dig deeper, it is a very poor match to reality.

I recommend James C. Scott as relevant reading.

I'm assuming you didn't actually force yourself to read on:

> Disclaimer #2: My stupid jokes in this post are not intended to insult someone or impose any radical opinions. They're here for a better connection with reality through an ironic reflection of it. Because the stupidest things in the World are always done with a serious face. And yeah, I know how taxes work and I always pay for apps, even the shitty ones. But that doesn't stop me from whining about it.

"It's a prank!"

Yeah, I mean clearly half of the money is going to RENT.

;)

If that had been the joke it would have actually worked.

> First, you work all month, and then you give half of the money to those who didn't. It's called RENT.

It's obviously supposed to be humorous. Whether you like the joke or think it's dumb, the article isn't premised on it being true.

Jokes with false premises always struck me as bad humor. It's like Jerry Seinfeld getting up there and being like "the problem with coffee is that there's always just a litttttle hint of banana flavor. No matter what you do! Always the banana! I mean, is the guy making my coffee some sort of orangutan??"

Irreverent humour is often premised on not being literally true. You may not like that people find it amusing, but many certainly do. That Seinfeld example is a totally different type of humour.

The entire article is full of this kind of humor; you like it or you do not.

It's a little hyperbole but in principle it's true, especially in Germany. Of course you can like the concept of redistribution of income and wealth, but that doesn't makes it "blatantly wrong and reactionary".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com