Arthur you’re wrong, in this statement and I proved it mathematically, if subsidy creation doesn’t pass through us, so we can apply baking fee and is instead burned, we lose TEZ and delegators earns more. So yes, is taken from us.
This is another fallacy when I asked him what could happen if the trading fee is reimbursed instead of burned:
And the wealth tax with the purpose of redistribution doesn’t affect the agreement between bakers and delegators @murbard. I had an agreement with them of 5.9% baker fee, then you come with your wealth tax to affect that agreement. See how I caught you? Why you just don’t recognize that you are wrong? You in favor of redistributing wealth with hidden taxes, and you are affecting my voluntary agreement between my delegators and me. That is the biggest reason I’m so mad with this. Now, i will have to be a dick and tell my delegators that I might need to raise fees. There is nothing wrong in being wrong, just say it, oops, I’m not that good at economics, and let’s get over with it.
I’m salty, yes, I accept it, but at least I’m very passionate about Tezos, and I’m honest, and I never keep anything to myself. You decide not to debate me, not because you don’t like me, or I’m salty, is because you are just arrogant to accept you are wrong, many people told you about your arrogance with the tzbtc issue. I may not know anything about coding, but I do know my stuff about economics. Honestly, I would have no problem with experimenting with tzBTC if that tax wasn’t present. But it is, is right there. Come here and debate this with me, let’s have a conversation of 10 pages at least. Your answer is always, “I already told you why” yes Arthur and your answers were pure fallacies everywhere. Let’s discuss your fallacies, each one here.
Another fallacy, if you print, 1,000,000 tez per block and reward immediately to bakers that charges a 10% baker fee, it will also be around 0% net diluting inflation, simply because 90% of that million tez, 900,000 will be distributed to delegators, so in reality delegators will have some dilutive inflation which will be offset by bakers distributing also transaction fees to them, you explained to me once that a baker charging 10% fee, also share transaction fees to his delegators, so the NET inflation of delegators is in fact deflationary by 0.15% a year due to transaction fees and for a baker charging 10% baker fee, deflation is about 0.5%
So yes, increasing the block reward immediately sent to bakers would remain neutral, doesn’t matter if you increase it 2.5 TEZ or 1,000 TEZ, it will remain neutral NET 0 dilutive inflation as it is today. The only thing that will not remain neutral anymore if the 2.5 TEZ is instead burned because it will affect bakers earnings and the personal agreement between the baker and his delegators, because now baker will have to adjust the baking fees.
It is about protecting bakers incentives, not fooling them into maintaining steady their baking fee with this hidden wealth redistributive TAX.
You want to make TEZ a SoV currency, well then BURN all the transaction fees of bakers, burn the block rewards, Boom you will have a SoV currency with only a few baking nodes of the foundation active, let’s see how that works for descentralization. That’s the only reason you put this hidden tax, so it “gets us closer” to your beloved SoV. The only way to make TEZ a true SoV is too drastically increase on-chain transaction volumes due to transaction fees creating deflation, not with a magical redistributive wealth tax to bakers, that will only decrease bakers nodes, I mean you can do it, but expect just the TF foundation running 
Don’t take shortcuts man, don’t tax us.
Let’s do LB with reimbursed trading fee to bakers. We get liquidity benefits and 0 reduction of bakers incentives.
