4 ms·

Doesn't the 300M he spent on the yacht get distributed into the economy? I don't understand why people want higher taxes on high income, i don't want the gover

Doesn't the 300M he spent on the yacht get distributed into the economy? I don't understand why people want higher taxes on high income, i don't want the government to distribute that money. I rather it get distributed to the company and its employees building that yacht than adding it to the national budget.

unethical_ban 5y ago
The principle is simple: There are baseline needs in our society currently not met for a large number of people, and it is the responsibility of government to provide that baseline (food, water, shelter, basic healthcare). Beyond that, we should incentivize people to work in some fashion to be a contributing member of society. Second and somewhat unrelated: The inequality gap is growing, shows no signs of shrinking meaningfully. The means of production are becoming more and more automated, so the owners will accumulate even more wealth while millions more lose their jobs and sources of social security. Thus, the government should ensure that the owners of the means of production are taxed to extract that accumulation and provide for the people.
- FredPret 5y ago
  > “and it is the responsibility of government to provide that baseline” >“ The inequality gap is growing, shows no signs of shrinking meaningfully. ” You’re applying your moral model of the world universally. In reality, not everyone sees it this way.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    The first quote is philosophy. The second quote is fact. Welcome to the world. Everyone applies their moral model to the world. If you claim you don't, then you are applying your moral model of "members of society have no obligation to help those who are inherently damaged by society" to the world.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      The second fact implies a moral judgement. And of course we all have our moral models. But not all of us want to forcefully impose our model onto others. To do that is narrow-minded fundamentalism.
      - unethical_ban 5y ago
        Yes, I suppose it implies that gigantic wealth gaps in a single society are a negative thing. You are imposing your moral model on the world. Your moral model is "the system works fine and anyone suffering from it should not try to alter the system in any way".
        FredPret 5y ago
        Fair point. In defense of my moral model, it's backed up by this idea: are things perfect? No. Is the system working? Yes, and astonishingly well. Is there a better way to get from here to there, where "there" is some improved state of prosperity and development? No. Human nature is what it is, and our systems must exploit our nature rather than combat it. It's all based on measurable positive outcomes, rather than some theoretical idea that being eye-wateringly rich is somehow bad - morally bad, or bad for society. That idea is rooted in the old, pre-growth, pre-industrial paradigm, when all wealth was seized by force in some way. Today, some wealth is from violence, but the overwhelming majority is new money that was created out of nothing but good old human intelligence. Here are some references backing up my idea that the system works. Here's one focusing on the most important metric, human development: http://hdr.undp.org/en/dashboard-human-development-anthropocene http://hdr.undp.org/en/dashboard-human-development-anthropoc... This one is from the World Bank. You have to go into the metrics and countries. There are metrics that aren't of interest here, but some are, like access to clean cooking fuels, or electricity. But it's easy to see that most of it is pointing in the right direction. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indi... Here's a book about all the things that ordinarily fuel existential pessimism: https://www.amazon.com/Fewer-Richer-Greener-Prosperity-Population/dp/1119526892/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=fewer+richer+greener&qid=1634248133&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Fewer-Richer-Greener-Prosperity-Popul... Here's a book about how innovation progresses exponentially, and what it means for the masses: https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/145161683X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=abundance&qid=1634248121&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp... Here's that classic video by Hans Rosling giving us some perspective on the progress over the last century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo Here's another video on the same thing, by Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ EDIT: here's another fun one: https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index

unethical_ban 5y ago

The principle is simple: There are baseline needs in our society currently not met for a large number of people, and it is the responsibility of government to provide that baseline (food, water, shelter, basic healthcare). Beyond that, we should incentivize people to work in some fashion to be a contributing member of society. Second and somewhat unrelated: The inequality gap is growing, shows no signs of shrinking meaningfully. The means of production are becoming more and more automated, so the owners will accumulate even more wealth while millions more lose their jobs and sources of social security. Thus, the government should ensure that the owners of the means of production are taxed to extract that accumulation and provide for the people.

FredPret 5y ago
> “and it is the responsibility of government to provide that baseline” >“ The inequality gap is growing, shows no signs of shrinking meaningfully. ” You’re applying your moral model of the world universally. In reality, not everyone sees it this way.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  The first quote is philosophy. The second quote is fact. Welcome to the world. Everyone applies their moral model to the world. If you claim you don't, then you are applying your moral model of "members of society have no obligation to help those who are inherently damaged by society" to the world.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    The second fact implies a moral judgement. And of course we all have our moral models. But not all of us want to forcefully impose our model onto others. To do that is narrow-minded fundamentalism.
    - unethical_ban 5y ago
      Yes, I suppose it implies that gigantic wealth gaps in a single society are a negative thing. You are imposing your moral model on the world. Your moral model is "the system works fine and anyone suffering from it should not try to alter the system in any way".
      - FredPret 5y ago
        Fair point. In defense of my moral model, it's backed up by this idea: are things perfect? No. Is the system working? Yes, and astonishingly well. Is there a better way to get from here to there, where "there" is some improved state of prosperity and development? No. Human nature is what it is, and our systems must exploit our nature rather than combat it. It's all based on measurable positive outcomes, rather than some theoretical idea that being eye-wateringly rich is somehow bad - morally bad, or bad for society. That idea is rooted in the old, pre-growth, pre-industrial paradigm, when all wealth was seized by force in some way. Today, some wealth is from violence, but the overwhelming majority is new money that was created out of nothing but good old human intelligence. Here are some references backing up my idea that the system works. Here's one focusing on the most important metric, human development: http://hdr.undp.org/en/dashboard-human-development-anthropocene http://hdr.undp.org/en/dashboard-human-development-anthropoc... This one is from the World Bank. You have to go into the metrics and countries. There are metrics that aren't of interest here, but some are, like access to clean cooking fuels, or electricity. But it's easy to see that most of it is pointing in the right direction. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indi... Here's a book about all the things that ordinarily fuel existential pessimism: https://www.amazon.com/Fewer-Richer-Greener-Prosperity-Population/dp/1119526892/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=fewer+richer+greener&qid=1634248133&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Fewer-Richer-Greener-Prosperity-Popul... Here's a book about how innovation progresses exponentially, and what it means for the masses: https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/145161683X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=abundance&qid=1634248121&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp... Here's that classic video by Hans Rosling giving us some perspective on the progress over the last century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo Here's another video on the same thing, by Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ EDIT: here's another fun one: https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index