4 ms·

This is the wrong way to look at the issue. The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it. These countries should focus on enc

This is the wrong way to look at the issue. The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it. These countries should focus on encouraging investment there - by getting rid of bureaucracy and red tape, make it possible to hire across the whole EU a lot easier, without needing separate tax registration in every country, etc. Lower the barriers to entry wherever possible - no long application processes for developments with endless consultations, no arbitrary minority language or qualification requirements, etc. Income inequality is a good thing, but there needs to be equal access to education and opportunities and the lowest barriers to entry possible.

bestouff 1y ago
> Income inequality is a good thing That's your opinion. I fail to see how the differences were have today make sense and could be good for the society.
- newsclues 1y ago
  Take the global wealth, divide it by the population, and redistribute it evenly. Suddenly a lot of productive assets are no longer working. Do you think capital allocation will be better when it's being done by everyone?
  - johnecheck 1y ago
    Bad take. Obviously if you you cut a factory into a million pieces and hand them out, you've lost value. Investment tools cover all your concerns here. (Hopefully paired with a regulatory framework that prevents scams (looking at you, crypto))
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > Investment tools cover all your concerns here. Nope, since you decided that investments can't make you richer investment tools no longer works. And if investments are allowed to make you richer you didn't solve wealth inequality, because most people will just spend and consume rather than invest in anything.
Hikikomori 1y ago
Trickle down has never worked.
- abenga 1y ago
  Any day now. or We are not trying it hard enough.
tamat 1y ago
so you want to help the rich so they can be richer...
regentbowerbird 1y ago
> The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it. The specific issue here is that revenue from capital is taxed less than revenue from labor, thus disproportionally impacting the poor & middle class. Can you explain how taxing the rich even less will solve this issue?
- GardenLetter27 1y ago
  Then the solution is to cut taxes on income, and cut government spending. Ideally there'd just be a 10% tax across the board - sales tax, income tax, etc. like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%E2%80%939%E2%80%939_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%E2%80%939%E2%80%939_Plan No complicated exemptions, or complicated progressive bands, just keep it simple and eliminate bureaucracy. Then people can manage their own pensions and insurance. This could be accompanied by a Georgist Land Value Tax to encourage development and innovation too.
  - notrealyme123 1y ago
    thats way more than currently most working jobs get taxed, and way less than returns for invested money gets taxed (at least when using "smart" tax strategies). So yes, tax the rich +1
  - ur-whale 1y ago
    > Ideally there'd just be a 10% tax With the added value that it mechanically keeps governments lean and fit, instead of the bloated, taxpayer money wasting leeches that they are in most socialist countries. Socialism, a.k.a. a picture perfect example of the maxim "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions". High taxes that supposedly lead to social justice via re-distribution of wealth ALWAYS end up driving countries into the same ditch: gross abuse of public money making the poorest part of the population suffer the most. Look at Venezuela, California and Cuba for perfect examples. Spain is not far ahead of them, check out their sovereign debt in case you have a doubt, and how many times they've had to be bailed out. And if you have doubts that low taxes lead to healthier societies, it is indeed possible, I'd invite you to take a look at Switzerland, where taxes are super low, the institutions work like well-oiled Swiss watches, crime is quasi non-existent, infrastructures work, corruption is one of the lowest in the world and - yes - there are filthy rich people (who gives two fucks if they're rich? As long as your life is good. Unless jealousy of course.) but the so-called "poor people" in Switzerland have a way better life than most supposedly rich people in the rest of the world.
tsimionescu 1y ago
> The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it. Yes, mostly in the pockets of politicians who make sure to keep them super-rich. This is why wealth inequality is a disaster: it allows the super-rich to control entire countries and keep themselves and their families rich and powerful. Any kind of economic measure that still permits billionaires to exist is not going to address this simple fundamental problem. It's at best lipstick on the pig, not a long term solution to anything.
- bluecalm 1y ago
  Politicians are cheap. You don't have to be super-rich to buy them. Corrupt undemocratic parliamentary systems we have in EU are a huge problem but getting rid of super rich won't solve them.
imiric 1y ago
