5 ms·

The assumption that a "wealth tax" will lead to a more equitable system is predicated on the assumption that: the government can use your dollar more effectivel

by sova 6y ago

The assumption that a "wealth tax" will lead to a more equitable system is predicated on the assumption that: the government can use your dollar more effectively than you can at creating an equitable [wild, wild] world. "It is very easy to dream about how to give away other people's money," as a cynic on youtube recently commented. But to look to the government as some sort of Arbiter of Fairness, as Thomas Sowell might say "Cosmic Justice," is very naive. The government has no one person you can point to and hold accountable, but when you look in the mirror there is definitely someone who fits that description. I do not think the solution to a more equitable society is greater taxation, because typically, the wealthy will not have it (and will do all in their power to prevent it), and the tax dollars already at play have yet to achieve it. Were it the case that we were part of the way there and simply needed more funding, the argument might have merit, but the fact remains that many points of access are not equal and it does not come down to simple taxation, the problem is a societal, individual, collective, and motivational one. Without addressing the actual root causes of inequity, distributing -or "redistributing" as people like to say- funds will amount to little more than an invitation to use force to take from the haves and deign to the have-nots, without creating any meaningful method of creating more value or unlocking more creativity in between.

aiscapehumanity 6y ago
Proposing a counter argument that's a non-solution is all this is.
- sova 6y ago
  If a group of toddlers gets their cat is stuck in a tree, calling the largest toddler over to fetch it will also not work. We have to be more creative than resorting to brutalist means. True, I did not offer a solution, but if I suggested that roads 1 and 2 are not correct, where is the man to show me roads 3 and 4?
senthil_rajasek 6y ago
"assumption that a 'wealth tax' will lead to a more equitable system" Where is this assumption stated? I always thought Wealth Tax was to prevent concentration of wealth.
- chucknthem 6y ago
  If not for more equitable society, what's wrong with concentration of wealth?
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Lots of hand wavy things and also the presumption that wealth must have come at some undue cost to others (eg low wages)
  - drewrv 6y ago
    Wealth begets power. We have checks in place for political power (term limits, separate branches of government). We have restrictions on arms (tanks, anti-aircraft guns).
- vermilingua 6y ago
  Preventing concentration of wealth... to what end, are you assuming? “Where is this assumption stated?” makes nearly no sense when you’re talking about a worldwide political discourse.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  Preventing concentration of wealth can only be valuable if it leads to a more equitable system. Otherwise it would have the same moral weight as preventing oversized dirt clods.
  - senthil_rajasek 6y ago
    Preventing concentration of wealth is more valuable than preventing oversized dirt clods. It prevents concentration of power.
    - andrewflnr 6y ago
      ... thereby leading to a more equitable system, right?
handmodel 6y ago
Property tax is already a form of a wealth tax. The estate tax was a one-time wealth tax. It is true that wealthy people do get around many rules but that is not a reason to not have a property tax or to never have an estate tax tax - largely they still pay as paying a lot to move money around is often times not worth it. The government doesn't have to use your "dollar more effectively than you" if you have different goals. If the government wants to build a school and you don't want a school you don't get to choose not to pay taxes for the school. Other than just increasing the national debt (which I'm for) we tax people. A wealth tax would be a way to either increase revenue to increase spending OR increase revenue so that other forms of revenue can be cut.
- starik36 6y ago
  > increasing the national debt (which I'm for) Sigh. Let's kick the can down the road some more.
  - beamatronic 6y ago
    If 2008 taught us anything, the money printer solves all problems. It’s all imaginary anyway.
    - medium_burrito 6y ago
      money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
      - RickJWagner 6y ago
        I see that often at 'Bogleheads.org'. Is it a cultural reference from somewhere?
    - torstenvl 6y ago
      That is a terrible take-away from 2008. Are you accounting for any of the (gestures broadly) terrible consequences of that course of action?
brundolf 6y ago
> The assumption that a "wealth tax" will lead to a more equitable system is predicated on the assumption that: the government can use your dollar more effectively than you can at creating an equitable [wild, wild] world. If the money is directly redistributed to those who need it, how is that the government deciding how it should be used? Personal responsibility is well and good - we should all aspire to be more charitable - but it's become clear that it doesn't scale. Free-market capitalism is specifically designed to decouple the seeking of profit from the real-world consequences of that activity. This is what makes it so powerful, and also why it can be so destructive. It should be no surprise to us that a system designed to simplify and abstract people's relationship with society ends up eroding things like empathy and social consciousness. If you ask me, human society can't effectively scale to this level at all. But here we are, and burying our heads in the sand when it comes to clear and present (and deepening) issues is foolishness.
- sova 6y ago
