3 ms·
It’s not a tax (the governments are not getting any money from this). If it were, it would be terrible, because outrageous wealth is not in cash on bank account
by kergonath 5y ago
It’s not a tax (the governments are not getting any money from this). If it were, it would be terrible, because outrageous wealth is not in cash on bank accounts. It’s in things like real estate or stocks, which don’t lose any value because of negative interest rates.
- imtringued 5y ago> If it were, it would be terrible, because outrageous wealth is not in cash on bank accounts. The only outrageous wealth you listed was real estate because of the land component. Nobody gets hurt by stocks. People get hurt if money ceases to circulate because money is needed to pay incomes, taxes and debts. If all the money piles up in one bank account everyone stops working. Meanwhile if one person owns all the stocks people can still work and be happy.
- seoaeu 5y ago> Meanwhile if one person owns all the stocks people can still work and be happy. I know you didn't mean it quite so literally, but this paints a rather dystopian picture: a single person holding effectively all the material wealth while everyone else happily shows up every day to work for them
- kergonath 5y agoYou can have an outrageous amount of something that is not intrinsically bad. Money, or wealth in general, is not a bad thing in itself, but its distribution can be outrageous.