3 ms·

> Nobody will be able to make money by favoritism or coercion or corruption if there is no entity (e.g. government) that facilitates those things. Sure, govern

> Nobody will be able to make money by favoritism or coercion or corruption if there is no entity (e.g. government) that facilitates those things. Sure, government corruption is one way rich people make themselves richer, but money by itself is powerful too. Imagine we lived in anarchy, the strongest few would amass all the wealth, they would run their own private armies, and no one who wasn't rich and strong would have any leverage to get anything. The point of a progressive taxation scheme is that wealth itself confers an advantage that needs to be offset by some collective power of the populace. Claiming that free markets will make the wealth gap shrink is just magical thinking. Money is power, regardless of the form of government.

snitko 12y ago
If you re-read your comment you will see that there's no logical proof in what you're saying, nor is there any evidence. Saying things like "your point is just magical thinking" will not prove me wrong. Furthermore, please notice that when you say "The point of a progressive taxation scheme..." means that this is an intention of the policy. The actual effect might be quite different, as is very often the case with government policies. I would argue that rich people will always be more powerful, you simply cannot avoid that. And there will always be inequality. Question is, under which system will the rich be less powerful and my answer is that without government they won't be able to coerce others and force others to do things, they will only be able to spend THEIR own money and act on the market as market players, with no special privileges. The problem is that while your intentions are noble, intentions alone cannot solve the problem. You always have to look at results. Tell me, where in the world has progressive taxation produced innovation and wealth? Perhaps, Scandinavian countries are innovative and are responsible for a great deal of awesome new things in the world? No they're not. Or perhaps China or Russia before they started liberalizing their markets had produced a lot of innovation and increased the standards of living for their citizens? No. Only in countries with less government intervention have we seen the lot of ordinary men greatly improved.

snitko 12y ago

If you re-read your comment you will see that there's no logical proof in what you're saying, nor is there any evidence. Saying things like "your point is just magical thinking" will not prove me wrong. Furthermore, please notice that when you say "The point of a progressive taxation scheme..." means that this is an intention of the policy. The actual effect might be quite different, as is very often the case with government policies. I would argue that rich people will always be more powerful, you simply cannot avoid that. And there will always be inequality. Question is, under which system will the rich be less powerful and my answer is that without government they won't be able to coerce others and force others to do things, they will only be able to spend THEIR own money and act on the market as market players, with no special privileges. The problem is that while your intentions are noble, intentions alone cannot solve the problem. You always have to look at results. Tell me, where in the world has progressive taxation produced innovation and wealth? Perhaps, Scandinavian countries are innovative and are responsible for a great deal of awesome new things in the world? No they're not. Or perhaps China or Russia before they started liberalizing their markets had produced a lot of innovation and increased the standards of living for their citizens? No. Only in countries with less government intervention have we seen the lot of ordinary men greatly improved.