3 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 effectiv

> 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.

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.