4 ms·

> Increasing and broadening the base of the estate tax would be a good move. > Increasing the highest bracket of the income tax would be a good move. How many

> Increasing and broadening the base of the estate tax would be a good move. > Increasing the highest bracket of the income tax would be a good move. How many times do we have to go over this? This would just make more companies and very wealthy individuals move their operations overseas or evade taxes. Income inequality is often a natural part of a large, growing economy like the United States. Furthermore, I don't even view income inequality as a problem. Poverty is a problem. People having more money than other people isn't. We should focus on eliminating poverty, not eliminating rich people.

throwawaymath 8y ago
No one is talking about eliminating rich people or ending income inequality. Wealth redistribution is a legitimate form of reducing poverty (at least in theory, if not always in practice). There are coherent economic arguments for defending your second paragraph, but that's not what's being proposed here. Do you acknowledge that wealth redistribution through progressive taxation can increase the quality of life for those in poverty? If you reject that assertion, why?
zanny 8y ago
Wealth concentration is a threat to democracy. Even if you start from perfect representation, no corruption, and wholly equal influence in government between all citizens, those who have wealth will use it to influence results of said elections in any way they can that they think is worth it. That could start by simply giving minor charity to your political contemporaries. It doesn't even need to be intentional - you just do more favorable business with like minded people. As they accumulate more wealth and success they do the same. Eventually you end up with a faction of the rich and anyone they can buy who may not align ideologically (in contemporary terms, I guarantee the modern rural republican voter does not care about import tariffs on specific goods in the way the shareholders of Nestle do) but don't contradict what the rich care about, which is making more money, by any means, and using the government as a means. This seems to happen in every country, but it is pronounced in the US because of its wealth inequality. Russia is in many ways are peer here in how grossly unequal wealth distribution is, and there is an observable curve of nations the world over between how unequal their wealth is and how much the capital owner class controls policy. This isn't speculation, its observable reality now and for the last several centuries of contemporary capitalistic republics. Even the US was founded in large part by aristocrats who weighed the risks and saw waging war as more practical than trying to buy influence in parliament. Its how human society has structured itself for millennia, since we invented the first currencies, its been the providence of the rich to buy the kings good graces. And buying influence is wholly antithetical to democracy. The capacity to accumulate wealth is a necessary danger and corruption of society to enable growth and innovation. That doesn't mean you ignore the consequences of having it, or at act like just because it has upside means it has no downside. The fact the conversation isn't even about mitigating them is more a sign of how futile attempts to save democracy in the US, maybe even the entire west, are in the face of globalist billionaires who already have way more influence over humanity than half the membership of the G20. As a species we cannot stop the corruption of money and power. The only way to mitigate the capacity for those who have to use it to corrupt institutions is to insure that all vested parties have similar ability to corrupt. That doesn't mean you don't let anyone have wealth - it does mean that if the rich have so much and the poor have so relatively little then we know who calls the shots. There might be many poor and few rich, but what matters is that the collective influence of the many isn't outweighed by the fortunes of the few. Right now, especially in the US, it most certainly is.
- maceurt 8y ago
  Just cap campaign budget at a certain amount, and require a complete audit of politicians their families so they can not be influenced by outside parties. Also, I think that people with more money should have more of an influence in this country. Not a big difference, but rich people frankly matter more. They have more money, and pay more taxes (or they should). In reality I highly doubt that campaign funds have that big of an impact on who wins the election, simply because Hillary Clinton spent significantly more money than Donald Trump and still lost. In addition, Hillary Clinton spent an enormous amount more money than Bernie Sanders, and Bernie gave her a run for her money.

throwawaymath 8y ago

No one is talking about eliminating rich people or ending income inequality. Wealth redistribution is a legitimate form of reducing poverty (at least in theory, if not always in practice). There are coherent economic arguments for defending your second paragraph, but that's not what's being proposed here. Do you acknowledge that wealth redistribution through progressive taxation can increase the quality of life for those in poverty? If you reject that assertion, why?

zanny 8y ago

Wealth concentration is a threat to democracy. Even if you start from perfect representation, no corruption, and wholly equal influence in government between all citizens, those who have wealth will use it to influence results of said elections in any way they can that they think is worth it. That could start by simply giving minor charity to your political contemporaries. It doesn't even need to be intentional - you just do more favorable business with like minded people. As they accumulate more wealth and success they do the same. Eventually you end up with a faction of the rich and anyone they can buy who may not align ideologically (in contemporary terms, I guarantee the modern rural republican voter does not care about import tariffs on specific goods in the way the shareholders of Nestle do) but don't contradict what the rich care about, which is making more money, by any means, and using the government as a means. This seems to happen in every country, but it is pronounced in the US because of its wealth inequality. Russia is in many ways are peer here in how grossly unequal wealth distribution is, and there is an observable curve of nations the world over between how unequal their wealth is and how much the capital owner class controls policy. This isn't speculation, its observable reality now and for the last several centuries of contemporary capitalistic republics. Even the US was founded in large part by aristocrats who weighed the risks and saw waging war as more practical than trying to buy influence in parliament. Its how human society has structured itself for millennia, since we invented the first currencies, its been the providence of the rich to buy the kings good graces. And buying influence is wholly antithetical to democracy. The capacity to accumulate wealth is a necessary danger and corruption of society to enable growth and innovation. That doesn't mean you ignore the consequences of having it, or at act like just because it has upside means it has no downside. The fact the conversation isn't even about mitigating them is more a sign of how futile attempts to save democracy in the US, maybe even the entire west, are in the face of globalist billionaires who already have way more influence over humanity than half the membership of the G20. As a species we cannot stop the corruption of money and power. The only way to mitigate the capacity for those who have to use it to corrupt institutions is to insure that all vested parties have similar ability to corrupt. That doesn't mean you don't let anyone have wealth - it does mean that if the rich have so much and the poor have so relatively little then we know who calls the shots. There might be many poor and few rich, but what matters is that the collective influence of the many isn't outweighed by the fortunes of the few. Right now, especially in the US, it most certainly is.

maceurt 8y ago
Just cap campaign budget at a certain amount, and require a complete audit of politicians their families so they can not be influenced by outside parties. Also, I think that people with more money should have more of an influence in this country. Not a big difference, but rich people frankly matter more. They have more money, and pay more taxes (or they should). In reality I highly doubt that campaign funds have that big of an impact on who wins the election, simply because Hillary Clinton spent significantly more money than Donald Trump and still lost. In addition, Hillary Clinton spent an enormous amount more money than Bernie Sanders, and Bernie gave her a run for her money.