  >If the money is directly redistributed to those who need it, how is that the government deciding how it should be used? When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? As soon as the government gets cash, when is it "redistributed?" Aside from 1) waiting on charity from the rich or 2) forcing people to yield more of their resources to the government that may or may not [history leans to not] do what you suggest, there is likely a plethora of ways, at the very least a third way. I'm not saying don't give people money, but I am saying it's naive to assume the government can do it. Demanding that we involve government is similar to children demanding parents come resolve their disputes and affairs. There must be a way forward without resorting to shouting "mom! dad!"
  - brundolf 6y ago
    > When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? It happened across the world this year, in response to the pandemic. People in several countries were given enough money to make up for lost income. And even in the U.S. people were given a (comparatively paltry, but not insignificant) stimulus check. Beyond that: universal basic income has been discussed and trialed quite a bit. As a permanent fixture of society I'm not yet sold on it, but as a temporary measure to stave off some of our acutely-deepening inequality, I think it would be a simple and direct (indeed, maybe the most literal) form of wealth redistribution. That's not to say I don't think the government can spend some of the money on society better than our billionaires will (who, with few exceptions, simply don't spend their money on society at all). But I also don't think wealth redistribution has to assume that.
groceryheist 6y ago
What's the root cause of inequality? There are certainly historical causes of inequality (e.g. slavery, feudalism, colonialism). These root causes are largely in the past, though they have modern residues (e.g. racism, sexism, western chauvinism) which contribute to inequaliy. I think they are often less important than how already existing inequality is amplified by cumulative advantage dynamics (the rich get richer). A wealth tax directly reduces the amplification and wealth can be redistributed to reduce inequality (not just of wealth, but of education, skills, and status too) on the other end.
- seibelj 6y ago
  The root cause of wealth inequality is that some people value accumulating wealth more than others. At the working class level it’s some people taking jobs cleaning sewers vs. mopping floors. Without inequality no one would do the “dirty” jobs.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    "Some people will do less pleasant jobs for more pay" is a very tiny fraction of inequality. It's technically a root cause but not one of the big problem ones. For the most part, once you add in the other factors, the dirtier jobs pay you worse!
    - seibelj 6y ago
      I could not disagree with you more. If you want to do back-breaking labor for equal money as cushy jobs, be my guest. But my experience is that the difficulty, skill, and (gasp!) risk of a job determines how well it’s compensated. If you want to imagine that all jobs can pay equally well, enjoy the ruination of your country if your preferred political party ever manages to seize power.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Cushy jobs pay much more than labor jobs! > If you want to imagine that all jobs can pay equally well That's not what I said at all. I said that harder jobs paying more is NOT the problem. I don't want all jobs to pay the same. I'm happy with some jobs paying ten times as much as other jobs. But there's a limit to overall inequality before problems start to happen.
grey-area 6y ago
Nope. It’s predicated on the observation that the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth. Taxing income is perverse and disincentivizes work. Taxing capital makes a lot more sense IMO. Income you get by working. Capital you get by inheriting, saving or by having capital, which earns you more. To be clear I think capital is good and necessary but I see no reason why work should be taxed more. Wealth is created by work, not capital.
- generalizations 6y ago
  And yet people will still look for places to store wealth. All this would do is create more complex forms of money laundering.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    So you actually agree a wealth tax is a good thing, your argument is just, "we can't make it perfect we should not do it at all" That's not a helpful argument because it is so general that we can bring it up against anything. I'm very certain you don't follow this principle in real life either.
    - generalizations 6y ago
      > So you actually agree > I'm very certain you don't follow Don't say what I think for me. It's condescending, makes you look like you're more interested in cheap points, and suggests that you can't actually come up with an intellectual response. I don't think it's a good thing; I think it's better to address the root of the problem rather than the symptom; and it's worth noting when a course of action isn't going to work. Otherwise you fall prey to the classic mockery: "we need to do something! This is something. We should do it."
      - grey-area 6y ago
        Well you’re certainly living up to your username today ;) All taxes are avoided to some extent but assets are actually easier to tax in many ways than income. If you want to have money and things it’s hard to hide that, whereas if you have capital you don’t even need income and can easily avoid taxes on it.
aqme28 6y ago
I don't understand this argument. You're framing it as though it's a choice between the government and yourself. Of course you're going to use that money more effectively for your own interests. The problem is that it's not "you," it's the ultrawealthy, and their interests do not align with yours. While you're right that government accountability isn't perfect, at least there's an attempt at it.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > While you're right that government accountability isn't perfect, at least there's an attempt at it. But see, with the ultrawealthy, there's someone we can hold accountable. For instance, if Jeff Bezos isn't doing his part, we could just... ...hmm. Oh, right! We could tax him more. Wait, not that!
seer 6y ago
