3 ms·
"Now, that is not to say that I want their wealth to be capped or politically reallocated." Why not? It's done for wages, why should wealth be any different? Be
by iamsaitam 1mo ago
"Now, that is not to say that I want their wealth to be capped or politically reallocated." Why not? It's done for wages, why should wealth be any different? Besides the technicalities, which you are not talking about and therefore I will also not get into them, I don't see any ethical reason why wealth should not suffer the same biases that wage taxation does. This kind of opinion just perpetuates the imbalances in the current terrible lop-sided system we have.
- ETH_start 1mo agoI think to the extent that the system is lopsided, it is in creating fixed costs to participating in investment, which naturally leads to the investment market being dominated by the wealthy. The token sale phenomenon briefly reversed this, but that was shut down: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 >The average ICO has almost 4700 contributors. The median contributor invests a relatively small amount. The ICO market appears to have successfully given access to the financing of innovation to a new class of investors, which is a long-standing public policy issue Even public capital markets are becoming increasingly displaced by private equity where only institutional and accredited (wealthy) investors have access as investor: https://www.citizensbank.com/corporate-finance/insights/private-equity-trends.aspx https://www.citizensbank.com/corporate-finance/insights/priv... This is because the cost of getting SEC approval for offering stock to the public is steadily increasing.