3 ms·
> We basically are subsidizing investing and rich people are the biggest investors. What's wrong with subsidizing investing? Without investment in capital we'd
by aianus 10y ago
> We basically are subsidizing investing and rich people are the biggest investors.
What's wrong with subsidizing investing? Without investment in capital we'd all be subsistence farmers tending the fields for 12h a day.
If some rich guy wants to make $100 billion and spend 1% on himself and 99% on improving the world for future generations through investment, that's great, no?
I guess it comes down to whether you believe the government can invest those same dollars more productively than rich individuals.
- smt88 10y agoIt's not that subsidizing investing is bad. It's that we're subsidizing investing by shifting the burden to people who pay income tax. If someone makes $100M by inventing an amazing product, and someone else makes $100M by earning interest on the fortune he earned from his mother, which of those behaviors do we want to encourage? Earning money from investing is often a passive way of using money.
- aianus 10y ago> If someone makes $100M by inventing an amazing product, and someone else makes $100M by earning interest on the fortune he earned from his mother, which of those behaviors do we want to encourage? What's the difference between inventing the product himself and investing in a founder who otherwise would have had to get a regular job? Remember -- he could have spent the principal on yachts, cars, and jets instead; that's the behavior we want to disincentivize.