5 ms·
Of course. They were just not asked in details which way they would like the wealth to be distributed.
by notyourday 9y ago
Of course. They were just not asked in details which way they would like the wealth to be distributed.
- gnicholas 9y agoThey probably also didn't ask about details on regulation. Techies heard "regulation" and thought Uber/Airbnb, not runoff wastewater, asbestos, and formaldehyde (which is what many other people would think of when hearing "regulation"). I'd guess techies are similar to other liberals in wanting these other things regulated. They just don't want tech to be regulated.
- pc86 9y agoThe article itself tells you what definitions they used. In the context of regulation and redistribution, they mean this: > the government should [not] tightly regulate business, and should [not] tax the wealthy to fund social programs My default would be "should not" and "should," respectively, which is where most tech founders fell, and puts me in the minority in the other four categories. We can argue about tax rates and deductions until we're both blue in the face but most people agree that the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes, as a general rule. And "tightly" has a distinctively negative connotation to me. I think something should be legal and unregulated until there is some evidence that it needs to be either regulated or outright illegal. Business, generally, should not be tightly regulated, except in rare instances (healthcare, yes; banking, probably; insurance, probably).