3 ms·
Emotion has nothing to do with it. A strong, functional middle class is critical for the economic health of the nation, as will as it's ability to survive as a
by hijinx 7y ago
Emotion has nothing to do with it. A strong, functional middle class is critical for the economic health of the nation, as will as it's ability to survive as a Democracy. With very, very few exceptions - wealth disparity is inversely related to the health, stability, and happiness of a populace. Nations with greater wealth disparity generally have less freedom, choice and social mobility. This was recognized multiple times in the nation's history, and upon action, economic growth was spurred. These are not emotions, these are facts that I won't even cite because a simple google search results in many scientific studies backing them.
On a slightly more emotional side:
With individual productivity increasing annually, it's a shame that individuals are not seeing proportional wage increases in return.
And none of that even touches upon the reality that those making the billions are rarely those with exceptional talent or skill. It's those who had the connections and financial wherewithall to build networks that are unreachable for those born into lower socioeconomic circumstances. No, I don't have data for that, but a simple unscientific survey of Execs making hundreds or thousands of times more than their employees are rarely from anything less than middle-upper class backgrounds, and most often have family money that allowed them opportunities never imaginable to lower rungs of society.
I do not like the idea of paying higher taxes, but I also recognize that individuals and companies are sitting on trillions upon trillions of dollars because they are making so much money that they can't spend it all. Just ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, both who agree with this and argue for higher taxes.
But emotions aside, it's simple economics. When social mobility is poor and inequality high, there simply aren't enough consumers to support the level needed for a country to remain 'first world'.
- seibelj 7y agoThe rate of wage increase for the lowest earners in America is higher than for the highest earners. Unemployment is lower than ever. I won’t even cite because you can prove this with a simple google search. The fact remains that you think it’s morally correct to take money from people simply because they have it. To me, that’s theft. What is the salary at which we should seize money? You still haven’t answered this original question.
- tasogare 7y agoI didn't say money had to be taken from people. Actually I think it should be taken where it is: at the big company level. Except a few exceptions (Japan, South Korea) most of the taxation is on the shoulders of individuals and small/medium enterprises. Huge corporations such as Total has super low taxation rate, and others (GAFAM) avoid almost entirely taxation with taxes evasion schemes despite making billions from Europeans. Then, besides taxes, companies should also fulfil their role in society by employing "useless" or low productivity people to a certain extend (this is already done a little In France for instance with law imposing a quota of disabled people). I saw it all the time where I live (Japan): people with useless jobs that have been completely removed by automation in Europe. And finally, limiting the coefficient of the highest paid executive (let's say 100x) in comparison to the lowest paid on is no theft either, because the money didn't came in their pocket in the first place. The idea at large is not the "rob" the C-execs of their money but to put more responsibilities on companies, which have acquired a disproportionate power in the last few centuries.