5 ms·

The wage gap was always nonsense meant to get people angry at the working class over inequality not caused by the working class. Notice how governments never s

The wage gap was always nonsense meant to get people angry at the working class over inequality not caused by the working class. Notice how governments never spread propaganda about the WEALTH gap or insist wealthy people redistribute their assets to various minority groups. When governments focus on the evils of wages and ignore wealth, just understand they're trying to stoke hatred and prejudice between poor members of various identity groups to distract people from the fact that the wealthy are fucking everybody.

globular-toast 3y ago
Bingo. I'm not sure where you're from but it's especially bad somewhere like the UK where income tax rapidly approaches 50% once you get above median income. There is simply no way for people who start with nothing to leave the rental class. When you look at rich people, they inherited it. Doesn't matter how well they did in school or how hard they work. Another major pain point is how much more tax effective it is for everyone to work as opposed to families having a single income. Basically you only get to take advantage of both partners' tax allowance if both work, meaning people who have to work (renters) have to work even more and probably live off copious shite food like microwave meals or eating out which costs even more and have to pay for someone to look after any children and even walk their dog! The 99% movement had it right. What they didn't have was any actionable solutions to this problem, unfortunately. Now that's all been forgotten and people are more interested in issues like men vs women which tell us all men are screwing all women as opposed to the truth which is a few wealthy (mostly men) are screwing everybody.
- dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
  Solving this problem with law wouldn't be easy, though. The taxation laws would need to be made extremely complex. They would have to take into consideration the situation of the whole family, for example. Would that be fair? Also, would it make sense to consider potential inheritance? The potential for abuse is enormous. Probably higher property tax for high-value properties could help a bit, bit it's just a drop in the ocean.
  - krageon 3y ago
    You would tax based on family income instead of individual income. I don't see what's complicated about this.
    - gedy 3y ago
      Agreed, this is what US has with married/family taxes.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
        The point is, this would basically concern parents with children. What about their grandparents who own a large property? They are treated separately when they are alive because they are a different household. But once they die, they pass their real estate to their offspring. Should those expecting inheritance be treated differently?
        krageon 3y ago
        This was about income tax. Not inheritance tax.
  - valval 3y ago
    Flat tax.
  - globular-toast 3y ago
    If you want to truly even out the playing field, just ban inheritance. You would think this would be a primary goal of pro-equality types but, oddly, even the poorer people in society are against this for various reasons. We can't ban genetic inheritance, but we compound its effects by allowing wealth inheritance too. I get that there's sentimentality and people would be against the family home being taken by the state upon death of a parent, but we could give family first dibs on buying the house. The difference being they actually have to buy it, they don't just get it. But I also think it's important to focus on the thing that really matters which is happiness, not wealth. It seems to me that above a certain level of wealth people can be happy, and that level is way lower than even the median level of wealth in many Western countries. Unhappiness at high levels of wealth comes from the Hedonic treadmill which is driven by inequality. Basically people see others with "more" than them and it makes them unhappy. If they never saw that, they could be happy. So I would study what goods have this effect and massively tax them. Luxury/big cars are a good example. Any action should not be just to even out wealth for the sake of it, it should be about achieving a happier society (and note I didn't say more productive society etc. that is also something that should only be pursued if it leads to more happiness).
- spacecadet 3y ago
  eat the rich :)

globular-toast 3y ago

Bingo. I'm not sure where you're from but it's especially bad somewhere like the UK where income tax rapidly approaches 50% once you get above median income. There is simply no way for people who start with nothing to leave the rental class. When you look at rich people, they inherited it. Doesn't matter how well they did in school or how hard they work. Another major pain point is how much more tax effective it is for everyone to work as opposed to families having a single income. Basically you only get to take advantage of both partners' tax allowance if both work, meaning people who have to work (renters) have to work even more and probably live off copious shite food like microwave meals or eating out which costs even more and have to pay for someone to look after any children and even walk their dog! The 99% movement had it right. What they didn't have was any actionable solutions to this problem, unfortunately. Now that's all been forgotten and people are more interested in issues like men vs women which tell us all men are screwing all women as opposed to the truth which is a few wealthy (mostly men) are screwing everybody.

dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
Solving this problem with law wouldn't be easy, though. The taxation laws would need to be made extremely complex. They would have to take into consideration the situation of the whole family, for example. Would that be fair? Also, would it make sense to consider potential inheritance? The potential for abuse is enormous. Probably higher property tax for high-value properties could help a bit, bit it's just a drop in the ocean.
- krageon 3y ago
  You would tax based on family income instead of individual income. I don't see what's complicated about this.
  - gedy 3y ago
    Agreed, this is what US has with married/family taxes.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
      The point is, this would basically concern parents with children. What about their grandparents who own a large property? They are treated separately when they are alive because they are a different household. But once they die, they pass their real estate to their offspring. Should those expecting inheritance be treated differently?
      - krageon 3y ago
        This was about income tax. Not inheritance tax.
- valval 3y ago
  Flat tax.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  If you want to truly even out the playing field, just ban inheritance. You would think this would be a primary goal of pro-equality types but, oddly, even the poorer people in society are against this for various reasons. We can't ban genetic inheritance, but we compound its effects by allowing wealth inheritance too. I get that there's sentimentality and people would be against the family home being taken by the state upon death of a parent, but we could give family first dibs on buying the house. The difference being they actually have to buy it, they don't just get it. But I also think it's important to focus on the thing that really matters which is happiness, not wealth. It seems to me that above a certain level of wealth people can be happy, and that level is way lower than even the median level of wealth in many Western countries. Unhappiness at high levels of wealth comes from the Hedonic treadmill which is driven by inequality. Basically people see others with "more" than them and it makes them unhappy. If they never saw that, they could be happy. So I would study what goods have this effect and massively tax them. Luxury/big cars are a good example. Any action should not be just to even out wealth for the sake of it, it should be about achieving a happier society (and note I didn't say more productive society etc. that is also something that should only be pursued if it leads to more happiness).
spacecadet 3y ago
eat the rich :)