3 ms·
> In general I object to the idea that people who have a lot of money (earned or inherited) create more value than the people working for them. Both sides play
by weberc2 8y ago
> In general I object to the idea that people who have a lot of money (earned or inherited) create more value than the people working for them. Both sides play a role in this economy and deserve to be respected as value creator.
Right. Efficient economies do reward people according to the value they create. I'm pushing you toward one of the following arguments:
1. Returns on investment are artificially high (relative to wages) because of an inefficiency in the economy
2. We should introduce inefficiency in the economy in order to keep RoIs artificially low (relative to wages)
If (1), then please describe the inefficiencies (you mentioned one possibility--taxes on investment income). If (2), what good could come of this?
- maxxxxx 8y agoI don't think inefficiency is the right word. How do you determine efficiency of an economy? One person's efficiency may be the other person's loss. It's more about value judgements. Things that should be reevaluated in my view: * The primacy of shareholders. Workers should be recognized as stakeholders in a company * Preferential tax treatment of investment income * Inheritance tax * Health care * Retirement options In general I would like to see the balance of power shifted back a little towards workers.
- weberc2 8y agoThe issue isn't whether or not we want good things for working class people; it's how to make things better without devestating the economy. It turns out that if you do things like forcibly dilute shares for each new worker, it has ramifications which may actually exacerbate poverty. The trick is show how your proposal will succeed without disastrous consequences. :)