3 ms·

„If being rich is outlawed, only outlaws will be rich.“ – roughly after Phil Zimmerman Thanks, I don‘t like that future. Don‘t get me wrong, I‘m all for prog

„If being rich is outlawed, only outlaws will be rich.“ – roughly after Phil Zimmerman Thanks, I don‘t like that future. Don‘t get me wrong, I‘m all for progressive and _way_ higher taxes, but this extreme would do the opposite of what you want.

bambax 4y ago
Maybe. But my point is that it's that we should discuss this, and not super high limits of over 1 billion that 1/ only affects very few people, 2/ none of which are likely to be part of the conversation and 3/ would still leave them extremely rich by any reasonable standard.
- sgc 4y ago
  I don't even understand your point. 1. A billion is 1000x more than a million. It is many times higher wealth and far beyond what could be considered required for a family to survive on for generations. 2. A million is not even enough to come close to retirement, it is way too low of a number, so it is not even enough for one person in one lifetime in the US (which we are presumably discussing since the billionaire in question is taxed here). 3. The affect on publicly available funds from taxing the 1% of the 1% would be equal to or more than taxing the 99% of the 1%. So regardless of what you consider the right answer to the question (it's pretty tough to support without major caveats in my opinion), they are not at all the same and it actually comes across as an subtle attempt to reduce any potential support by muddying the waters, regardless of what you were actually trying to do.
igorkraw 4y ago
How exactly? You can still be rich - but there will be a cap on power. That's like saying "if amazing dictatorial power is made illegal, only outlaws will amass dictatorial power". No, in fact, sometimes systems do what they are supposed to achieve, especially when it comes to things like power where we can have a conversation that the ultra-rich are usually already engaged in morally and legally questionable behaviour (Bill Gates anti-trust skirting and various anti-competetive antics, facebooks whole business mode centered around tracking users against their will,so much of Elon Musks skirting and flat out ignoring of labour and safety regulations and other recent antics...). I'm not saying a hard cap on wealth is the best way to achieve this or that achieving any form of control of private power that doesn't turn authoritarian is possible, but in general, I'm against using these types of "you can't make the thing we do regulated, because then only criminals will do it" argument. Beer, recreational weed and medical services tightly regulated and we don't see massive crime rings build on top of them. If we regulate wealth to such a degree that most people feel like it's fair, it'll be difficult to establish proper crime syndicates around it - the question of how to keep a state that can do this effectively from being authoritarian is a much better question to raise
mola 4y ago
Well, now they pay 0% so I don't think you need to worry about the other extreme yet....

bambax 4y ago

Maybe. But my point is that it's that we should discuss this, and not super high limits of over 1 billion that 1/ only affects very few people, 2/ none of which are likely to be part of the conversation and 3/ would still leave them extremely rich by any reasonable standard.

sgc 4y ago
I don't even understand your point. 1. A billion is 1000x more than a million. It is many times higher wealth and far beyond what could be considered required for a family to survive on for generations. 2. A million is not even enough to come close to retirement, it is way too low of a number, so it is not even enough for one person in one lifetime in the US (which we are presumably discussing since the billionaire in question is taxed here). 3. The affect on publicly available funds from taxing the 1% of the 1% would be equal to or more than taxing the 99% of the 1%. So regardless of what you consider the right answer to the question (it's pretty tough to support without major caveats in my opinion), they are not at all the same and it actually comes across as an subtle attempt to reduce any potential support by muddying the waters, regardless of what you were actually trying to do.

igorkraw 4y ago

How exactly? You can still be rich - but there will be a cap on power. That's like saying "if amazing dictatorial power is made illegal, only outlaws will amass dictatorial power". No, in fact, sometimes systems do what they are supposed to achieve, especially when it comes to things like power where we can have a conversation that the ultra-rich are usually already engaged in morally and legally questionable behaviour (Bill Gates anti-trust skirting and various anti-competetive antics, facebooks whole business mode centered around tracking users against their will,so much of Elon Musks skirting and flat out ignoring of labour and safety regulations and other recent antics...). I'm not saying a hard cap on wealth is the best way to achieve this or that achieving any form of control of private power that doesn't turn authoritarian is possible, but in general, I'm against using these types of "you can't make the thing we do regulated, because then only criminals will do it" argument. Beer, recreational weed and medical services tightly regulated and we don't see massive crime rings build on top of them. If we regulate wealth to such a degree that most people feel like it's fair, it'll be difficult to establish proper crime syndicates around it - the question of how to keep a state that can do this effectively from being authoritarian is a much better question to raise

mola 4y ago

Well, now they pay 0% so I don't think you need to worry about the other extreme yet....