Not that I’m advocating it or anything, but if we took an equitable amount of money from everyone, and then burned it in a pit, might be better to society in general. Democracy, well most human social structures really, live on trust. Trust that we are all in it together and are better of participating in it. When people start to perceive that others are taking advantage of them, unfairly, the social structure starts to crumble. Even if that advantage is then used to your benefit, the perception of it matters most. In times past we’ve been “fixing” this by shaping the perception, manipulating people into believing that whatever way of government is used is good for them. Then silencing any doubters. In the 21 century its becoming harder to do that outright, because information is so readily available, so they have resorted to reducing its signal to noise ratio (fake news etc). In any case, perception is key. If “the rich” (they) are treated better than “us”, and they are not supposed to, then you start having cracks in the fabric of society. The appeal for something like wealth tax is not that it would make it better for everyone in the long run, but rather it would be perceived as more fair and lead to less discontent. Weather thats a good trade is up for debate though, you could always hire more cops to “enforce the peace”
drewrv 6y ago
There are countless examples of wasteful or pointless government programs, and countless successes too. This article feels pretty specific to me though. It’s saying the federal stimulus in the spring was mostly successful, however the situation is still ongoing and the federal government isn’t likely to act again. Therefore it’s up to the state to do something similar, and the state can afford it by raising taxes on capital gains. I personally know people that were saved by the $1,200 earlier this year. Waitstaff, retail workers, even some healthcare workers. This is a clear example of “we are part of the way there and need more funding”. The vaccines are being manufactured, we just need to give people more time. > Without addressing the actual root causes of inequity, distributing... funds will amount to little more than an invitation to use force to take from the haves and deign to the have-nots I’m curious what you think the causes of inequality are? Picketty makes a strong case that it’s caused by the fact that wealth grows more wealth at a faster rate than labor grows wealth. In which case a wealth tax or capital gains tax would cut right to the heart of inequality.
- sova 6y ago
  A perpetual stimulus or a guaranteed income would certainly solve a lot of problems for all. Even though it will likely often trickle up to the landlords, it will enable a lot more freedom and economic output, and it does not have to be a fixed value for everyone, it could adjust based on income, a Guaranteed Progressive Income [0]. But what does that have to do with a wealth tax? I don't think the two are as connected as people would like to believe. To use a naturalist's metaphor, wealth comes from having seeds and trees, with orchards bearing fruit. There are people with some trees and plenty of seeds to keep sowing, and there are some people with no seeds and simply waiting on the receipt of fruit. There is likely enough creative output thanks to the endeavors of prior generations to create enough orchards for us that handing out decent fruit rations would be great with little negative consequence, but wealth comes from planting and nurturing new seeds to grow new trees to create new fruit. In short, if we could empower people to start their own endeavors that could blossom fruitfully, that would be a better strike at the heart of inequality than simply shaking bear some trees at the more fecund and productive orchards. Picketty is not wrong, but that sounds more like oak trees and their ability to propagate thanks to squirrels running off with the nuts and burying them far and wide than some sort of ontological argument about society. While a GPI (Guaranteed Progessive Income) will help, we need to focus on creating the causes for our own orchards, our own wealth. If someone else's presence of wealth prevents one's success, then maybe it is time for intervention, such as in the new era of logical and necessary Anti-Trust suits, but if the only obstacle is not having enough resources to start with (education, capital, knowhow, access to resources) it is difficult to see how shaking apples off another's tree will increase or improve those things directly. What's the ideal world? What's the ideal result? Perhaps we can work backwards from the Utopia we want to have, rather than incrementally towards a swamp of disincentives that counteract original aims. [0] https://satisologie.substack.com/p/guaranteed-progressive-income https://satisologie.substack.com/p/guaranteed-progressive-in...
titzer 6y ago
> is predicated on the assumption that: the government can use your dollar more effectively than you can at creating an equitable [wild, wild] world. When you realize the "you" isn't you as an individual--a middle, or upper-middle class person who might see another dollar in taxation--but the "you" is mega corporations and billionaires who only use their money in pursuit of more profit and building walled gardens to keep the grubby masses away, that might soften this hard-line libertarian view a bit. Corporations are soulless and amoral. And they have been caught time and time again sacrificing people's livelihoods, health and safety, mental and physical, to their bottom line. Corporations are also responsible for the vast majority of pollution on this planet and produce 100% of the trash littering the oceans. (you won't find a mom&pop's root beer can floating out there, anywhere). In general I've found that my 20s libertarian view was highly biased to an underlying assumption that my experience is typical, and that the only thing that needed fixing was getting the government out of "my" life and wallet, and that everything would just magically follow from my own personal freedom. The reality is that every one of these typical people are very small fish buffeted and cajoled by advertising and the abusive power of rich people.
anemoiac 6y ago
Is there any reason to not read this as “we can’t have a more equitable society unless the market happens to create one?” On a related note, why does it seem as if some countries (all of Western Europe, for example) have managed to create more equitable societies using government policies?

