5 ms·

> what's wrong with that? What's wrong is a potential increase in income inequality and worst wealth distribution. A corporation or somebody from a upper clas

> what's wrong with that? What's wrong is a potential increase in income inequality and worst wealth distribution. A corporation or somebody from a upper class will be getting richer from the work being done while the guy(s) doing the work with the basic income will stay at the same level. I don't think we should increase our inequality metrics even further.

aianus 11y ago
There's nothing at all wrong with wealth inequality if those at the bottom are having all of their needs met.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  That's a fundamental premise where we disagree. Particularly in a society where most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth, inequality - for me - should be the primary target of politics.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    Is most wealth inherited? I thought it was fairly established that after 3 generations a personal fortune is usually lost.
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      Most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth. I don't know if the fact you stated is true, maybe it is, but it's not the opposite of what I said. http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/01/30-wealth-inheritance-mobility-sawhill http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
      - merpnderp 11y ago
        From the linked source in the second link you provided, it states that between 35-45 of wealth is inherited. Not to be overly contentious, but that is not "most". Is your point that inherited wealth is the majority of the unfair, and socially aggravating wealth inequality that angers a large percentage of society? Because that certainly seems believable. By the way, thanks for the interesting links.
        paulojreis 11y ago
        You're right, and not overly contentious at all: I should've said it's the biggest factor, not the major one. I had in mind values I saw somewhere for the U.S. and my country (Portugal), both around 60%.
  - oberstein 11y ago
    Is there potential evidence you could imagine that would change your mind about that premise? I agree with GP that inequality is fine if the basic needs of everyone are met, I also go further and agree with Paul Graham that inequality is a sign of a healthy economy (http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html). I also find nothing wrong with inherited wealth because I love my heirs and want them to have an easier life than I did, I want them to have some silver lining if I pass, I'm in this for more than just myself. I thought about it for a few minutes and one piece of evidence that might make me reconsider your side is if you could show rising inequality (in an environment with an absolute basic-needs-met floor or not) leads to falling access of the basics like food, shelter, knowledge, and useful technology like penicillin. That would be a potential downside to increased inequality that I would care about -- I don't particularly care about the potential downside of increased inequality leading to increased envy since you don't treat envy by giving in to it.
    - lotsofcows 11y ago
      Who gets to decide what "basic needs" are? Oh, "in a democracy"! That's ok then. But I agree with you on the whole. The serfs should just be grateful I'm not beating them.
omgtehlion 11y ago
> potential increase in income inequality you deal with it with progressive taxation
- paulojreis 11y ago
  I think that, fundamentally and strictly speaking, progressive taxation doesn't qualify as "dealing" with the problem. It's not a solution, it doesn't even attemp to solve it. It's just a quick bandage; an attempt to minimize. And, empirically, you can see it. In my country (Portugal), with a supposedly agressive progressive taxation, inequality measures (Gini and Palma) are increasing. And the amount of luxury cars too. :)

aianus 11y ago

There's nothing at all wrong with wealth inequality if those at the bottom are having all of their needs met.

paulojreis 11y ago
That's a fundamental premise where we disagree. Particularly in a society where most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth, inequality - for me - should be the primary target of politics.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Is most wealth inherited? I thought it was fairly established that after 3 generations a personal fortune is usually lost.
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    Most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth. I don't know if the fact you stated is true, maybe it is, but it's not the opposite of what I said. http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/01/30-wealth-inheritance-mobility-sawhill http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      From the linked source in the second link you provided, it states that between 35-45 of wealth is inherited. Not to be overly contentious, but that is not "most". Is your point that inherited wealth is the majority of the unfair, and socially aggravating wealth inequality that angers a large percentage of society? Because that certainly seems believable. By the way, thanks for the interesting links.
      - paulojreis 11y ago
        You're right, and not overly contentious at all: I should've said it's the biggest factor, not the major one. I had in mind values I saw somewhere for the U.S. and my country (Portugal), both around 60%.
- oberstein 11y ago
  Is there potential evidence you could imagine that would change your mind about that premise? I agree with GP that inequality is fine if the basic needs of everyone are met, I also go further and agree with Paul Graham that inequality is a sign of a healthy economy (http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html). I also find nothing wrong with inherited wealth because I love my heirs and want them to have an easier life than I did, I want them to have some silver lining if I pass, I'm in this for more than just myself. I thought about it for a few minutes and one piece of evidence that might make me reconsider your side is if you could show rising inequality (in an environment with an absolute basic-needs-met floor or not) leads to falling access of the basics like food, shelter, knowledge, and useful technology like penicillin. That would be a potential downside to increased inequality that I would care about -- I don't particularly care about the potential downside of increased inequality leading to increased envy since you don't treat envy by giving in to it.
  - lotsofcows 11y ago
    Who gets to decide what "basic needs" are? Oh, "in a democracy"! That's ok then. But I agree with you on the whole. The serfs should just be grateful I'm not beating them.

omgtehlion 11y ago

> potential increase in income inequality you deal with it with progressive taxation

paulojreis 11y ago
I think that, fundamentally and strictly speaking, progressive taxation doesn't qualify as "dealing" with the problem. It's not a solution, it doesn't even attemp to solve it. It's just a quick bandage; an attempt to minimize. And, empirically, you can see it. In my country (Portugal), with a supposedly agressive progressive taxation, inequality measures (Gini and Palma) are increasing. And the amount of luxury cars too. :)