3 ms·
Strange way to look at it on the whole. Article suggests that a tax on the ultra-wealthy would impact the motivation of those individuals to be who they are. I
by Festro 5y ago
Strange way to look at it on the whole. Article suggests that a tax on the ultra-wealthy would impact the motivation of those individuals to be who they are.
It doesn't seem to follow that someone like Steve Jobs is solely motivated by money, nor that a tax on the highest level of earnings would actually impact their motivation in a meaningful manner.
The article tries to convince the reader that we wouldn't have certain companies with such a tax. But that's pure speculation. It also seeks to define success purely by profit and company value.
The problem needs to be looked at another way. Companies can have relatively unbound earning potential as long as they keep their revenue cycling back into the economy. There's no problem with big, great, companies. There is a problem with companies siphoning cash to private individuals and then being stored in tax-evading systems that keep the money out of the economy or in self-sustaining investment loops.
We can't all have the same success as the wealthiest people in society, if we did and we all had equal wealth, we wouldn't call that success. It's always going to be true that comparatively, there will be a few people at the top. The point is to rein in the gap between top and bottom. That's not a punishment for the people at the top. They can still do and afford everything they wish to do, and projects like SpaceX can still be possible. We need to reframe our discussion on personal wealth and hoarding. It's totally compatible to do with the idea of big companies and big ideas still remaining possible.
- dane-pgp 5y ago> if we did and we all had equal wealth, we wouldn't call that success. Do you say that because such a system would provide no financial incentive for people to work hard (or at all)? What if we didn't need humans to work at all, and they could follow their passions instead?
- sharemywin 5y agoThere will always be limited resources so how do you distribute those? Unique pieces of art, beach front property, I'm sure less desirable things as well . what if your passion is destructive behavior? drugs, violence other addictions.
- dane-pgp 5y ago> There will always be limited resources so how do you distribute those? Well, to a first approximation, you just have to come up with a market value for each of those resources and then tax anyone who has more than the average total wealth. People would be free to decide which assets they sell to pay the tax. Things do get complicated when you take into account depreciation of assets, but as long as the amount of depreciation is less than the amount of new value created every year (by the robots?) then you don't have to worry about taxing the people whose assets haven't depreciated as much. > what if your passion is destructive behavior? drugs, violence other addictions. I don't think this hypothetical world requires that addictive drugs and violence becomes legal. I suppose someone might enjoy destroying their own property, but any asset destroyed that way could be assigned a nominal value that is the same as it was before destruction, so that the owner wouldn't be rewarded for their self-vandalism.