by sova 6y ago

aiscapehumanity 6y ago

Proposing a counter argument that's a non-solution is all this is.

sova 6y ago
If a group of toddlers gets their cat is stuck in a tree, calling the largest toddler over to fetch it will also not work. We have to be more creative than resorting to brutalist means. True, I did not offer a solution, but if I suggested that roads 1 and 2 are not correct, where is the man to show me roads 3 and 4?

senthil_rajasek 6y ago

"assumption that a 'wealth tax' will lead to a more equitable system" Where is this assumption stated? I always thought Wealth Tax was to prevent concentration of wealth.

chucknthem 6y ago
If not for more equitable society, what's wrong with concentration of wealth?
- edoceo 6y ago
  Lots of hand wavy things and also the presumption that wealth must have come at some undue cost to others (eg low wages)
- drewrv 6y ago
  Wealth begets power. We have checks in place for political power (term limits, separate branches of government). We have restrictions on arms (tanks, anti-aircraft guns).
vermilingua 6y ago
Preventing concentration of wealth... to what end, are you assuming? “Where is this assumption stated?” makes nearly no sense when you’re talking about a worldwide political discourse.
andrewflnr 6y ago
Preventing concentration of wealth can only be valuable if it leads to a more equitable system. Otherwise it would have the same moral weight as preventing oversized dirt clods.
- senthil_rajasek 6y ago
  Preventing concentration of wealth is more valuable than preventing oversized dirt clods. It prevents concentration of power.
  - andrewflnr 6y ago
    ... thereby leading to a more equitable system, right?

