3 ms·
Your point can be summarized as "We can't tax the rich, or they'll just go somewhere else". A.k.a. the Stockholm syndrome of extreme capitalist markets - we all
by blacklight 3y ago
Your point can be summarized as "We can't tax the rich, or they'll just go somewhere else". A.k.a. the Stockholm syndrome of extreme capitalist markets - we all know that it's not fair that Jeff Bezos pays zero on his wealth while a hardworking bricklayer has to pay nearly half of his salary, but that's the price to pay to avoid scaring off the ultra rich. Needless to say, this vision of the world is abhorrent, immoral, and disgustingly unfair, and we need to fix it.
- snapplebobapple 3y agoNo,my argument is the benefit and the cost of taxation should attempt to equal out, otherwise people will look for a better deal and it applies to all pay levels not just rich people. We have a mismatch between the services being provided and the benefit from the services flowing to people not paying the taxes and those services providing limited network effect benefits back to the tax payers right now. there are also other problems with your statements. You pretty clearly haveno idea how taxes work because you are confusing the dollar earned by the brick layer with a dollar dividend paid to bezos. When the correct equivalent dollaris the profit earned by amazon and the combined tax paid by amazon and bezos on the dividend, since the earned dollar that is equivalent to the dollar the brick layer earned is the one earned by amazon, a dividend is just a distribution of partially taxed earned dollars fr(m the construct we call a corporation. you also incorrectly think hardness of work has anything to do with earnings, when it is irrelevant. What makes work valuable is scarcity not hardness.