5 ms·
> Wealth inequality is just a radical left fairy tale to villainize the hard-working 1%. The problem with that mindset is that we know how it's going to end up
by TacticalCoder 2y ago
> Wealth inequality is just a radical left fairy tale to villainize the hard-working 1%.
The problem with that mindset is that we know how it's going to end up: it's not only the 0.1% or 1% that are going to suffer the wealth tax. It's the 30%.
At first the "tax on billionaire" was supposed to be that: a tax on billionaires. But then there are already publications explaining how "taxing anyone who has more than a million (a million, not a billion) would bring x in revenue for the various countries".
Also note that it's never about distributing that money to the poor: it's always about the state getting more money. Money which is then spent in state-friendly companies.
For example the EU is hard at work now imposing a mandatory, EU-wide, tax on all its citizens to "finance EU projects". It's not a tax to give money to poor people. It's a tax to give money to companies like Thales and Airbus and a shitload of sycophantic companies that'd be bankrupt if not for the state' intervention.
Just look at how government are managing the insane money they get: do you think they're doing a good job when they're at, say, 130% debt-to-GDP ratio? Why would I want to encourage such irresponsible spenders by giving them even more?
When a country like France, which is badly in debt and has huge deficits, has about 60% of its GDP that is tied to public spending, it's not the fault of "the rich" if the country is not doing well. It's the fault of the people governing that country.
So, no, thanks but no thanks. I don't want any "let's tax the rich" discourse because I know that it's the middle-class, not the rich, that's going to end up getting owned.
Just like fighting the four horsemen of the infocalypse is an excuse used by the states to gain every more power, attacking the rich is an excuse for the state to gain ever more power. It's not about helping the poor.
- willsmith72 2y agoIs this the best example? It looks like France's dept to gdp is significantly lower than the US (110% vs 122%)
- soared 2y agoHow do we know that?
- robocat 2y agoWealth tax 2% at $1million was a platform policy of the very left Green Party in New Zealand - and NZD $1M is about USD600k! Although they did increase it to NZD2million asset limit. Governments (or maybe voters) don't seem to understand incentives: New Zealand government and its taxation structure discourages building or growing a profitable business. Why should anyone build a business when any winnings will be slowly taken from you over the years? However the NZ government plays/pretends to be supporting innovation - lots of innovation "dress-up play" (the sham appearance of innovation) and taxpayer money dumped into ineffective programmes: e.g. https://youngenterprise.org.nz/ https://youngenterprise.org.nz/ https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/study/academic-study/business/about-uc-business-school/centre-for-entrepreneurship/summer-startup-programme https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/study/academic-study/business/a... Some countries lead political changes - I'm not sure New Zealand is one of those - but the crap we do could be the crap your government does next...
- rightbyte 2y ago> Why should anyone build a business when any winnings will be slowly taken from you over the years? Because the payout might be better than wage labor and you only pay the tax if you win big?
- robocat 2y agoYeah, I need to make a simple spreadsheet and try and figure it out. The problem is that the risks are high: the usual figures are less than 1 in 10 businesses succeed or that a 30:1 payout is the minimum sensible financial payout (VC figure). Winning is hard even though we don't have a CGT. Marginal tax at 39% doesn't encourage marginal business building. And once you have the house and the bach, the marginal utility of money drops for an individual: the marginal happyness from the next million is a lot lower than the first million (also see "income satiation"). The discount rate, and the personal cost are other huge factors, and the average person doesn't like a financial winner. Investing money and time in a high risk activity like starting a business is not fiancially sensible from what I have seen. We do it to chase status, not because it makes sense on a spreadsheet.
- jmward01 2y agoWhat do the stats say about poverty, access to healthcare, retirement, etc etc in those countries? What about the size of the middle class that you imply are eventually harmed by these policies? If you only bring up stats about GDP and tax rates you miss the point. It is about more people living better lives. History has a lot to say about countries that allow income inequality to get out of hand. Are there actually any good stories of countries that got on the path to massive income inequality and survived?
- gjm11 2y agoCould you be more explicit, please, about this "mandatory, EU-wide, tax on all its citizens"? I've had a bit of a search and haven't found anything that seems like it fits your description. No doubt I'm just being dim; could you provide a link or something of the sort?