handmodel 6y ago

Property tax is already a form of a wealth tax. The estate tax was a one-time wealth tax. It is true that wealthy people do get around many rules but that is not a reason to not have a property tax or to never have an estate tax tax - largely they still pay as paying a lot to move money around is often times not worth it. The government doesn't have to use your "dollar more effectively than you" if you have different goals. If the government wants to build a school and you don't want a school you don't get to choose not to pay taxes for the school. Other than just increasing the national debt (which I'm for) we tax people. A wealth tax would be a way to either increase revenue to increase spending OR increase revenue so that other forms of revenue can be cut.

starik36 6y ago
> increasing the national debt (which I'm for) Sigh. Let's kick the can down the road some more.
- beamatronic 6y ago
  If 2008 taught us anything, the money printer solves all problems. It’s all imaginary anyway.
  - medium_burrito 6y ago
    money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    - RickJWagner 6y ago
      I see that often at 'Bogleheads.org'. Is it a cultural reference from somewhere?
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    That is a terrible take-away from 2008. Are you accounting for any of the (gestures broadly) terrible consequences of that course of action?

brundolf 6y ago

> The assumption that a "wealth tax" will lead to a more equitable system is predicated on the assumption that: the government can use your dollar more effectively than you can at creating an equitable [wild, wild] world. If the money is directly redistributed to those who need it, how is that the government deciding how it should be used? Personal responsibility is well and good - we should all aspire to be more charitable - but it's become clear that it doesn't scale. Free-market capitalism is specifically designed to decouple the seeking of profit from the real-world consequences of that activity. This is what makes it so powerful, and also why it can be so destructive. It should be no surprise to us that a system designed to simplify and abstract people's relationship with society ends up eroding things like empathy and social consciousness. If you ask me, human society can't effectively scale to this level at all. But here we are, and burying our heads in the sand when it comes to clear and present (and deepening) issues is foolishness.

sova 6y ago
>If the money is directly redistributed to those who need it, how is that the government deciding how it should be used? When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? As soon as the government gets cash, when is it "redistributed?" Aside from 1) waiting on charity from the rich or 2) forcing people to yield more of their resources to the government that may or may not [history leans to not] do what you suggest, there is likely a plethora of ways, at the very least a third way. I'm not saying don't give people money, but I am saying it's naive to assume the government can do it. Demanding that we involve government is similar to children demanding parents come resolve their disputes and affairs. There must be a way forward without resorting to shouting "mom! dad!"
- brundolf 6y ago
  > When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? It happened across the world this year, in response to the pandemic. People in several countries were given enough money to make up for lost income. And even in the U.S. people were given a (comparatively paltry, but not insignificant) stimulus check. Beyond that: universal basic income has been discussed and trialed quite a bit. As a permanent fixture of society I'm not yet sold on it, but as a temporary measure to stave off some of our acutely-deepening inequality, I think it would be a simple and direct (indeed, maybe the most literal) form of wealth redistribution. That's not to say I don't think the government can spend some of the money on society better than our billionaires will (who, with few exceptions, simply don't spend their money on society at all). But I also don't think wealth redistribution has to assume that.

groceryheist 6y ago

What's the root cause of inequality? There are certainly historical causes of inequality (e.g. slavery, feudalism, colonialism). These root causes are largely in the past, though they have modern residues (e.g. racism, sexism, western chauvinism) which contribute to inequaliy. I think they are often less important than how already existing inequality is amplified by cumulative advantage dynamics (the rich get richer). A wealth tax directly reduces the amplification and wealth can be redistributed to reduce inequality (not just of wealth, but of education, skills, and status too) on the other end.

