4 ms·

Making rich people poorer doesn’t do anything to help people who are poor. We could instead work on ways to make poor people richer, which would actually make

by imgabe 4y ago

Making rich people poorer doesn’t do anything to help people who are poor. We could instead work on ways to make poor people richer, which would actually make their lives better instead of making someone else life worse, and would also reduce the wealth gap. Somehow none of the “tax the rich” crowd seem interested in that.

woodruffw 4y ago
I'm pretty sure I (speaking metaphorically) could take some of Brin's wealth, while still leaving him fabulously wealthy, and make some poor people less poor. This is a not uncommon thing for governments to do, and in most of the developed world it works relatively well. Sociologically speaking, we have decent evidence that eliminating privation can break generational cycles of poverty. Our own (broadly successful!) attempt at it is still within living memory, as is its dismantling[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
- imgabe 4y ago
  Well good news, the government already takes a portion of everyone's wealth, especially Brin, via capital gains, income, property and other taxes. The Great Society happened just fine without a wealth tax and the government collects far more in taxes today than it did in the 1960s. You're also pinballing between "the government needs more money to give to poor people" and "we should just take rich people's money because it makes poor people feel bad that some people are rich and it will make them feel better if the rich aren't so rich". Does the government actually need the money or not? People might be temporarily helped by handouts, but they won't rise out of poverty until there's work available for them to support themselves. That is hampered by discouraging investment in productive enterprise via excessive taxes.

4 ms·

Making rich people poorer doesn’t do anything to help people who are poor. We could instead work on ways to make poor people richer, which would actually make

by imgabe 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago
I'm pretty sure I (speaking metaphorically) could take some of Brin's wealth, while still leaving him fabulously wealthy, and make some poor people less poor. This is a not uncommon thing for governments to do, and in most of the developed world it works relatively well. Sociologically speaking, we have decent evidence that eliminating privation can break generational cycles of poverty. Our own (broadly successful!) attempt at it is still within living memory, as is its dismantling[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
- imgabe 4y ago
  Well good news, the government already takes a portion of everyone's wealth, especially Brin, via capital gains, income, property and other taxes. The Great Society happened just fine without a wealth tax and the government collects far more in taxes today than it did in the 1960s. You're also pinballing between "the government needs more money to give to poor people" and "we should just take rich people's money because it makes poor people feel bad that some people are rich and it will make them feel better if the rich aren't so rich". Does the government actually need the money or not? People might be temporarily helped by handouts, but they won't rise out of poverty until there's work available for them to support themselves. That is hampered by discouraging investment in productive enterprise via excessive taxes.