This is not so much about income inequality, but about making sure that the rich actually pay their taxes, or even more proportionally to their wealth when compared to lower income individuals. Rich people will and should continue to exist. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is take advantage of loopholes and tax breaks just because they're wealthy. That alone should indirectly lead to lowering inequality, and, assuming we can trust that governments work efficiently and in equal interest of all their citizens (which is hardly a given), it should lead to a fair(er) distribution of wealth, instead of a growth of inequality. In any case, it's easy to be cynical about this news, but it's a step in the right direction on paper. In stark contrast to what is happening in the US, for example.
- bluecalm 1y ago
  >>This is not so much about income inequality, but about making sure that the rich actually pay their taxes, or even more proportionally to their wealth when compared to lower income individuals. Sounds like you want to tax assets. Every country can start doing it right now with assets on their soil. No "global registry of wealthy people" is needed for that. Just look at the assets you control and tax them.
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    Yeah, this is possible. At an EU level it would probably work. It would be even more effective in the US because they charge tax on global income for citizens, regardless of residence.
  - consp 1y ago
    Assets can be easily hidden by elaborate constructions over multiple nations, if you have the money to finance it you can save millions with it. Is it legal? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is it something desirable to society? No. This is why you need a registry.
    - bluecalm 1y ago
      What assets? Land can't be moved, company offices can't be moved. Just tax what you control and let others tax what they control. Why do you care if I have a pile of gold stored in Barbados. It doesn't influence your country in any way.
aredox 1y ago
They invest and then they extract ridiculous rents from their investments - leading to widespread burnout, perfectly fine businesses being closed and employees being laid off because they don't give double-digit returns, empty shop spaces because it would diminish their value to lower the rent, excessive appartement rents, etc. And an economy oriented only along the wishes of the super-rich. Money is the way you "vote" into the economy, and the more money is in the hands of a few, the less the economy actually adresses the needs of the many.
- GardenLetter27 1y ago
  The housing crisis isn't due to investment, but onerous government regulation that makes it near impossible to build - decades-long planning processes, dozens of consultations (local public, and NGOs, etc.) That's exactly what I mean by removing bureaucratic processes to unlock investment. But the "many" can learn useful skills and innovate to also make a lot of money. Everyone should be able to start a business easily - without excessive capital requirements or expensive notaries. STEM education should be free and widely available (or with very low interest loans if we let the loan interest be decided per subject, per student grades, etc.)
  - cloverich 1y ago
    Investment in sfh definitely plays a major role. It's not an either or situation. Build more houses. Make SFH investment homes unprofitable. Both will increase the homes on the market, lowering prices.
- bluecalm 1y ago
  >> perfectly fine businesses being closed and employees being laid off because they don't give double-digit returns Sounds like an opportunity to me. >>empty shop spaces because it would diminish their value to lower the rent Sounds like a problem land value tax solves - it should cost you to hold land ad if you can't pay you should give it up so others can make use of it. >> excessive appartement rents Sounds like land value tax + removing bureaucracy around building should solve that. >>And an economy oriented only along the wishes of the super-rich. I am not sure why you think anything in EU is along wishes of super-rich. It seems to me it's to the wishes of political cronies. I can guarantee you that "super-rich" would structure it differently. >>Money is the way you "vote" into the economy, and the more money is in the hands of a few, the less the economy actually adresses the needs of the many. And yet populist parties introducing anti-business policies win all the time. It's true our parliamentary systems are terrible and undemocratic but it's not because super rich, at least not in EU.
lordleft 1y ago
Is this not the same trickle down mantra that has been pushed across developed countries for decades and has only widened the gap between rich and poor? In the US, where this line was pursued since the 80s, real wages for most Americans have stagnated while the top 20% have seen their wealth increase astronomically. Merely improving the regulatory and investment climate for a country does not magically benefit most citizens in a society -- thoughtful taxation is one to correct that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- twoodfin 1y ago
