3 ms·

I agree that extreme inequality is generally bad and the value of labor should be higher than the value of capital. But market forces are really important for t

by bloppe 2y ago

I agree that extreme inequality is generally bad and the value of labor should be higher than the value of capital. But market forces are really important for the functioning of the economy and the welfare of everybody, including low-skilled workers. Regulations like this would distort market forces. A much better solution is progressive taxation. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed much higher, with the benefits predominantly going to workers.

SCUSKU 2y ago
Probably not a new idea, but something I've been wondering is if the US implemented progressive taxation, and instead of a UBI implemented a stock buyback program where the government buys shares and then redistributes ownership to citizens. Even though this is totally wealth redistribution (which is politically unpopular, socialism and all), I bet you could market it as super American like Andrew Yang did with UBI as the "Freedom Dividend". This way you could "work within the system" and still keep stonks going up, but also help redistribute wealth to poorer citizens.
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  Interesting idea, but if you need medicine for your child and are low on cash, you will sell those stocks today rather than save them for the future. And the buyer will be someone who has enough cash to not worry, and will thus get even more cash to not worry. That is, I don't think it'll be that simple. edit: one way to solve the above would be like the Spanish coops, where the ownership (stock) is tied to your employment. IIRC you have to buy say one stock to get employed, and you can only sell when you leave your position. But then it's harder to redistribute the stocks...
  - SCUSKU 2y ago
    Hmm, maybe then maybe put the shares into a retirement account? Basically a government 401(k). Then people will be discouraged from selling because of the tax hit when selling before retirement age. Unless of course they really need it. Which presumably they would also be receiving other government services and payments (Section 8, foodstamps, etc) if they are desperate enough to be liquidating a 401(k).

by bloppe 2y ago

SCUSKU 2y ago

Probably not a new idea, but something I've been wondering is if the US implemented progressive taxation, and instead of a UBI implemented a stock buyback program where the government buys shares and then redistributes ownership to citizens. Even though this is totally wealth redistribution (which is politically unpopular, socialism and all), I bet you could market it as super American like Andrew Yang did with UBI as the "Freedom Dividend". This way you could "work within the system" and still keep stonks going up, but also help redistribute wealth to poorer citizens.

magicalhippo 2y ago
Interesting idea, but if you need medicine for your child and are low on cash, you will sell those stocks today rather than save them for the future. And the buyer will be someone who has enough cash to not worry, and will thus get even more cash to not worry. That is, I don't think it'll be that simple. edit: one way to solve the above would be like the Spanish coops, where the ownership (stock) is tied to your employment. IIRC you have to buy say one stock to get employed, and you can only sell when you leave your position. But then it's harder to redistribute the stocks...
- SCUSKU 2y ago
  Hmm, maybe then maybe put the shares into a retirement account? Basically a government 401(k). Then people will be discouraged from selling because of the tax hit when selling before retirement age. Unless of course they really need it. Which presumably they would also be receiving other government services and payments (Section 8, foodstamps, etc) if they are desperate enough to be liquidating a 401(k).