5 ms·
It's easy to say "raise taxes". It's hard to say where the new revenue should be invested, by whom, and how. It's also easy, when someone proposes solving one
by ubernostrum 11y ago
It's easy to say "raise taxes". It's hard to say where the new revenue should be invested, by whom, and how.
It's also easy, when someone proposes solving one problem, to say "well, you're not allowed to solve that one until you've solved every other problem in the world first". It's hard to say "OK, you seem to be prioritizing this problem, let's both make our arguments and because we live in a democracy whoever sways the most people to their side will win".
- roymurdock 11y agoI'm not saying OP should not be allowed to think about or solve this problem - rather, I am pushing him to think harder and deeper about his solution and its possible consequences. It's easy to provide a possible step 1 of the solution to a complex problem. Brilliance and wisdom lies in explaining why your proposed step 1 is the best way to get to steps 2,3, and 4.
- ryandamm 11y agoDon't push _me_. Read Piketty; the explicit goal (and solutions) are aimed at leveling wealth inequality. Yes, good governance is better than bad governance. But problems of inequality -- and reduced social mobility, and the role of human labor vs capital -- are real, and require real solutions. That said, Piketty's proposed solutions aren't currently practical. Did you see the recent estimate that 8% of global wealth is parked in tax havens? http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/parking-the-big-money/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/parking-the-big-m... Yes, the problem is large, and does involve good governance. I was only sharing one proposed solution. The sad fact is, the best solution looks intractable. I'm open to suggestions.
- rhizome 11y agoThe fallacy of relative privation: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as