  The median American household has a >30% higher real income today than in 1985. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N Personal income is up more than 50%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N And that doesn’t account for demographic changes: Households are smaller on average than 40 years ago and there’s been a significant surge in the foreign-born population, mostly from much poorer origins. Further, while the inflation calculation includes some hedonic adjustments, it’s really hard to capture the aggregate of the thousands of diffuse lifestyle benefits of living in 2025 v. 1985. Personally, I’d miss burritos.
  - myrmidon 1y ago
    Sure, but a median house cost 3.5 years of (median) income in 1985, nowadays its 6. It sure is nice being able to afford tons of foreign-built electronic trash, but affording a home seems more relevant and important to me and by that metric things got worse.
    - qeternity 1y ago
      This is not a result of income inequality. This is a result of measures intended to reduce income inequality, which of course almost universally make things worse. The other lending that the US (and Western governments in general) massively subsidize is education. And look at what has happened to the cost of housing and education. They have both massively exceeded general rates of inflation. The cure is worse than the disease.
johnecheck 1y ago
I don't think some heavy handed communist system should try to abolish all inequality either. But does that mean income inequality is good? Maybe in moderation, but I feel it's pretty obviously harmful when taken to an extreme. Policies to reverse the trend of concentrating wealth and power are worth considering.
Rygian 1y ago
> getting rid of bureaucracy and red tape 90% of bureaucracy and red tape are Chesterton Fences that exist for a reason. Remove those fences while being clear and transparent about who they protect and how they will be exposed. Be aggressive about the remaining 10%. And good luck telling which is which.
samiv 1y ago
This is wrong. The rich people are stiffling the economy and displacing a large swath of working people. This process will hollow out the economy and produce more poverty and more inequality. For the wealthy people there are two ways to invest. 1. Invest in passive assets such as stock market, property, valuable items, gold etc. 2. Invest in new businesses. What are they doing? Mostly 2. How do we know. Simple.. look at the real economies. The western economies are growing (barely) at around 1-2% per year. The wealthy (since pandemic) grow their wealth at 10-20% per year. Where is this growth coming from? Certainly not from new business development since the real economy is not growing. The only way it can come is by taking a bigger slice of the pie, i.e. displacing middle class by subsuming their wealth. This is harmful to the economy and will lead to the collapse of the economy and the society.
- GardenLetter27 1y ago
  You are right that the problem is a lack of economic growth - and that is what must be addressed, e.g. by removing bureaucracy and harmful regulations. Robert Zubrin's The Case For Nukes is a great book on this.
  - samiv 1y ago
    The bureaucracy and the regulation isn't the problem by and large. If anything it just needs to be easier and more automated to navigate the regulation when setting up business. I know that the capitalist really like to sing this song. "It's the regulation, just let us self regulate and we'll create so and so many jobs". Yeah, just like they did in the 1800 hundreds. Abysmal working conditions, minimum pay, toxic waste dumping etc. etc. Or how the banking sector has managed to blow up several times since "deregulation" in the -80s by Reagan. 2008 market crash anyone? The problem is that there's less and less purchasing power. Even if you have a proven business case such as hairdressing or serving food your most important asset is a customer base who have money. You start by putting money in the pockets of the people and suddenly all kinds of lucrative markets and business ideas become viable. The regulation is needed to protect the society from all the harmful shorcuts that businesses would otherwise take. Such as poisonous food, toxic waste dumping, ponzi schemes and insider trading etc. etc.
modo_mario 1y ago
Investment can be rentseeking. I can invest in buying a house to rent out raising housing prices and preventing someone else from owning it for themselves.
exiguus 1y ago
Actually, there are plans to tax international investments at 1% [1] (i.e., making more money with money). This will basically stop bets on currency or commodities on the stock exchanges. Besides that, inheritance and wealth tax are also interesting fields for a regulation. [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm
usrusr 1y ago
We've seen effectively zero interest rates for longer than many can remember. If there's no investment it's not because of lack of capital but because of lack of optimism. When generationally rich do invest in something outside the safe game of landlordship (which is primarily defined by limited supply making chart lines point northeast just by merit of more capital joining the game) it's usually not because of n aeed or greed, but because they already have so much invested in the easy game that they feel a desire to risk some tiny fraction of it in something more exciting.

