4 ms·
I've always believed that ever higher degrees of wealth come with an obligation to manage people in better and better ways. Otherwise, wealth should be taxed so
by gwbas1c 3y ago
I've always believed that ever higher degrees of wealth come with an obligation to manage people in better and better ways. Otherwise, wealth should be taxed so that "idle rich" end up having to live like the upper-middle-class.
IE: If you get very wealthy because you start a company, and manage your company in a way to improve other peoples' lives, that's a great thing. (Now, does Elon Musk deserve 50+ billion dollars? I'll just handwave and say that I think he could still live the same kind of life, and make a better contribution to society, with a fraction of that money.)
But, if Elon's kids all inherit many billions each, they either have to manage it in a way that improves other peoples' lives, or they need to be taxed back to the upper middle class.
- jimbokun 3y ago> I'll just handwave and say that I think he could still live the same kind of life, and make a better contribution to society, with a fraction of that money. Elon's an interesting case because he very passionately and sincerely spends his money on what he believes are the most pressing problems facing humanity. Almost all of his wealth is invested towards those goals. He's an asshole and treats people terribly. But he is very consistent about investing in what he believes to be most important. (source: Isaacson's biography)
- gwbas1c 3y agoPart of the handwaving is that reinvesting profits into other businesses is something I agree in. For example, compare how Musk invests his money and runs his companies to how the Beatles invested their money and ran "Apple Core." The Beatles were horrible business operators and were essentially being taxed back to the upper middle class. I always chuckle when I listen to "Taxman."