3 ms·

Or maybe we could collectively get back to the concept of individual responsibility and personal success? The top 10% are not the top 1%. By taxing successful p

Or maybe we could collectively get back to the concept of individual responsibility and personal success? The top 10% are not the top 1%. By taxing successful people at very high rates, you're just widening the gap even more. I know that this opinion is disregarded as a conspiracy by some, but I see the very real effect of it where I live (in Germany). We have a large part of the populace who do not see value in Work because we accidentally created equality of outcome by not raising the wage limit needed to hit the highest tax bracket for decades. I'm not kidding. There exist multiple showcases that show there to be just a tiny difference in net income anywhere between 3k and 5k Eur before tax, if you're a single earner with a family of two in any large city.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Or maybe we could collectively get back to the concept of individual responsibility and personal success? Two points here, I guess: 1) The nice thing about compounding growth is that it just doesn't care about individual or personal anything. People who start with more get more, and they get it faster without them even doing anything. 2) Executives are standing on the backs of the people doing the actual labor. Children of rich families are born on top of mountains of money. Let's not pretend like their success is entirely personal. Unless maybe you want to eliminate inheritance and trusts? If we can entirely eliminate inheritance and trusts, that would probably go a very long way. > raising the wage limit needed to hit the highest tax bracket Feel free to put another bracket to differentiate 10% and 1% if you want. That's entirely orthogonal.
- selfmodruntime 2y ago
  1) Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Which should be a good thing for 95% of the population. Why should your kids have to start over again? 2) Not all success has to be personal. You can and should profit from the wealth that your parents accumulated. I am fine with taxing the obscenely rich and with eliminating their insane schemes to circumvent the tax code. They should pay their fair share. The entire reason I originally answered you is that it's not entirely orthogonal, and keeping the distinction here is incredibly important. Being within the top 10% currently puts you into the 160K a year range. That is not rich. This is your ordinary handyman and his wive, doctors, lawyers, engineers, air traffic controllers, etc. These people are hardworking and in the process of accumulating wealth, for them and hopefully their children. Grouping them with the ultra rich and demanding their taxes to be raised any further is unfair.
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    > Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Remind me how we got from "individual responsibility" and "personal success" to "inheriting wealth from parents by luck of birth" again? Generational wealth transfer can only ever increase the divide between upper and lower classes over time. There's no way around it. Talk of "individual responsibility" and "personal success" is diametrically opposed to inheritance. You cannot have both. The person inheriting has done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think some of this is perspective. "Individual responsibility" is the easy part and can mean paying your debts. "Personal success" can simply mean advancing from your starting position, whatever that may be. I tend to agree with the parent post that building generational wealth and benefit is desirable. It makes sense for perspectives and systems that aren't zero sum. increasing individual and national prosperity is not zero sum activity. however, Income inequality is inherently a zero sum metric. Optimizing for income equality means it is better for each of us to have $1 to spend than one of us to have $3 and the other $2.
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    > Being within the top 10% ... is not rich. This is extremely out of touch.
    - selfmodruntime 2y ago
      Nope. Being wealthy is not being rich. Perfectly normal people are wealthy by way of their assets and cash poor.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

> Or maybe we could collectively get back to the concept of individual responsibility and personal success? Two points here, I guess: 1) The nice thing about compounding growth is that it just doesn't care about individual or personal anything. People who start with more get more, and they get it faster without them even doing anything. 2) Executives are standing on the backs of the people doing the actual labor. Children of rich families are born on top of mountains of money. Let's not pretend like their success is entirely personal. Unless maybe you want to eliminate inheritance and trusts? If we can entirely eliminate inheritance and trusts, that would probably go a very long way. > raising the wage limit needed to hit the highest tax bracket Feel free to put another bracket to differentiate 10% and 1% if you want. That's entirely orthogonal.

selfmodruntime 2y ago
1) Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Which should be a good thing for 95% of the population. Why should your kids have to start over again? 2) Not all success has to be personal. You can and should profit from the wealth that your parents accumulated. I am fine with taxing the obscenely rich and with eliminating their insane schemes to circumvent the tax code. They should pay their fair share. The entire reason I originally answered you is that it's not entirely orthogonal, and keeping the distinction here is incredibly important. Being within the top 10% currently puts you into the 160K a year range. That is not rich. This is your ordinary handyman and his wive, doctors, lawyers, engineers, air traffic controllers, etc. These people are hardworking and in the process of accumulating wealth, for them and hopefully their children. Grouping them with the ultra rich and demanding their taxes to be raised any further is unfair.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Remind me how we got from "individual responsibility" and "personal success" to "inheriting wealth from parents by luck of birth" again? Generational wealth transfer can only ever increase the divide between upper and lower classes over time. There's no way around it. Talk of "individual responsibility" and "personal success" is diametrically opposed to inheritance. You cannot have both. The person inheriting has done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think some of this is perspective. "Individual responsibility" is the easy part and can mean paying your debts. "Personal success" can simply mean advancing from your starting position, whatever that may be. I tend to agree with the parent post that building generational wealth and benefit is desirable. It makes sense for perspectives and systems that aren't zero sum. increasing individual and national prosperity is not zero sum activity. however, Income inequality is inherently a zero sum metric. Optimizing for income equality means it is better for each of us to have $1 to spend than one of us to have $3 and the other $2.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > Being within the top 10% ... is not rich. This is extremely out of touch.
  - selfmodruntime 2y ago
    Nope. Being wealthy is not being rich. Perfectly normal people are wealthy by way of their assets and cash poor.