seibelj 6y ago
The root cause of wealth inequality is that some people value accumulating wealth more than others. At the working class level it’s some people taking jobs cleaning sewers vs. mopping floors. Without inequality no one would do the “dirty” jobs.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  "Some people will do less pleasant jobs for more pay" is a very tiny fraction of inequality. It's technically a root cause but not one of the big problem ones. For the most part, once you add in the other factors, the dirtier jobs pay you worse!
  - seibelj 6y ago
    I could not disagree with you more. If you want to do back-breaking labor for equal money as cushy jobs, be my guest. But my experience is that the difficulty, skill, and (gasp!) risk of a job determines how well it’s compensated. If you want to imagine that all jobs can pay equally well, enjoy the ruination of your country if your preferred political party ever manages to seize power.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Cushy jobs pay much more than labor jobs! > If you want to imagine that all jobs can pay equally well That's not what I said at all. I said that harder jobs paying more is NOT the problem. I don't want all jobs to pay the same. I'm happy with some jobs paying ten times as much as other jobs. But there's a limit to overall inequality before problems start to happen.

grey-area 6y ago

Nope. It’s predicated on the observation that the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth. Taxing income is perverse and disincentivizes work. Taxing capital makes a lot more sense IMO. Income you get by working. Capital you get by inheriting, saving or by having capital, which earns you more. To be clear I think capital is good and necessary but I see no reason why work should be taxed more. Wealth is created by work, not capital.

generalizations 6y ago
And yet people will still look for places to store wealth. All this would do is create more complex forms of money laundering.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  So you actually agree a wealth tax is a good thing, your argument is just, "we can't make it perfect we should not do it at all" That's not a helpful argument because it is so general that we can bring it up against anything. I'm very certain you don't follow this principle in real life either.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    > So you actually agree > I'm very certain you don't follow Don't say what I think for me. It's condescending, makes you look like you're more interested in cheap points, and suggests that you can't actually come up with an intellectual response. I don't think it's a good thing; I think it's better to address the root of the problem rather than the symptom; and it's worth noting when a course of action isn't going to work. Otherwise you fall prey to the classic mockery: "we need to do something! This is something. We should do it."
    - grey-area 6y ago
      Well you’re certainly living up to your username today ;) All taxes are avoided to some extent but assets are actually easier to tax in many ways than income. If you want to have money and things it’s hard to hide that, whereas if you have capital you don’t even need income and can easily avoid taxes on it.

aqme28 6y ago

I don't understand this argument. You're framing it as though it's a choice between the government and yourself. Of course you're going to use that money more effectively for your own interests. The problem is that it's not "you," it's the ultrawealthy, and their interests do not align with yours. While you're right that government accountability isn't perfect, at least there's an attempt at it.

mcphage 6y ago
> While you're right that government accountability isn't perfect, at least there's an attempt at it. But see, with the ultrawealthy, there's someone we can hold accountable. For instance, if Jeff Bezos isn't doing his part, we could just... ...hmm. Oh, right! We could tax him more. Wait, not that!

seer 6y ago

Not that I’m advocating it or anything, but if we took an equitable amount of money from everyone, and then burned it in a pit, might be better to society in general. Democracy, well most human social structures really, live on trust. Trust that we are all in it together and are better of participating in it. When people start to perceive that others are taking advantage of them, unfairly, the social structure starts to crumble. Even if that advantage is then used to your benefit, the perception of it matters most. In times past we’ve been “fixing” this by shaping the perception, manipulating people into believing that whatever way of government is used is good for them. Then silencing any doubters. In the 21 century its becoming harder to do that outright, because information is so readily available, so they have resorted to reducing its signal to noise ratio (fake news etc). In any case, perception is key. If “the rich” (they) are treated better than “us”, and they are not supposed to, then you start having cracks in the fabric of society. The appeal for something like wealth tax is not that it would make it better for everyone in the long run, but rather it would be perceived as more fair and lead to less discontent. Weather thats a good trade is up for debate though, you could always hire more cops to “enforce the peace”

