3 ms·

I think there are essentially three schools of thought. 1.) wealth/income inequality is inherently wrong, so redistribution is automatically good. private prop

I think there are essentially three schools of thought. 1.) wealth/income inequality is inherently wrong, so redistribution is automatically good. private property is theft! 2.) whatever people get paid is theirs, fair and square. therefore redistribution is automatically bad. taxation is theft! 3.) some people are genuinely much more productive than others, and their pay may reflect that. at the same time, people can acquire more than their "fair share" by exploiting vulnerabilities in the system. from the perspective of 3.), redistribution via tax looks like a dirty hack to mitigate the consequences of a deeper problem. it makes things a little better in the short term, but it doesn't address the root question: why are some people able to capture outsized compensation for their work? but hey, sometimes you have an urgent issue and the quick fix is all you have time to implement.

danans 6y ago
> from the perspective of 3.), redistribution via tax looks like a dirty hack to mitigate the consequences of a deeper problem. Scenarios 1 and 2 don't exist in the real world. They are just theoretical models. Every law is a "dirty" hack, because the deeper problem is the nature of humans - which is to hoard privilege, wealth, power, and security - and the way that influences their societies. Almost every non natural constraint civilization has imposed on humans has been to either support one group's hold on power and security (i.e primogeniture in feudal societies, taxes imposed on non-believers in the state religion) or the opposite: to redistribute power and security across the broader population (Magna Carta, The New Deal, Social Security / Medicare in the US).
arrosenberg 6y ago
I think #3 is close, but it's not just that some users concentrate a disproportionate amount of wealth. It's also the quirk of human society that great hoarding of wealth winds up distorting it such that economic worth becomes directly tied to human worth. This is undesirable generally, and taxes are the main mechanism for the government to regulate this tendency.
thomasahle 6y ago
> 1.) wealth/income inequality is inherently wrong, so redistribution is automatically good. private property is theft! There is a version of this that doesn't care about "right and wrong": Wealth inequality may happen for good and natural reasons, but too large quantities lead to a worse society for wveyone, and so redistribution is one way to reduce it.
apta 6y ago
You can see how Islam addresses this issue in a very pragmatic and moderate manner. People are heavily encouraged to work and generate wealth, at the same time, it acknowledges that there will be a poorer segment of the population due to different factors (opportunity, luck, hard work, inheritance, etc.). Islam requires a form of "charity tax" called Zakat. Its proceedings goes to the poor and needy, among others (e.g. freeing slaves, wayfarers, etc.). The percentage is different based on the commodity (e.g. livestock is taxed differently from cash), but the percentage is fixed (only 2.5% in the case of cash money annually). However, and extremely importantly, it also prohibits exploitative and parasitic practices that cause very unfair advantages to some at the expense of others. Obvious things like lying and cheating (e.g. false advertising), but also very important issues of lending money with interest, selling what you don't own, selling debt for debt, etc. Most of which you'll find on Wall St. as normal behavior. Everything inside these boundaries is up for grabs. Remove these horrible practices, and things will get better almost by definition without having to start taxing people even more.

danans 6y ago

> from the perspective of 3.), redistribution via tax looks like a dirty hack to mitigate the consequences of a deeper problem. Scenarios 1 and 2 don't exist in the real world. They are just theoretical models. Every law is a "dirty" hack, because the deeper problem is the nature of humans - which is to hoard privilege, wealth, power, and security - and the way that influences their societies. Almost every non natural constraint civilization has imposed on humans has been to either support one group's hold on power and security (i.e primogeniture in feudal societies, taxes imposed on non-believers in the state religion) or the opposite: to redistribute power and security across the broader population (Magna Carta, The New Deal, Social Security / Medicare in the US).

arrosenberg 6y ago

I think #3 is close, but it's not just that some users concentrate a disproportionate amount of wealth. It's also the quirk of human society that great hoarding of wealth winds up distorting it such that economic worth becomes directly tied to human worth. This is undesirable generally, and taxes are the main mechanism for the government to regulate this tendency.

thomasahle 6y ago

> 1.) wealth/income inequality is inherently wrong, so redistribution is automatically good. private property is theft! There is a version of this that doesn't care about "right and wrong": Wealth inequality may happen for good and natural reasons, but too large quantities lead to a worse society for wveyone, and so redistribution is one way to reduce it.

apta 6y ago

You can see how Islam addresses this issue in a very pragmatic and moderate manner. People are heavily encouraged to work and generate wealth, at the same time, it acknowledges that there will be a poorer segment of the population due to different factors (opportunity, luck, hard work, inheritance, etc.). Islam requires a form of "charity tax" called Zakat. Its proceedings goes to the poor and needy, among others (e.g. freeing slaves, wayfarers, etc.). The percentage is different based on the commodity (e.g. livestock is taxed differently from cash), but the percentage is fixed (only 2.5% in the case of cash money annually). However, and extremely importantly, it also prohibits exploitative and parasitic practices that cause very unfair advantages to some at the expense of others. Obvious things like lying and cheating (e.g. false advertising), but also very important issues of lending money with interest, selling what you don't own, selling debt for debt, etc. Most of which you'll find on Wall St. as normal behavior. Everything inside these boundaries is up for grabs. Remove these horrible practices, and things will get better almost by definition without having to start taxing people even more.