3 ms·
this might be the only realistic way of solving the immediate problem, but I don't find it very satisfying. I don't believe people like mark zuckerberg have act
by leetcrew 7y ago
this might be the only realistic way of solving the immediate problem, but I don't find it very satisfying. I don't believe people like mark zuckerberg have actually created billions of dollars of value themselves. it does require hard work, skill, and a bit of luck to get that initial advantage, but then the few people that find themselves in this position are able to ride network effects all the way to the top, basically exploiting a market failure.
imo, the ideal society is the opposite of what you said: people who do "useful" stuff should get to keep most of the value they create, and there should be mild restributive programs to ease the burdens of people who can't really contribute. definitely not realistic, but this is the ideal I think we should shoot for. the team of researchers who cure cancer should be worth more than guys like zucc.
note: I don't mean to single out zucc; I just think Facebook is a good example of a valuable company that hasn't improved the world.
- anon1m0us 7y agoWhy should the tax payers subsidize Zuck's income? Imagine facebook has a $100 million profit. If it pays that to Zuck, the company then makes NO profit and pays no tax. Zuck pays income tax on it, but it's not double taxed through the corporation. Thus, the tax payers are subsidizing Zuck's income.
- leetcrew 7y agoI'm suggesting that in a society where only people who do useful things get rich, owners of businesses that have attained most of their value through exploiting network effects will not be extremely wealthy.