2 ms·
No, I got that part. My argument is that if those gains were redistributed to workers, income gains would be modest at best. 55k to 65k for a single year if we
by BobbyJo 6y ago
No, I got that part. My argument is that if those gains were redistributed to workers, income gains would be modest at best. 55k to 65k for a single year if we got rid of all billionaires. If we assume we instead distribute the growth of the wealth as income, it's more like 500-1000 dollars a year more in income.
If we take everything from everyone worth 2 million or more, and distribute it at 10% a year, that's still only 10k a year extra.
- chii 6y agoAnd also that by doing this sort of redistribution, you will disincentivize investment, and incentivize consumption (from the rich) - after all, what good would the investment be, if it is going to be taken away when it succeeds, but you take on all the risk of the investment? Rather buy a yacht and go on lavish, extravagent holidays with the money - they can't redistribute the memories in the brain!