3 ms·
> Unless capitalists start paying the same tax rate as W2 workers, the inequality will continue to favor capitalist class and exploit the worker class. I wante
by komali2 1y ago
> Unless capitalists start paying the same tax rate as W2 workers, the inequality will continue to favor capitalist class and exploit the worker class.
I wanted to do a snarky "fixed that" comment where I crossed out everything before "the inequality will continue," but actually I'm curious now: capitalism fans (which includes liberals), do you genuinely believe you can have capitalism in a way where the inequality doesn't continue to favor the capitalist class? So long as power can be purchased with capital, how could this ever not be the case?
- Izikiel43 1y agoShould we chase equality for everything? Or should we ensure basic rights are guaranteed and let everyone do as they prefer? The only equality on paper we chase is before the law, everything else is up to luck and decisions.
- jplusequalt 1y ago>The only equality on paper we chase is before the law When have the rich ever been held to the same standards as the average American?
- Izikiel43 1y agoHence why I said on paper.
- vladms 1y agoI think we should avoid extreme inequality. We should talk distributions not "equality" vs "everything else".
- Izikiel43 1y agoI would change that to extreme poverty. There should be a guaranteed minimum standard of living which is humane, basically access to food, housing, education and health. After that, is up to every individual. I remember a previous discussion here about ozempic, and how one commenter was asking how to force his father to become healthy, as it was using ozempic as a crutch and leaning back to it when he needed to, while going back to his vices (smoking, drinking, being overweight by eating junk food). The answer was, unless you remove his self agency or can convince him so he does it himself, he won’t change.
- vladms 1y agoWhile I would like that as well, I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on. I think that even two like-minded people can spend too much time talking about what exactly is "basically access to food, housing, education and health", before doing anything.
- Izikiel43 1y ago> I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on. Au contraire, I think inequality while easy to define is hard to act on, and it also merits the question if you should act at all, we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died. Defining food, housing, education and health is not hard. We have guidelines on being healthy already, so you need access to preventive care to do so. Education you would just need easier/less onerous access to university education. Food requires a change of culture, which has been happening over the past 20 years. Housing, at least a studio place should be enough.
- komali2 1y ago> we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died. I've not heard of this. Which experiments "forced equality" and then as a result caused millions of deaths? I'm aware of the experiment of capitalism failing in India to the tune of about 100 million dead, is that what you mean? With capitalism's attempts to equalize through meritocracy?
- Izikiel43 1y agoURSS, Mao's china, other communist regimes throughout the 20th century. Capitalism doesn't equalize, it tries to maximize.
- dragonwriter 1y ago