bestouff 1y ago

> Income inequality is a good thing That's your opinion. I fail to see how the differences were have today make sense and could be good for the society.

newsclues 1y ago
Take the global wealth, divide it by the population, and redistribute it evenly. Suddenly a lot of productive assets are no longer working. Do you think capital allocation will be better when it's being done by everyone?
- johnecheck 1y ago
  Bad take. Obviously if you you cut a factory into a million pieces and hand them out, you've lost value. Investment tools cover all your concerns here. (Hopefully paired with a regulatory framework that prevents scams (looking at you, crypto))
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > Investment tools cover all your concerns here. Nope, since you decided that investments can't make you richer investment tools no longer works. And if investments are allowed to make you richer you didn't solve wealth inequality, because most people will just spend and consume rather than invest in anything.

Hikikomori 1y ago

Trickle down has never worked.

abenga 1y ago
Any day now. or We are not trying it hard enough.

tamat 1y ago

so you want to help the rich so they can be richer...

regentbowerbird 1y ago

> The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it. The specific issue here is that revenue from capital is taxed less than revenue from labor, thus disproportionally impacting the poor & middle class. Can you explain how taxing the rich even less will solve this issue?

GardenLetter27 1y ago
Then the solution is to cut taxes on income, and cut government spending. Ideally there'd just be a 10% tax across the board - sales tax, income tax, etc. like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%E2%80%939%E2%80%939_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%E2%80%939%E2%80%939_Plan No complicated exemptions, or complicated progressive bands, just keep it simple and eliminate bureaucracy. Then people can manage their own pensions and insurance. This could be accompanied by a Georgist Land Value Tax to encourage development and innovation too.
- notrealyme123 1y ago
  thats way more than currently most working jobs get taxed, and way less than returns for invested money gets taxed (at least when using "smart" tax strategies). So yes, tax the rich +1
- ur-whale 1y ago
  > Ideally there'd just be a 10% tax With the added value that it mechanically keeps governments lean and fit, instead of the bloated, taxpayer money wasting leeches that they are in most socialist countries. Socialism, a.k.a. a picture perfect example of the maxim "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions". High taxes that supposedly lead to social justice via re-distribution of wealth ALWAYS end up driving countries into the same ditch: gross abuse of public money making the poorest part of the population suffer the most. Look at Venezuela, California and Cuba for perfect examples. Spain is not far ahead of them, check out their sovereign debt in case you have a doubt, and how many times they've had to be bailed out. And if you have doubts that low taxes lead to healthier societies, it is indeed possible, I'd invite you to take a look at Switzerland, where taxes are super low, the institutions work like well-oiled Swiss watches, crime is quasi non-existent, infrastructures work, corruption is one of the lowest in the world and - yes - there are filthy rich people (who gives two fucks if they're rich? As long as your life is good. Unless jealousy of course.) but the so-called "poor people" in Switzerland have a way better life than most supposedly rich people in the rest of the world.

tsimionescu 1y ago

> The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it. Yes, mostly in the pockets of politicians who make sure to keep them super-rich. This is why wealth inequality is a disaster: it allows the super-rich to control entire countries and keep themselves and their families rich and powerful. Any kind of economic measure that still permits billionaires to exist is not going to address this simple fundamental problem. It's at best lipstick on the pig, not a long term solution to anything.

bluecalm 1y ago
Politicians are cheap. You don't have to be super-rich to buy them. Corrupt undemocratic parliamentary systems we have in EU are a huge problem but getting rid of super rich won't solve them.

