3 ms·

>>Rich investors = good. Rich savers = bad. Why do each of these tax schemes feel like the poor want a consolation, and they would accept a compromise deal whe

by kamaal 10y ago

>>Rich investors = good. Rich savers = bad. Why do each of these tax schemes feel like the poor want a consolation, and they would accept a compromise deal wherein rich would be made poor, just in case they can't be made rich. Never heard a single argument why some human beings getting ahead of others is wrong. No matter how hard you try there is always some people who are richer, some who can draw better, some who can compose music better, some who win nobel prizes. This whole idea that losers will happy if the winners are punished seems to be wrong to even begin with.

wstrange 10y ago
No one is talking about making rich people poor. That is a strawman. Do you really believe some hedge fund manager should pay less tax as a percentage than a school teacher? There are places in the world where you can move to and pay no effective tax. They tend to be pretty crappy places to live.
Frondo 10y ago
You know, this time, I'll bite. Because it's a democracy and because I say so. That's all the reason I need in a democracy to push my idea out there, because I want it, I want a world with less disparity in how resources are distributed. Not, mind you, because I think I'd come out on top, or in my case, even ahead (I wouldn't, under any redistributive scheme) but because there's millions of my fellow citizens who I think would come out a lot better in a less disparate world. It seems like something's wrong in the world when people can work full-time jobs and need food stamps and rent support. That's all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality. It seems like something's wrong in a world where billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries. That too is all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality. At the end of the day, I'm not looking for natural laws that delineate winners and losers, I'm just looking at human-made systems that generate enough food for us all to be morbidly obese, and distribute it so poorly that a measurable proportion of my nation's children go hungry. I'm looking at that stuff and saying nope, gonna use my vote to make something else happen. That's all, because it's a democracy and because I say so.

by kamaal 10y ago

wstrange 10y ago

No one is talking about making rich people poor. That is a strawman. Do you really believe some hedge fund manager should pay less tax as a percentage than a school teacher? There are places in the world where you can move to and pay no effective tax. They tend to be pretty crappy places to live.

Frondo 10y ago

You know, this time, I'll bite. Because it's a democracy and because I say so. That's all the reason I need in a democracy to push my idea out there, because I want it, I want a world with less disparity in how resources are distributed. Not, mind you, because I think I'd come out on top, or in my case, even ahead (I wouldn't, under any redistributive scheme) but because there's millions of my fellow citizens who I think would come out a lot better in a less disparate world. It seems like something's wrong in the world when people can work full-time jobs and need food stamps and rent support. That's all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality. It seems like something's wrong in a world where billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries. That too is all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality. At the end of the day, I'm not looking for natural laws that delineate winners and losers, I'm just looking at human-made systems that generate enough food for us all to be morbidly obese, and distribute it so poorly that a measurable proportion of my nation's children go hungry. I'm looking at that stuff and saying nope, gonna use my vote to make something else happen. That's all, because it's a democracy and because I say so.