drewrv 6y ago

There are countless examples of wasteful or pointless government programs, and countless successes too. This article feels pretty specific to me though. It’s saying the federal stimulus in the spring was mostly successful, however the situation is still ongoing and the federal government isn’t likely to act again. Therefore it’s up to the state to do something similar, and the state can afford it by raising taxes on capital gains. I personally know people that were saved by the $1,200 earlier this year. Waitstaff, retail workers, even some healthcare workers. This is a clear example of “we are part of the way there and need more funding”. The vaccines are being manufactured, we just need to give people more time. > Without addressing the actual root causes of inequity, distributing... funds will amount to little more than an invitation to use force to take from the haves and deign to the have-nots I’m curious what you think the causes of inequality are? Picketty makes a strong case that it’s caused by the fact that wealth grows more wealth at a faster rate than labor grows wealth. In which case a wealth tax or capital gains tax would cut right to the heart of inequality.

sova 6y ago
A perpetual stimulus or a guaranteed income would certainly solve a lot of problems for all. Even though it will likely often trickle up to the landlords, it will enable a lot more freedom and economic output, and it does not have to be a fixed value for everyone, it could adjust based on income, a Guaranteed Progressive Income [0]. But what does that have to do with a wealth tax? I don't think the two are as connected as people would like to believe. To use a naturalist's metaphor, wealth comes from having seeds and trees, with orchards bearing fruit. There are people with some trees and plenty of seeds to keep sowing, and there are some people with no seeds and simply waiting on the receipt of fruit. There is likely enough creative output thanks to the endeavors of prior generations to create enough orchards for us that handing out decent fruit rations would be great with little negative consequence, but wealth comes from planting and nurturing new seeds to grow new trees to create new fruit. In short, if we could empower people to start their own endeavors that could blossom fruitfully, that would be a better strike at the heart of inequality than simply shaking bear some trees at the more fecund and productive orchards. Picketty is not wrong, but that sounds more like oak trees and their ability to propagate thanks to squirrels running off with the nuts and burying them far and wide than some sort of ontological argument about society. While a GPI (Guaranteed Progessive Income) will help, we need to focus on creating the causes for our own orchards, our own wealth. If someone else's presence of wealth prevents one's success, then maybe it is time for intervention, such as in the new era of logical and necessary Anti-Trust suits, but if the only obstacle is not having enough resources to start with (education, capital, knowhow, access to resources) it is difficult to see how shaking apples off another's tree will increase or improve those things directly. What's the ideal world? What's the ideal result? Perhaps we can work backwards from the Utopia we want to have, rather than incrementally towards a swamp of disincentives that counteract original aims. [0] https://satisologie.substack.com/p/guaranteed-progressive-income https://satisologie.substack.com/p/guaranteed-progressive-in...

titzer 6y ago

> is predicated on the assumption that: the government can use your dollar more effectively than you can at creating an equitable [wild, wild] world. When you realize the "you" isn't you as an individual--a middle, or upper-middle class person who might see another dollar in taxation--but the "you" is mega corporations and billionaires who only use their money in pursuit of more profit and building walled gardens to keep the grubby masses away, that might soften this hard-line libertarian view a bit. Corporations are soulless and amoral. And they have been caught time and time again sacrificing people's livelihoods, health and safety, mental and physical, to their bottom line. Corporations are also responsible for the vast majority of pollution on this planet and produce 100% of the trash littering the oceans. (you won't find a mom&pop's root beer can floating out there, anywhere). In general I've found that my 20s libertarian view was highly biased to an underlying assumption that my experience is typical, and that the only thing that needed fixing was getting the government out of "my" life and wallet, and that everything would just magically follow from my own personal freedom. The reality is that every one of these typical people are very small fish buffeted and cajoled by advertising and the abusive power of rich people.

anemoiac 6y ago

Is there any reason to not read this as “we can’t have a more equitable society unless the market happens to create one?” On a related note, why does it seem as if some countries (all of Western Europe, for example) have managed to create more equitable societies using government policies?