imiric 1y ago

This is not so much about income inequality, but about making sure that the rich actually pay their taxes, or even more proportionally to their wealth when compared to lower income individuals. Rich people will and should continue to exist. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is take advantage of loopholes and tax breaks just because they're wealthy. That alone should indirectly lead to lowering inequality, and, assuming we can trust that governments work efficiently and in equal interest of all their citizens (which is hardly a given), it should lead to a fair(er) distribution of wealth, instead of a growth of inequality. In any case, it's easy to be cynical about this news, but it's a step in the right direction on paper. In stark contrast to what is happening in the US, for example.

bluecalm 1y ago
>>This is not so much about income inequality, but about making sure that the rich actually pay their taxes, or even more proportionally to their wealth when compared to lower income individuals. Sounds like you want to tax assets. Every country can start doing it right now with assets on their soil. No "global registry of wealthy people" is needed for that. Just look at the assets you control and tax them.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  Yeah, this is possible. At an EU level it would probably work. It would be even more effective in the US because they charge tax on global income for citizens, regardless of residence.
- consp 1y ago
  Assets can be easily hidden by elaborate constructions over multiple nations, if you have the money to finance it you can save millions with it. Is it legal? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is it something desirable to society? No. This is why you need a registry.
  - bluecalm 1y ago
    What assets? Land can't be moved, company offices can't be moved. Just tax what you control and let others tax what they control. Why do you care if I have a pile of gold stored in Barbados. It doesn't influence your country in any way.

aredox 1y ago

They invest and then they extract ridiculous rents from their investments - leading to widespread burnout, perfectly fine businesses being closed and employees being laid off because they don't give double-digit returns, empty shop spaces because it would diminish their value to lower the rent, excessive appartement rents, etc. And an economy oriented only along the wishes of the super-rich. Money is the way you "vote" into the economy, and the more money is in the hands of a few, the less the economy actually adresses the needs of the many.

GardenLetter27 1y ago
The housing crisis isn't due to investment, but onerous government regulation that makes it near impossible to build - decades-long planning processes, dozens of consultations (local public, and NGOs, etc.) That's exactly what I mean by removing bureaucratic processes to unlock investment. But the "many" can learn useful skills and innovate to also make a lot of money. Everyone should be able to start a business easily - without excessive capital requirements or expensive notaries. STEM education should be free and widely available (or with very low interest loans if we let the loan interest be decided per subject, per student grades, etc.)
- cloverich 1y ago
  Investment in sfh definitely plays a major role. It's not an either or situation. Build more houses. Make SFH investment homes unprofitable. Both will increase the homes on the market, lowering prices.
bluecalm 1y ago
>> perfectly fine businesses being closed and employees being laid off because they don't give double-digit returns Sounds like an opportunity to me. >>empty shop spaces because it would diminish their value to lower the rent Sounds like a problem land value tax solves - it should cost you to hold land ad if you can't pay you should give it up so others can make use of it. >> excessive appartement rents Sounds like land value tax + removing bureaucracy around building should solve that. >>And an economy oriented only along the wishes of the super-rich. I am not sure why you think anything in EU is along wishes of super-rich. It seems to me it's to the wishes of political cronies. I can guarantee you that "super-rich" would structure it differently. >>Money is the way you "vote" into the economy, and the more money is in the hands of a few, the less the economy actually adresses the needs of the many. And yet populist parties introducing anti-business policies win all the time. It's true our parliamentary systems are terrible and undemocratic but it's not because super rich, at least not in EU.

