6 ms·
> Paraphrased: workers should be taxed [...] No, the richest people should be taking most of the tax burden.
by tpush 4y ago
> Paraphrased: workers should be taxed [...]
No, the richest people should be taking most of the tax burden.
- robocat 4y agoYeah, I would like to have phrased it better. However I am struggling to think of a clear alternative. If we assume that the rich get their wealth from the workers, then taxing the rich is now just indirectly taxing the workers. If we talk about taxing everyone in society, then how do we tax an artist or anybody else spending time on their dream? How do we measure an artist’s contribution to society? Should we pay anyone highly if they contribute great artistic wealth to society? Should we pay someone whose art or hobby has no merit to society? Do we treat a rich artist like you seem to want to treat a financially rich person - tax the value of their art until they are “equal”? If someone has worldwide status or high renown, should we somehow share that wealth of status with the less fortunate? What if some high art is immensely valuable to a small number of people - how do you fairly manage that? Our society has a huge variety of different means to deal with the conflicting goals above. One of those is money which often equalises competing unmeasurable needs so that as individuals we get to value incomparable things (catching polio vs. a Van Gogh vs. an apricot vs. playing Mario Brothers vs. reading a book vs. a massage). We all have huge disagreements about how the wealth of society should be divided - and our society has many radically different solutions for that problem. Should the average wage of a US citizen be allowed to be radically higher than a citizen of Haiti? What about an artist in Haiti?
- int_19h 4y agoAny kind of "measuring contribution to society" becomes hopelessly politicized. UBI is the way to go.