3 ms·
Good god, man. This is slavish. And - I'll note - not unpopular, which is distressing. Tax isn't punishment. Ever. Especially when tax rate is already so low t
by w0de0 5y ago
Good god, man. This is slavish. And - I'll note - not unpopular, which is distressing.
Tax isn't punishment. Ever. Especially when tax rate is already so low that the proposed "emergency tax" is still less than historical income tax rates.
Tax is part of the social contract that allowed those billionaires the stability, educated workforce, infrastructure, safety from theft, etc, etc, etc, needed to build and maintain their wealth.
The idea that billionaires "invest [their wealth] efficiently and distribute it" is laughably sophomoric, a parody of the Gilded Age's self-serving justification for robber barons. Billionaires invest efficiently _for the preservation of their wealth across generations of their family_, only the most credulously optimistic model of capitalism supposes that this aligns with "distribution" (whatever that means - trickling down, eh?) or with the best investments for society at large.
- yayr 5y agoyou should read again - systems for redistribution of wealth can be good if they are not broken. Income taxes e.g. are imo a great way to do this, if they cannot be avoided. However, to tax an increase in share price without any transaction is often counterproductive.
- w0de0 5y agoYou're absolutely right. Once I saw you characterize a tax as a punishment, billionaires as "people who know how to invest [wealth] efficiently and distribute it," and wealth as solely the result of "build[ing] economically viable organisations," I dismissed the details of your argument.