4 ms·
These takes freak people out because we want to think of anti-inequality as a virtuous, prosocial belief. But a commitment to hold down inequality is a commitme
by closeparen 6y ago
These takes freak people out because we want to think of anti-inequality as a virtuous, prosocial belief. But a commitment to hold down inequality is a commitment to prevent the creation of value.
I don’t think it’s controversial to skim the top of the creation of value / rise in inequality to fund services that people need. But as long as a founder’s share of his value creation is greater than the share accruing to the homeless person down the street, his enterprise is still promoting inequality. From an inequality frame, even with a 99% tax rate it ought to be stopped. There are more than 99 other Americans; the founder’s share is still outsized.
- whimsicalism 6y agoIs it? Does most inequality rise from value creation? Most wealth in America is held by the top 5% wealthiest households directly as a result of inheritance, not hard work or value creation. How is arguing that the inequality produced by inherited wealth needs to be restrained a "commitment to prevent the creation of value"?
- closeparen 6y agoNo one is qualifying their discussion of inequality with “produced by inherited wealth.” If they did, it’d be a lot more palatable. About half the inequality discourse I see targets founders. The other half targets workers whose salaries are too high, whose children are too well prepared for college.