4 ms·

I don't get these articles or facts. Is anyone worst off because top 1% of 1% own more than the bottom half or whatever the number is? Wealth creation is not

by wdn 7y ago

I don't get these articles or facts. Is anyone worst off because top 1% of 1% own more than the bottom half or whatever the number is? Wealth creation is not a zero sum game.

analog31 7y ago
It is possible that the rest of us are worse off, because wealth buys political influence and the power to distort markets. A nonzero sum game can still be a poorly rigged game.
Iv 7y ago
> Is anyone worst off because top 1% of 1% own more than the bottom half or whatever the number is? Possibly yes. While not a pure zero sum game, some parts of the economy are, notably the share between salaries and dividends in a company's profit. You can't raise one without decreasing the other. There is a point where too low dividends or two low salaries will endanger the company but also a wide range that is viable and where a pure zero sum game happens. And while some amount of inequality is necessary to get a free market economy going, I have yet to see a compelling argument against a wealth cap or an income cap. I am not advocating that, but as an extreme thought experiment, consider that confiscating the wealth of these 45 people would double the wealth of half the country. 45 people. I have a hard time imagining that the economic gain from these 45 people is on the same magnitude.
- lacker 7y ago
  A simple argument against an income cap is that many of these 45 people would just leave Germany, startup companies and investors would be discouraged from locating in Germany, and the income cap wouldn’t raise much money anyway.
  - Iv 7y ago
    The goal of an income cap is not to suddenly confiscate the wealth of these billionaires, it is to prevent such inequality from happening. They would still be the top 45 richest Germans, they would just be less rich than they are now. > startup companies and investors would be discouraged from locating in Germany, That, I really doubt. As a founder, if you were telling me that I have twice the chance to succeed in a given place, but that I will never own more than 10 millions, I'd be pretty happy already. Sure, you won't attract the delusional founder who thinks he will become the next Bill Gates with his dating app for dogs, but isn't that a feature more than a bug? > and the income cap wouldn’t raise much money anyway. That's not the goal. It would not raise money directly, but it would have a lot of benefits for the economy, by redirecting money that would otherwise go to the top 0.1% into more modest pockets. It would cause redistribution without having to go through the state.

by wdn 7y ago

I don't get these articles or facts. Is anyone worst off because top 1% of 1% own more than the bottom half or whatever the number is? Wealth creation is not a zero sum game.

analog31 7y ago

It is possible that the rest of us are worse off, because wealth buys political influence and the power to distort markets. A nonzero sum game can still be a poorly rigged game.

Iv 7y ago

> Is anyone worst off because top 1% of 1% own more than the bottom half or whatever the number is? Possibly yes. While not a pure zero sum game, some parts of the economy are, notably the share between salaries and dividends in a company's profit. You can't raise one without decreasing the other. There is a point where too low dividends or two low salaries will endanger the company but also a wide range that is viable and where a pure zero sum game happens. And while some amount of inequality is necessary to get a free market economy going, I have yet to see a compelling argument against a wealth cap or an income cap. I am not advocating that, but as an extreme thought experiment, consider that confiscating the wealth of these 45 people would double the wealth of half the country. 45 people. I have a hard time imagining that the economic gain from these 45 people is on the same magnitude.

lacker 7y ago
A simple argument against an income cap is that many of these 45 people would just leave Germany, startup companies and investors would be discouraged from locating in Germany, and the income cap wouldn’t raise much money anyway.
- Iv 7y ago
  The goal of an income cap is not to suddenly confiscate the wealth of these billionaires, it is to prevent such inequality from happening. They would still be the top 45 richest Germans, they would just be less rich than they are now. > startup companies and investors would be discouraged from locating in Germany, That, I really doubt. As a founder, if you were telling me that I have twice the chance to succeed in a given place, but that I will never own more than 10 millions, I'd be pretty happy already. Sure, you won't attract the delusional founder who thinks he will become the next Bill Gates with his dating app for dogs, but isn't that a feature more than a bug? > and the income cap wouldn’t raise much money anyway. That's not the goal. It would not raise money directly, but it would have a lot of benefits for the economy, by redirecting money that would otherwise go to the top 0.1% into more modest pockets. It would cause redistribution without having to go through the state.