4 ms·

Interesting. the solution should be to just to tax Wilt Chamberlain at a rate high enough that the astronomical net worths become merely "stratospheric".

rsync 10y ago
"Interesting. the solution should be to just to tax Wilt Chamberlain at a rate high enough that the astronomical net worths become merely "stratospheric"." The solution to what ? Could you describe the problem in the (above) Wilt Chamberlain example ?
- rtx 10y ago
  Dissatisfaction
- celticninja 10y ago
  unequal distribution of wealth is the underlying issue, so essentially they are suggesting a progressive tax system whereby higher earners are taxed at a higher rate. Which allows the government to redistribute that wealth towards poorer areas of society whilst not impacting significantly on the living standards of the higher earner.
  - eddiecalzone 10y ago
    Well stated. All of the arguments above amount to "sure inequality is happening, but that's just capitalism so what can be done?" This.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Inequality. The problem is, nearly never, access to resources: modern society (including in poor countries) puts necessary resources (food, clothing, shelter and even transportation) available to all at a very small price. Our material needs are 100% guaranteed. The problem is that most of the goods that modern society produces are unavailable for most of the population. By reducing inequality, we could improve life quality for the masses.
  - rsync 10y ago
    I was asking specifically about the WC example, not real life.
aljungberg 10y ago
That's just another way of saying people shouldn't be allowed to give their shares freely. You give your shares to Wilt, the government gives them back to you (assuming the government has no overhead). So the original argument stands: forced wealth redistribution is incompatible with free will and liberty. The word "force" itself means the removal of freedom.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  you're coming dangerously close to the precipice of far-right libertarian "all taxes are tyranny" ideology here.
- memmcgee 10y ago
  The government doesn't give you back everything you gave to WC and it doesn't necessarily give it back to you. You van spend your money however you want. Taxes simply mean that everyone benefits from spending, not just WC.
  - aljungberg 10y ago
    Right but in this particular thought scenario it doesn't matter what the government does with the shares. It is still the case that the government constrained your liberty regarding your shares. You wanted Wilt to have them, Wilt didn't get them. I'm not making a moral statement here. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad for the government to do this. I'm just making an observation that, logically, the parent didn't provide a "solution" to the grandparent's thought experiment.

rsync 10y ago

"Interesting. the solution should be to just to tax Wilt Chamberlain at a rate high enough that the astronomical net worths become merely "stratospheric"." The solution to what ? Could you describe the problem in the (above) Wilt Chamberlain example ?

rtx 10y ago
Dissatisfaction
celticninja 10y ago
unequal distribution of wealth is the underlying issue, so essentially they are suggesting a progressive tax system whereby higher earners are taxed at a higher rate. Which allows the government to redistribute that wealth towards poorer areas of society whilst not impacting significantly on the living standards of the higher earner.
- eddiecalzone 10y ago
  Well stated. All of the arguments above amount to "sure inequality is happening, but that's just capitalism so what can be done?" This.
gonvaled 10y ago
Inequality. The problem is, nearly never, access to resources: modern society (including in poor countries) puts necessary resources (food, clothing, shelter and even transportation) available to all at a very small price. Our material needs are 100% guaranteed. The problem is that most of the goods that modern society produces are unavailable for most of the population. By reducing inequality, we could improve life quality for the masses.
- rsync 10y ago
  I was asking specifically about the WC example, not real life.

aljungberg 10y ago

That's just another way of saying people shouldn't be allowed to give their shares freely. You give your shares to Wilt, the government gives them back to you (assuming the government has no overhead). So the original argument stands: forced wealth redistribution is incompatible with free will and liberty. The word "force" itself means the removal of freedom.

metaphorm 10y ago
you're coming dangerously close to the precipice of far-right libertarian "all taxes are tyranny" ideology here.
memmcgee 10y ago
The government doesn't give you back everything you gave to WC and it doesn't necessarily give it back to you. You van spend your money however you want. Taxes simply mean that everyone benefits from spending, not just WC.
- aljungberg 10y ago
  Right but in this particular thought scenario it doesn't matter what the government does with the shares. It is still the case that the government constrained your liberty regarding your shares. You wanted Wilt to have them, Wilt didn't get them. I'm not making a moral statement here. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad for the government to do this. I'm just making an observation that, logically, the parent didn't provide a "solution" to the grandparent's thought experiment.