lordleft 1y ago

Is this not the same trickle down mantra that has been pushed across developed countries for decades and has only widened the gap between rich and poor? In the US, where this line was pursued since the 80s, real wages for most Americans have stagnated while the top 20% have seen their wealth increase astronomically. Merely improving the regulatory and investment climate for a country does not magically benefit most citizens in a society -- thoughtful taxation is one to correct that.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
twoodfin 1y ago
The median American household has a >30% higher real income today than in 1985. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N Personal income is up more than 50%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N And that doesn’t account for demographic changes: Households are smaller on average than 40 years ago and there’s been a significant surge in the foreign-born population, mostly from much poorer origins. Further, while the inflation calculation includes some hedonic adjustments, it’s really hard to capture the aggregate of the thousands of diffuse lifestyle benefits of living in 2025 v. 1985. Personally, I’d miss burritos.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  Sure, but a median house cost 3.5 years of (median) income in 1985, nowadays its 6. It sure is nice being able to afford tons of foreign-built electronic trash, but affording a home seems more relevant and important to me and by that metric things got worse.
  - qeternity 1y ago
    This is not a result of income inequality. This is a result of measures intended to reduce income inequality, which of course almost universally make things worse. The other lending that the US (and Western governments in general) massively subsidize is education. And look at what has happened to the cost of housing and education. They have both massively exceeded general rates of inflation. The cure is worse than the disease.

johnecheck 1y ago

I don't think some heavy handed communist system should try to abolish all inequality either. But does that mean income inequality is good? Maybe in moderation, but I feel it's pretty obviously harmful when taken to an extreme. Policies to reverse the trend of concentrating wealth and power are worth considering.

Rygian 1y ago

> getting rid of bureaucracy and red tape 90% of bureaucracy and red tape are Chesterton Fences that exist for a reason. Remove those fences while being clear and transparent about who they protect and how they will be exposed. Be aggressive about the remaining 10%. And good luck telling which is which.

samiv 1y ago

This is wrong. The rich people are stiffling the economy and displacing a large swath of working people. This process will hollow out the economy and produce more poverty and more inequality. For the wealthy people there are two ways to invest. 1. Invest in passive assets such as stock market, property, valuable items, gold etc. 2. Invest in new businesses. What are they doing? Mostly 2. How do we know. Simple.. look at the real economies. The western economies are growing (barely) at around 1-2% per year. The wealthy (since pandemic) grow their wealth at 10-20% per year. Where is this growth coming from? Certainly not from new business development since the real economy is not growing. The only way it can come is by taking a bigger slice of the pie, i.e. displacing middle class by subsuming their wealth. This is harmful to the economy and will lead to the collapse of the economy and the society.

GardenLetter27 1y ago
You are right that the problem is a lack of economic growth - and that is what must be addressed, e.g. by removing bureaucracy and harmful regulations. Robert Zubrin's The Case For Nukes is a great book on this.
- samiv 1y ago
  The bureaucracy and the regulation isn't the problem by and large. If anything it just needs to be easier and more automated to navigate the regulation when setting up business. I know that the capitalist really like to sing this song. "It's the regulation, just let us self regulate and we'll create so and so many jobs". Yeah, just like they did in the 1800 hundreds. Abysmal working conditions, minimum pay, toxic waste dumping etc. etc. Or how the banking sector has managed to blow up several times since "deregulation" in the -80s by Reagan. 2008 market crash anyone? The problem is that there's less and less purchasing power. Even if you have a proven business case such as hairdressing or serving food your most important asset is a customer base who have money. You start by putting money in the pockets of the people and suddenly all kinds of lucrative markets and business ideas become viable. The regulation is needed to protect the society from all the harmful shorcuts that businesses would otherwise take. Such as poisonous food, toxic waste dumping, ponzi schemes and insider trading etc. etc.

modo_mario 1y ago

Investment can be rentseeking. I can invest in buying a house to rent out raising housing prices and preventing someone else from owning it for themselves.

exiguus 1y ago

Actually, there are plans to tax international investments at 1% [1] (i.e., making more money with money). This will basically stop bets on currency or commodities on the stock exchanges. Besides that, inheritance and wealth tax are also interesting fields for a regulation. [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm

usrusr 1y ago

We've seen effectively zero interest rates for longer than many can remember. If there's no investment it's not because of lack of capital but because of lack of optimism. When generationally rich do invest in something outside the safe game of landlordship (which is primarily defined by limited supply making chart lines point northeast just by merit of more capital joining the game) it's usually not because of n aeed or greed, but because they already have so much invested in the easy game that they feel a desire to risk some tiny fraction of it in something more exciting.