5 ms·
One argument against redistribution is that one is taking money from high-IQ, more responsible people who know how to manage money on average and giving it to l
by poster123 9y ago
One argument against redistribution is that one is taking money from high-IQ, more responsible people who know how to manage money on average and giving it to low-IQ, less responsible people who don't know how to manage money.
This needs to be balanced against the primary argument for redistribution, that someone earning $30K/year can use an extra $1K more than someone earning $300K/year wil l miss it.
- folli 9y agoTo follow this line of thought, you're then advocating for heavy inheritance taxation? A heir of a multi-billion dollar fortune is not more likely to have an above average IQ or be more responsible, so he should start from scratch as does the average Joe?
- poster123 9y agoBillionaires are smarter, more hardworking, and ambitious on average, and there is likely some genetic competent to each of these qualities. Certainly there is for IQ. Is your guess for the average IQ of Bill Gates' children 100? I'd guess say 130.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y agoExactly the same reasoning can be used to justify monarchy.
- pc86 9y agoMonarchy is fine as long as you elect the monarch every few years.