4 ms·
I agree with you that it isn't practical right now to get rid of billionaires. However, I don't think that it's some kind of economic theorem. The reasons that
by allenz 10y ago
I agree with you that it isn't practical right now to get rid of billionaires. However, I don't think that it's some kind of economic theorem. The reasons that socialism failed are complex, and pure capitalism failed as well (think Gilded Age), which is why everyone lives in a mixed economy. It is reductionist to say that the 1976 IMF Crisis was caused by the tax rate instead of excess spending, monetary policy, and structural aspects of the economy. As a counterexample, postwar US had a 92% tax rate and did OK: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2010/02/tax_fraud.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_pol...
IMHO, most economies aren't able to raise the effective tax rate because the wealthy can add loopholes or shuffle their wealth elsewhere. This isn't an economic problem, but a political problem. Is there a political will to close loopholes and restrict the movement of wealth? Do people frame wealth in terms of freedom or in terms of societal obligations?
- Nevermark 10y agoThe problem is not the existence of rich people. The problem is that some people are getting poorer. The two are not always linked. In other words, inequality can be a sign of good (upward mobility, vibrant economy) as well as bad (poor people getting poorer). Fixing the latter is important. "Fixing" the first is harmful. Any solutions should focus on giving the average and the poor the ability to improve their situation. Reducing the number of rich should never be the goal.