4 ms·

I don't think we need nearly as much as most people think. How much is being taken by the wealthy from the workers already? How much effort goes on the work of

I don't think we need nearly as much as most people think. How much is being taken by the wealthy from the workers already? How much effort goes on the work of maintaining and protecting the system of inequality? How many people are already doing nothing when they would be willing to work?

toomuchtodo 1y ago
These are the right questions to be asking. Suboptimal system configuration problems.
dralley 1y ago
You can absolutely raise taxes on the wealthy and close loopholes (we should do those things) but it's not gonna fix the massive hole that is social spending in the budget of nearly every western nation. It's more structural than that.
- samus 1y ago
  The loopholes just make it easier to funnel money away from the taxman. It's still possible due to how capitalism works and not fixable unless we go for something equivalent to nationalizing big companies.
  - scotty79 1y ago
    You could mandate that money transfers go through banks and tax the transfers. Let's see how rich can get richer without transferring their money.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      You can also tax where the asset ownership is recorded. Property records, securities records, etc. If it isn’t recorded with a public body where taxes can be assessed, it isn’t recognized. Wealth must exist on the books somewhere.
      - scotty79 1y ago
        Yes, there are ways to tax the rich. We aren't doing it because those who decide about such things are the rich.
      - samus 1y ago
        This assumes that there is only a single country on Earth or that the rich would not be willing to move to a country with lower taxation. Hint: they are already doing that.
        scotty79 1y ago
        right, because what will really improve their business is moving to a country with less and poorer consumers, they could extract money from also .. what's bad about the rich moving out? you can always print more money to balance out the money they've taken away and companies and properties that they used to owned are gonna be sold to some new people who are not that rich yet
        samus 1y ago
        Cranking up the taxes will just make life more expensive for everyone. And printing more money is a terrible solution to financial problems.
        scotty79 1y ago
        Letting wealth of the rich grow so much faster than the growth of the economy is so much worse, because it means that the rich are increasingly draining poor of their resoruces.
        samus 1y ago
        Debasing the currency has the same effect, as it is equivalent to a flat tax, which hits lower income brackets harder than the wealthy.
    - samus 1y ago
      That has the same impact as other, similarly radical solutions. In the best case the rich will just remove as much of their property from the country as possible. They might keep a villa or two, some cars, and some pocket money, but the majority of their income will be out of reach of the taxman. Or they might just rent everything they need from a local branch of a company and pay a branch in another country, and the two interact via crypto. Or indirectly via remittances as there will be a market for asking low-income people to transfer money on behalf of rich people, as transactions of low-income people would probably not be taxed.
nradov 1y ago
There are approximately 87,296 people in Denmark who are already doing nothing when they would be willing to work. https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/beskaeftigelse-og-arbejdsloeshed/arbejdsloese https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/be... As for how much we "need", sure we can technically survive on very little. Most people choose aim to higher. Reducing inequality through a more progressive tax system is generally a good idea but taken too far that cuts overall economic growth and hurts everyone. At some point the most productive people just emigrate to countries with lower taxes; we've already seen that happen with numerous high profile entrepreneurs and companies moving from Europe to the USA.
- incompatible 1y ago
  I live in a cheap house, don't own a car, and rarely travel vary far. I just laugh at people at the people who "choose aim to higher", thinking that they need an ever more expensive house, car, phone, whatever. None of these things would improve my quality of life.
  - KPGv2 1y ago
    I question whether your QOL is that good if you laugh at people for wanting nice things.
    - incompatible 1y ago
      Amusement is part of my QOL. Edit: Amusement is cheap. But it's also a serious issue, if "people wanting nice things" are damaging the environment in the process. I don't think that the world can cope with a lot more people flying around in private jets.
  - samus 1y ago
    Not that many people these days have a house or a flat they own. These things are expensive.
    - nradov 1y ago
RestlessMind 1y ago
> I don't think we need nearly as much as most people think. It completely depends on what standard of living you want. People who would be considered wealthy by 1920's standards are considered poor today.
- NegativeLatency 1y ago
  If I could trade that wealth for happiness though…
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  > People who would be considered wealthy by 1920's standards are considered poor today. I did a double take when I read that sentence. Is this really true? The 1920s in the West (North America and Western Europe) were a golden age for income inequality. The rich were... well, crazy rich. Would they really be considered poor today?
  - incompatible 1y ago
    Well, who these days can't afford to build their own Art Deco skyscraper complex in New York? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Center
    - throwaway2037 1y ago
      That is a cheeky reply, but some light research tells me that the Rockefeller family borrowed huge sums of money to build that complex. Also, modern day technology billionaires worth 50B+ USD could easily build their own Hudson Yards -- the modern day equivalent of Rockefeller Center in New York City.
  - account42 1y ago
    Typically these arguments boil down to how many high-tech items you can afford that were still crazy expensive back then, completely ignoring things like living space that actually matter much more to your quality of life.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 1y ago

