3 ms·

>> 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?

>> 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
    The difference is a dictator takes power. In a democratic and capitalist system, there is nothing stopping you from gaining that power for yourself. So what is there other than envy? Taxes do not give more power to the people, if that's your answer. They concentrate it in the hands of a few, except this time its politicians. Withholding money from the government is already illegal. The only possibility is an arbitrary judgement that there should be "more" paid, and if more money won't magically solve these problems then why isnt the attention placed no properly spending the money that is collected instead? But the finance sentence hints at the real purpose - to take from those who have. Inequality isn't the problem. It's proper isolation from power. Money should be removed from politics, not poured into it.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > The difference is a dictator takes power. In a democratic and capitalist system, there is nothing stopping you from gaining that power for yourself. lol. The difference isn't as big as you think. It's just as accurate to say "there's nothing stopping you from toppling a dictator and gaining his power for yourself." You see that it's obviously complicated and difficult to do such a thing, and you're ignoring similar complexities in your statement. Obviously many barriers prevent a common man from "gaining that power for [himself]." Things like not having the money (e.g. it helps to have money to make money), connections, or luck. These are things that a pull yourself up by the bootstraps capitalist fairy tale can't help with. > So what is there other than envy? A desire for democracy rather than aristocracy, for one. Look, your question is the wrong one. It's clear you've internalized some false beliefs about how fair the current system is, and that prejudices you against those who want to change it. It would suggest you reflect and critically examine those beliefs. I did that, and got over similar beliefs as yours. > But the finance sentence hints at the real purpose - to take from those who have. No, that's not the real purpose, just your projection. The real purpose is to help remedy society's problems, and I think it would be beneficial to not to have an aristocracy. > Inequality isn't the problem. It's proper isolation from power. Money should be removed from politics, not poured into it. I think I said it before, but that kind of isolation is impossible. It's not the solution.

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
  The difference is a dictator takes power. In a democratic and capitalist system, there is nothing stopping you from gaining that power for yourself. So what is there other than envy? Taxes do not give more power to the people, if that's your answer. They concentrate it in the hands of a few, except this time its politicians. Withholding money from the government is already illegal. The only possibility is an arbitrary judgement that there should be "more" paid, and if more money won't magically solve these problems then why isnt the attention placed no properly spending the money that is collected instead? But the finance sentence hints at the real purpose - to take from those who have. Inequality isn't the problem. It's proper isolation from power. Money should be removed from politics, not poured into it.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > The difference is a dictator takes power. In a democratic and capitalist system, there is nothing stopping you from gaining that power for yourself. lol. The difference isn't as big as you think. It's just as accurate to say "there's nothing stopping you from toppling a dictator and gaining his power for yourself." You see that it's obviously complicated and difficult to do such a thing, and you're ignoring similar complexities in your statement. Obviously many barriers prevent a common man from "gaining that power for [himself]." Things like not having the money (e.g. it helps to have money to make money), connections, or luck. These are things that a pull yourself up by the bootstraps capitalist fairy tale can't help with. > So what is there other than envy? A desire for democracy rather than aristocracy, for one. Look, your question is the wrong one. It's clear you've internalized some false beliefs about how fair the current system is, and that prejudices you against those who want to change it. It would suggest you reflect and critically examine those beliefs. I did that, and got over similar beliefs as yours. > But the finance sentence hints at the real purpose - to take from those who have. No, that's not the real purpose, just your projection. The real purpose is to help remedy society's problems, and I think it would be beneficial to not to have an aristocracy. > Inequality isn't the problem. It's proper isolation from power. Money should be removed from politics, not poured into it. I think I said it before, but that kind of isolation is impossible. It's not the solution.