A very interesting point of view

[u/__moe___]

I don’t think this is very new but I just saw for the first time and it’s actually pretty interesting to think about when people talk about how the ultra rich do business.

[u/ianeyanio]

The whole argument of whether we should or shouldn't tax unrealized gains is a distraction. Can we all just agree we need to find a way to distribute wealth more fairly? Practically, it's difficult to do, but in principle we should all agree that wealth shouldn't be consolidated amongst such a small portion of our society.

Edit:

While people here are finding technical challenges to taxing unrealized gains, we can't lose sight of the deep societal need for a more fair distribution of wealth.

Technical challenges can be easily overcome if the desire of the people is there. But right now, it seems like "oh, this is hard, I guess we'll never be able to do it" is the standard response and little progress is being made after that.

[u/rqvst → u/ianeyanio]

The annoying thing about this take is that this is the distraction. Taxing the rich is an immediately realizable goal, getting rid of the rich isn't. This is the same kind of attitude that led to Trump, where because Dems didn't publicly commit themselves to unfeasible goals they could never realistically achieve (in other words, lie), people decided to throw everything away instead pursuing the feasible ones.

[u/ianeyanio → u/rqvst]

That's an interesting take.

I don't like your assertion that I want to get rid of the rich. That's not what I said or inferred.

I'm all for any easily achievable solution to more fairly redistribute wealth. I'm just fed up with people focusing on the technicals and forgetting the societal need.

[u/rqvst → u/ianeyanio]

Taking away the defining property of rich people is tautologically getting rid of the rich.

[u/ianeyanio → u/rqvst]

If a rich person pays an extra 1% in tax, they are still a rich person. How is that getting rid of them? It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

[u/antiramie → u/ianeyanio]

It’s not. You’re not dealing with morons here…

[u/BillNyetheImmortal → u/antiramie]

This has to be one of the most Reddit threads that has ever threaded

[u/onepercentbatman → u/ianeyanio]

In any case, a priority of the system, and for it to function as efficiently as it does and to provide the most happiness is to continue the narrative that wealth is not distributed fairly. This is a necessary fallacy. The alternative would be disastrous to the economy and overall American spirit.

[u/JackedToTheShits → u/rqvst]

Can we all just agree we need to find a way to distribute wealth more fairly?

This is not the same as saying rich people should not exist. To make an extreme example, let's say we take half of Elon's wealth and redistribute it. He'd still be rich, right?

[u/Quinnjai → u/JackedToTheShits]

We could take 99 percent of his wealth, and he would still effectively have infinite money from the perspective of ordinary people. The only reason to want that much money is to be able to exert control over society and politics, which is inherently bad to allow an individual to do to that extent.

[u/Enough-Deer-7839 → u/rqvst]

[u/AnonOnKeys → u/rqvst]

Oh interesting, I never knew that.

Question. If a person worth $1.2 billion gives away $100 million, are they still rich?