4 ms·
This topic comes up often but I rarely see a discussion of the alternatives, except from communism advocates. Assuming we agree with the premise that this amou
by ad404b8a372f2b9 3y ago
This topic comes up often but I rarely see a discussion of the alternatives, except from communism advocates.
Assuming we agree with the premise that this amount of inequality is too extreme, what is to be done to reduce it? And in what way do we ensure this does not compromise the basic principles of our capitalist economy, e.g allowing the rewards to be commensurate with the risks, rewarding people who work harder and have more qualifications, and preserving ownership.
- Buttons840 3y agoIf some of the so-called "radical left" policies that have been proposed were to be implemented, the rich would still be able to afford multiple staffed mansions and a yacht. I think that counts as a reward for their hard work. People would still be able to amass enough wealth to do whatever they want for themselves and their family and friends, they just wouldn't be able to amass so much money that its gravitational field starts to warp all of society.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 3y agoWhat are those policies?
- Kapura 3y agoProgressive taxation rates, with the highest income brackets (say, every dollar made in a year past $100,000,000) being taxed on the order of 80%. Nothing would stop somebody with money under this schema from continuing to invest. The mindset of "i dont want the government is taking my money!" is reactionary bullshit that has resulting in underfunded public serves, from the FDA to the IRS. The idea that no amount of money can be enough for one person is toxic, and antisocial.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 3y agoMy understanding was that the wealthy essentially do not have income, their net-worth is tied to their stock ownership. Tax on capital gains do not work to tax them either since they don't sell their stocks but take loans against them. In what way should these systems be changed, or new systems be used, to appropriately tax them without compromising their ownership of the companies they built?
- itishappy 3y agoSounds like you're already aware of the pain points. Is there some reason to expect the issues you mention are not addressable?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 3y agoYou tell me, that's what I'm asking.
- itishappy 3y agoNot an economist, but I can't imagine so. You seem to think different, that's why I'm turning it around. Am I off base?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 3y agoYou are. I'm trying to understand the problem and solution space. - From the perspective of a communist, it's clear. - From the perspective of a libertarian, it's clear. - From the perspective of people who want to stay within the bounds of capitalism but would like to have some way to curtail inequality, a group to which I belong, it's not clear. If you're of the same beliefs but are unable to present and defend a specific solution to address the problems presented, as I am, you should welcome those questions.
- itishappy 3y agoI'm of the same beliefs, but I think the situation is pretty clear: tax loopholes allow capital gains to go untaxed. You mentioned two specific issues that seem straightforward to my unknowledgeable self, and I do not understand the complications you originally mentioned with regards to "allowing the rewards to be commensurate with the risks, rewarding people who work harder and have more qualifications, and preserving ownership." I'm not trying to fight you, I'm unclear on where you're unclear and trying to understand.
- wackget 3y agoWhen someone starts earning above the threshold where it becomes literally impossible to spend, start taxing the everloving shit out of them.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 3y agoSee my sibling comment about income and capital gains taxes. By what mechanisms should they be taxed in your opinion, taking into account these limitations?