2 ms·
I think it's also key to distinguish between wanting to "combat income equality" and "allow[ing] the non-wealthy to prosper." There's that old Thatcher parliame
by abeppu 5y ago
I think it's also key to distinguish between wanting to "combat income equality" and "allow[ing] the non-wealthy to prosper." There's that old Thatcher parliament quote responding to concerns about rising inequality, where she characterizes the left as being pleased if the poor become poorer so long as the rich fall further.
I think taxes (if we plug various holes) can decrease income inequality, but the challenge is efficiently spending the proceeds in a way that lifts up everyone ... and not creating firehoses of public spending that primarily benefit the same small pool of companies.
- DarylZero 5y agoLifting everyone up is mostly pointless. Absolute consumption levels are not important. Most of the things that matter are "positional." Making the rich poorer reduces the competitive stress that everyone is under. Even if everyone else gets poorer, it's worth it.