There will always be people who are the smartest and/or shrewdest and/or most ambitious and/or luckiest, in a population. “Just get rid of the people who currently have the most wealth” is extraordinarily naive.
There’s kind of a difference between “whoever happens to be wealthiest at the moment” and “The 0.001% of the population that is three times wealthier than the bottom 50% of humanity combined.”
Over the long term, there really isn’t. Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone’s wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.
What’s more important is making sure that even the poorest among us can have a decent standard of living. After all, if you waved a magic wand and now everyone in the US, for example, was earning $75,000 a year minimum, no one would be in poverty, right? And yet the size of the ‘wealth gap’ between the wealthiest and the $75k ‘minimum earners’ would effectively be identical; the gap between $0 and billions is basically the same as the gap between $75k and billions.
Toppling the wealthiest just because they’re the wealthiest isn’t going to solve any of the actual problems (especially when politicians get bribed for relatively-measly five figure sums, etc.).
Except that the only way you get everyone a baseline income of $75k is by taking it from the billionaires, thus reducing the gap much more substantially
you get everyone a baseline income of $75k is by taking it from the billionaires
Actually, no. That’s a hypothetical for a reason; the entire net worth of all billionaires combined (assuming a magic wand could convert the net worth figure into an equivalent amount of cash, literally impossible in reality) wouldn’t get everyone to $75k for even a single year.
Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone’s wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.
Hmm, this tyranny idea sounds pretty interesting then.
What’s the tax that prevents people from valuing your stuff highly? Because that’s what net worth ultimately is: other people’s valuation of what you own.
Don’t hold your breath for any sort of ‘maximum wealth’ legislation to ever be a thing. It’s an absurd idea on its face, and even if you could accomplish something like that, it wouldn’t solve any of the problems you think it’d solve.
There will always be people who are the smartest and/or shrewdest and/or most ambitious and/or luckiest, in a population. “Just get rid of the people who currently have the most wealth” is extraordinarily naive.
There’s kind of a difference between “whoever happens to be wealthiest at the moment” and “The 0.001% of the population that is three times wealthier than the bottom 50% of humanity combined.”
Over the long term, there really isn’t. Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone’s wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.
What’s more important is making sure that even the poorest among us can have a decent standard of living. After all, if you waved a magic wand and now everyone in the US, for example, was earning $75,000 a year minimum, no one would be in poverty, right? And yet the size of the ‘wealth gap’ between the wealthiest and the $75k ‘minimum earners’ would effectively be identical; the gap between $0 and billions is basically the same as the gap between $75k and billions.
Toppling the wealthiest just because they’re the wealthiest isn’t going to solve any of the actual problems (especially when politicians get bribed for relatively-measly five figure sums, etc.).
Except that the only way you get everyone a baseline income of $75k is by taking it from the billionaires, thus reducing the gap much more substantially
Actually, no. That’s a hypothetical for a reason; the entire net worth of all billionaires combined (assuming a magic wand could convert the net worth figure into an equivalent amount of cash, literally impossible in reality) wouldn’t get everyone to $75k for even a single year.
Hmm, this tyranny idea sounds pretty interesting then.
How about changing taxes so that it’s impossible for individuals to have more wealth than entire nations?
What’s the tax that prevents people from valuing your stuff highly? Because that’s what net worth ultimately is: other people’s valuation of what you own.
Don’t hold your breath for any sort of ‘maximum wealth’ legislation to ever be a thing. It’s an absurd idea on its face, and even if you could accomplish something like that, it wouldn’t solve any of the problems you think it’d solve.
Structural solutions are important!
Massive understatement—they’re actually the only things that could truly be “solutions” at all in anything approaching long-term.
Ok. But what if we keep doing it? It’s good for the environment, and it’s a great source of steady employment opportunities.