4 ms·

>'Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it' This is a false opposition. Taxed money does not have to be spent

>'Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it' This is a false opposition. Taxed money does not have to be spent at the point of the state. A sovereign wealth fund could raise funds from wealth taxes and assign a share to every citizen in the country. It could then use its interest-bearing assets to pay out a dividend to all shareholders every year. It could be run by an independent but publicly supervised body - like the Norwegian wealth fund - and the money would be disbursed straight into the bank accounts of citizens. In any case we live in democratic societies in which legislated changes to the structure and distribution of wealth would then bind politicians via the rule of law. We do not have to depend on the individual virtue of politicians. On the margin I would generally prefer states whose remit includes the public interest to spend another dollar than I would private entities ruled by financial profit.

foverzar 5y ago
> A sovereign wealth fund could raise funds from wealth taxes and assign a share to every citizen in the country. It could then use its interest-bearing assets to pay out a dividend to all shareholders every year This assumes responsible spending, which is not the case IRL. And what about shared infrastructure projects?
- Emma_Goldman 5y ago
  No it doesn't, the case for such a scheme depends on two kinds of arguments: (1) intrinsic arguments that people have a right to a portion of collective wealth, to the means of life, or to the means of being able to freely spend their time as they see fit; (2) and instrumental arguments that it would rebalance the power of capital over labour, lead to various positive social outcomes, and tame the plutocracy that is ruining Western democracies. If your standard is 'responsible spending', the counterfactual baseline is keeping this money in the hands of the wealthy. For obvious reasons - diminishing marginal utility, the breakdown of the social compact, the corruption of politics - I don't think they would spend a dollar on the margin any more 'responsibly'. What about shared infrastructure projects? I'm not suggesting this ought to replace the state, simply that global wealth can be equalised without reallocating that wealth to the state to spend.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Another wrinkle in the notion of responsible spending is that we know that giving money to the poor gives back a greater return on investment than giving money to the rich. Poor people have immediate needs to spend that money on, such as repairing their homes, investing in healthcare, purchasing appliances.

foverzar 5y ago

> A sovereign wealth fund could raise funds from wealth taxes and assign a share to every citizen in the country. It could then use its interest-bearing assets to pay out a dividend to all shareholders every year This assumes responsible spending, which is not the case IRL. And what about shared infrastructure projects?

Emma_Goldman 5y ago
No it doesn't, the case for such a scheme depends on two kinds of arguments: (1) intrinsic arguments that people have a right to a portion of collective wealth, to the means of life, or to the means of being able to freely spend their time as they see fit; (2) and instrumental arguments that it would rebalance the power of capital over labour, lead to various positive social outcomes, and tame the plutocracy that is ruining Western democracies. If your standard is 'responsible spending', the counterfactual baseline is keeping this money in the hands of the wealthy. For obvious reasons - diminishing marginal utility, the breakdown of the social compact, the corruption of politics - I don't think they would spend a dollar on the margin any more 'responsibly'. What about shared infrastructure projects? I'm not suggesting this ought to replace the state, simply that global wealth can be equalised without reallocating that wealth to the state to spend.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Another wrinkle in the notion of responsible spending is that we know that giving money to the poor gives back a greater return on investment than giving money to the rich. Poor people have immediate needs to spend that money on, such as repairing their homes, investing in healthcare, purchasing appliances.