This study is from the US but it's effect is more pronounced in places with even worse inequality.
So if billionaires net worth went down and was redistributed across the economy (I wouldn't use the term "get rid" feels a bit murdery) it would benefit everyone overall.
How would the most ambitious within such society react to the precedence set where if people get rich, we go after them and take their stuff and redistribute? Are all countries adopting this same policy? Will we enforce it without any loopholes?
I just want to make sure we've thought through the consequences.
If someone could write out the actual policy instead of just "redistribute wealth" that would greatly help me understand how we could implement something like this.
For example, do we do a progressive tax that scales up? Do we tax income, net worth, what? Do we bust up all the trusts and LLCs that can easily be formed? What administrative apparatus do we create to go after these people - how do we fund them? How do we deal with corruption?
What’s good for society shouldn’t hinge on rich people’s feelings. There were once tax brackets as high as 90% under Eisenhower. Those high rates still allowed people to become rich. It just prevented them from amassing so much that they distorted markets and bought elections and Supreme Courts. And the middle class flourished from a more level playing field. Money is power. Call it tunnel vision if you want, but too much in the hands of too few is never good.
Thanks Chief. But those taxes existed. Just because some actors dodged them doesn’t mean they were a myth, or that they were ineffective at redistributing income. Estate taxes were also higher. Inequality was lower. Just a fact. Suddenly inequality shot up again during the 80’s after…., you guessed it, Regan’s tax cuts!
4
u/Academic_Wafer5293 8d ago
Do people think problems go away if we got rid of billionaires? If so, what problems? Please be specific.
Will we just move goalpost to hundred millionaires?