I think I actually misinterpreted your original comment because of the typo in this sentence:
If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn’t solve anything.
(I now realize you probably meant to write “among”.)
I didn’t realize you were saying, “it doesn’t help if you redistribute wealth to the wrong people”. And that sort of set the tone incorrectly for the rest of your comment. That materially changes how I read your comment, and I do mostly agree with your points.
I’m not sure I agree that this isn’t exclusive to capitalism though. If you impose a tax that effectively caps wealth, then you are inherently compromising one of the core tenets of capitalism: private ownership of means of production. And I’m also not sure that this type of tax even goes far enough to prevent worker exploitation, but I guess we’ll see if it ever actually happens.
Got it, apologies on the typo and subsequent misunderstanding.
I think we’re both after the same thing - I guess I’m just trying to get the safety net before attacking the “top” of what is reasonable.
And I’m kind of OK with a nearly infinite top… As long as the tax rate makes sense. If you’re at a 95% tax rate (and loopholes aren’t rampant… Lot of ifs here) then go nuts. You’ll be supplying a good life for many people, by force, as a result of good taxes and public policy.
I think I actually misinterpreted your original comment because of the typo in this sentence:
(I now realize you probably meant to write “among”.)
I didn’t realize you were saying, “it doesn’t help if you redistribute wealth to the wrong people”. And that sort of set the tone incorrectly for the rest of your comment. That materially changes how I read your comment, and I do mostly agree with your points.
I’m not sure I agree that this isn’t exclusive to capitalism though. If you impose a tax that effectively caps wealth, then you are inherently compromising one of the core tenets of capitalism: private ownership of means of production. And I’m also not sure that this type of tax even goes far enough to prevent worker exploitation, but I guess we’ll see if it ever actually happens.
Got it, apologies on the typo and subsequent misunderstanding.
I think we’re both after the same thing - I guess I’m just trying to get the safety net before attacking the “top” of what is reasonable.
And I’m kind of OK with a nearly infinite top… As long as the tax rate makes sense. If you’re at a 95% tax rate (and loopholes aren’t rampant… Lot of ifs here) then go nuts. You’ll be supplying a good life for many people, by force, as a result of good taxes and public policy.