6 ms·

>> I believe our society would be healthier if there were only three or four orders of magnitude between the wealth of the richest and poorest households in our

>> I believe our society would be healthier if there were only three or four orders of magnitude between the wealth of the richest and poorest households in our nation. Thus taxing billionaires is a Good Thing (TM) regardless of what the money is spent on. > It’s always about dragging down instead of pulling up Ok, tell me how you could reduce wealth disparity to only "three or four orders of magnitude" by "pulling up," without doing something daft like printing money and distributing it until the billionaires' wealth is inflated away? Some real problems are not solvable by win-win solutions.

manigandham 7y ago
Because disparity is not the problem. Raising the standard of living at the bottom is what matters, and putting in proper safeguards so that those at the top cannot greatly interfere in things like government. Spend better (education, healthcare, etc) while removing money from politics. It would actually cost less and we could lower taxes for once for the rest of us.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Because disparity is not the problem. That's debatable. Many people think it is a problem, or at least an undesirable situation. > Raising the standard of living at the bottom is what matters, and putting in proper safeguards so that those at the top cannot greatly interfere in things like government. Easier said than done. It may be impossible or impractical to neuter the political power that comes with economic power.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Why would they unless they are suffering at the bottom? How does it actually affect you? Or is it just envy of those who have more? If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      >> Many people think [massive wealth inequality] is a problem, or at least an undesirable situation. > Why would they unless they are suffering at the bottom? How does it actually affect you? You might want to spend some time thinking their alternate perspectives. > Or is it just envy of those who have more? Not any more than it being greed that's motivating you to take your positions. It's generally not very enlightening to take personal swipes like you did there. > If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further. This seems to be hinting at a kind of libertarian worldview that sees the government and politicians as some kind of unaccountable independent power. That's not the only way to think about government, and I'd argue that it's a pretty limited and ultimately unhelpful perspective. A more democratic perspective is not so opposed to the people gaining more power through their elected representatives.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        If you're able to tell me a max level of wealth needed then you can likewise tell me a min level of comfort. So raise people up to that, and then what's the complaint? I came from a country and living that is far less than anything in the US, and yet billions have it worse. Once you reach a good standard of living, what perspective other than envy is there? And I'm talking about the collective, not you. > "people gaining more power through their elected representatives" What does taxes have to do with this? It solves nothing if those politicians continue to spend poorly, as they are now and have been for a very long time. I hear no solutions for this, only claims that somehow more money handed to the govt will fix everything.
        CharlesColeman 7y ago
        > If you're able to tell me a max level of wealth needed then you can likewise tell me a min level of comfort. So raise people up to that, and then what's the complaint? For a democratic society to really work, it helps that individuals are more or less equal. Don't interpret more or less too rigidly. Past a certain point, economic inequality breeds democratic disfunction and oligarchy. > Once you reach a good standard of living, what perspective other than envy is there? That's is a pretty messed up perspective. If a dictator provides you with what he considers a good standard of living; is it envy to want to have some of the power he denies you? I suspect such accusations of envy are merely a way to defend the status quo by delegitimizing critiques and proposals for change. I'm not saying you're consciously trying to do that. >>> If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further. >> This seems to be hinting at a kind of libertarian worldview that sees the government and politicians as some kind of unaccountable independent power. That's not the only way to think about government, and I'd argue that it's a pretty limited and ultimately unhelpful perspective. >> A more democratic perspective is not so opposed to the people gaining more power through their elected representatives. > What does taxes have to do with this? Some of your questions are getting tedious. I quoted you some of the relative context from the thread, so you can answer your question yourself. It's pretty obvious. > It solves nothing if those politicians continue to spend poorly, as they are now and have been for a very long time. I hear no solutions for this, only claims that somehow more money handed to the govt will fix everything. This is hyperbole and a strawman. No one thinks more money will magically fix these problems, but it's pretty clear withholding money from the government has caused problems and will probably prevent the many problems from getting fixed at all. And even if all the money is wasted, there's still some value gained from decreasing inequality through the actions of taxes.

manigandham 7y ago

Because disparity is not the problem. Raising the standard of living at the bottom is what matters, and putting in proper safeguards so that those at the top cannot greatly interfere in things like government. Spend better (education, healthcare, etc) while removing money from politics. It would actually cost less and we could lower taxes for once for the rest of us.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Because disparity is not the problem. That's debatable. Many people think it is a problem, or at least an undesirable situation. > Raising the standard of living at the bottom is what matters, and putting in proper safeguards so that those at the top cannot greatly interfere in things like government. Easier said than done. It may be impossible or impractical to neuter the political power that comes with economic power.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Why would they unless they are suffering at the bottom? How does it actually affect you? Or is it just envy of those who have more? If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    >> Many people think [massive wealth inequality] is a problem, or at least an undesirable situation. > Why would they unless they are suffering at the bottom? How does it actually affect you? You might want to spend some time thinking their alternate perspectives. > Or is it just envy of those who have more? Not any more than it being greed that's motivating you to take your positions. It's generally not very enlightening to take personal swipes like you did there. > If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further. This seems to be hinting at a kind of libertarian worldview that sees the government and politicians as some kind of unaccountable independent power. That's not the only way to think about government, and I'd argue that it's a pretty limited and ultimately unhelpful perspective. A more democratic perspective is not so opposed to the people gaining more power through their elected representatives.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      If you're able to tell me a max level of wealth needed then you can likewise tell me a min level of comfort. So raise people up to that, and then what's the complaint? I came from a country and living that is far less than anything in the US, and yet billions have it worse. Once you reach a good standard of living, what perspective other than envy is there? And I'm talking about the collective, not you. > "people gaining more power through their elected representatives" What does taxes have to do with this? It solves nothing if those politicians continue to spend poorly, as they are now and have been for a very long time. I hear no solutions for this, only claims that somehow more money handed to the govt will fix everything.
      - CharlesColeman 7y ago
        > If you're able to tell me a max level of wealth needed then you can likewise tell me a min level of comfort. So raise people up to that, and then what's the complaint? For a democratic society to really work, it helps that individuals are more or less equal. Don't interpret more or less too rigidly. Past a certain point, economic inequality breeds democratic disfunction and oligarchy. > Once you reach a good standard of living, what perspective other than envy is there? That's is a pretty messed up perspective. If a dictator provides you with what he considers a good standard of living; is it envy to want to have some of the power he denies you? I suspect such accusations of envy are merely a way to defend the status quo by delegitimizing critiques and proposals for change. I'm not saying you're consciously trying to do that. >>> If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further. >> This seems to be hinting at a kind of libertarian worldview that sees the government and politicians as some kind of unaccountable independent power. That's not the only way to think about government, and I'd argue that it's a pretty limited and ultimately unhelpful perspective. >> A more democratic perspective is not so opposed to the people gaining more power through their elected representatives. > What does taxes have to do with this? Some of your questions are getting tedious. I quoted you some of the relative context from the thread, so you can answer your question yourself. It's pretty obvious. > It solves nothing if those politicians continue to spend poorly, as they are now and have been for a very long time. I hear no solutions for this, only claims that somehow more money handed to the govt will fix everything. This is hyperbole and a strawman. No one thinks more money will magically fix these problems, but it's pretty clear withholding money from the government has caused problems and will probably prevent the many problems from getting fixed at all. And even if all the money is wasted, there's still some value gained from decreasing inequality through the actions of taxes.