These are the right questions to be asking. Suboptimal system configuration problems.

dralley 1y ago

You can absolutely raise taxes on the wealthy and close loopholes (we should do those things) but it's not gonna fix the massive hole that is social spending in the budget of nearly every western nation. It's more structural than that.

samus 1y ago
The loopholes just make it easier to funnel money away from the taxman. It's still possible due to how capitalism works and not fixable unless we go for something equivalent to nationalizing big companies.
- scotty79 1y ago
  You could mandate that money transfers go through banks and tax the transfers. Let's see how rich can get richer without transferring their money.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    You can also tax where the asset ownership is recorded. Property records, securities records, etc. If it isn’t recorded with a public body where taxes can be assessed, it isn’t recognized. Wealth must exist on the books somewhere.
    - scotty79 1y ago
      Yes, there are ways to tax the rich. We aren't doing it because those who decide about such things are the rich.
    - samus 1y ago
      This assumes that there is only a single country on Earth or that the rich would not be willing to move to a country with lower taxation. Hint: they are already doing that.
      - scotty79 1y ago
        right, because what will really improve their business is moving to a country with less and poorer consumers, they could extract money from also .. what's bad about the rich moving out? you can always print more money to balance out the money they've taken away and companies and properties that they used to owned are gonna be sold to some new people who are not that rich yet
        samus 1y ago
        Cranking up the taxes will just make life more expensive for everyone. And printing more money is a terrible solution to financial problems.
        scotty79 1y ago
        Letting wealth of the rich grow so much faster than the growth of the economy is so much worse, because it means that the rich are increasingly draining poor of their resoruces.
        samus 1y ago
        Debasing the currency has the same effect, as it is equivalent to a flat tax, which hits lower income brackets harder than the wealthy.
  - samus 1y ago
    That has the same impact as other, similarly radical solutions. In the best case the rich will just remove as much of their property from the country as possible. They might keep a villa or two, some cars, and some pocket money, but the majority of their income will be out of reach of the taxman. Or they might just rent everything they need from a local branch of a company and pay a branch in another country, and the two interact via crypto. Or indirectly via remittances as there will be a market for asking low-income people to transfer money on behalf of rich people, as transactions of low-income people would probably not be taxed.

nradov 1y ago

There are approximately 87,296 people in Denmark who are already doing nothing when they would be willing to work. https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/beskaeftigelse-og-arbejdsloeshed/arbejdsloese https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/be... As for how much we "need", sure we can technically survive on very little. Most people choose aim to higher. Reducing inequality through a more progressive tax system is generally a good idea but taken too far that cuts overall economic growth and hurts everyone. At some point the most productive people just emigrate to countries with lower taxes; we've already seen that happen with numerous high profile entrepreneurs and companies moving from Europe to the USA.

incompatible 1y ago
I live in a cheap house, don't own a car, and rarely travel vary far. I just laugh at people at the people who "choose aim to higher", thinking that they need an ever more expensive house, car, phone, whatever. None of these things would improve my quality of life.
- KPGv2 1y ago
  I question whether your QOL is that good if you laugh at people for wanting nice things.
  - incompatible 1y ago
    Amusement is part of my QOL. Edit: Amusement is cheap. But it's also a serious issue, if "people wanting nice things" are damaging the environment in the process. I don't think that the world can cope with a lot more people flying around in private jets.
- samus 1y ago
  Not that many people these days have a house or a flat they own. These things are expensive.
  - nradov 1y ago

RestlessMind 1y ago

> I don't think we need nearly as much as most people think. It completely depends on what standard of living you want. People who would be considered wealthy by 1920's standards are considered poor today.

NegativeLatency 1y ago
If I could trade that wealth for happiness though…
throwaway2037 1y ago
> People who would be considered wealthy by 1920's standards are considered poor today. I did a double take when I read that sentence. Is this really true? The 1920s in the West (North America and Western Europe) were a golden age for income inequality. The rich were... well, crazy rich. Would they really be considered poor today?
- incompatible 1y ago
  Well, who these days can't afford to build their own Art Deco skyscraper complex in New York? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Center
  - throwaway2037 1y ago
    That is a cheeky reply, but some light research tells me that the Rockefeller family borrowed huge sums of money to build that complex. Also, modern day technology billionaires worth 50B+ USD could easily build their own Hudson Yards -- the modern day equivalent of Rockefeller Center in New York City.
- account42 1y ago
  Typically these arguments boil down to how many high-tech items you can afford that were still crazy expensive back then, completely ignoring things like living space that actually matter much more to your quality of life.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]