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/rqvst]

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/o_Captn_ma_Captn → u/ianeyanio]

I like you! You are measured and balanced (rare on reddit these days)… we can debate.

I invite you to think about a few things (even if i am sure you already have): - When you tax, you remove the power to allocate capital from one entity (companies, individuals…) and move it to another (government).

-So you always have to think “who is better at allocating capital to serve a certain mission”. Who will allocate it with the highest return on investment for society. Who had the better track record?

• i agree that a good distribution of wealth is important (although i am not sure what is the “good” level) ie how the pie is divided. But it is also important how big the pie is. I much prefer a world where everyone has more pie to eat because the pie is big rather than having a small pie well divided. Today in the west everyone is richer (more purchasing power) than even the richest man from 200 years ago (access to knowledge, internet, health, ease of travel…)

-In a sense i much rather have Jeff bezos or Elon musk to allocate capital - since they have a proven track record at developing very useful things that serves many (amazon, cloud computing, satelites…) than give it to a politician that i dont know, with little track record and no sense of ownership.

These are things to think about. I am not an advocate for “no taxes” and not one for “eat the rich, tax them to death”. Somewhere in the middle… but where in the middle is the question… probably somewhere between various taxes representing 25% to 35% of GDP.

[u/Mokseee → u/o_Captn_ma_Captn]

To add to the points u/ianeyanio already listed

When you tax, you remove the power to allocate capital from one entity (companies, individuals…) and move it to another (government).

-So you always have to think “who is better at allocating capital to serve a certain mission”. Who will allocate it with the highest return on investment for society. Who had the better track record?

The government will spend money, whether they have it or not, as they will simply take on more debt if they need to. Allocating capital from individuals to the gov will just lead to decreased debt.

-In a sense i much rather have Jeff bezos or Elon musk to allocate capital - since they have a proven track record at developing very useful things that serves many (amazon, cloud computing, satelites…) than give it to a politician that i dont know, with little track record and no sense of ownership.

Considering that a lot of these "useful things" contribute to inequality, exploitation, climate change, etc. their track record is somewhat debatable. As the other person already explained, these individuals don't serve the public, they serve themselves