Similar things have been tried, they simply don't work.. We could, within the system, implement 92% income tax on anyone making over a million. We can introduce much higher estate taxes again. These are all changes within the system. — Benkei
The simple fact is that when taxation is so high, people simply avoid income, postpone any selling of any property that doesn't have to be sold. Better yet, hold it in cash or simply take the money abroad. — ssu
I would put it this way: If you have a healthy prosperous economy, you can afford a welfare state and all the perks that come with it. Hence the state should have at first priority the economy and the keeping the instititutions operating that keep the economy healthy (that prevent corruption, guarantee property rights and human rights, maintain and develop the needed infrastructure).The way the system is set up, as you're describing, is that you wind up with less for yourself the more you help others (via your tax dollars). If we instead make it that the way you get more for yourself, more scarce resources, is by doing more to help others, then you have an incentive rather than a disincentive to help. — Terrapin Station
While it may be money that concerns everybody, what about the benefits of everyone being a potential billionaire? That anyone can become rich or super-rich provides the necessary imeptus for creativity, innovation, progress in any field imaginable. Isn't this the actual, perhaps unmeasurable, gain in providing an opportunity for everyone to be super-rich? Billionaires are the success stories that motivate people and drive them to work harder and smarter. — TheMadFool
f your primary goal in eliminating billionaires is to eliminate their corrupting influence, then pass laws controlling their influence, as opposed to increasing their tax burden to eliminate their billions. That would seem to address the problem without striking a blow to the underlying ideology of the entire capitalistic system. — Hanover
I would put it this way: If you have a healthy prosperous economy, you can afford a welfare state and all the perks that come with it. Hence the state should have at first priority the economy and the keeping the instititutions operating that keep the economy healthy (that prevent corruption, guarantee property rights and human rights, maintain and develop the needed infrastructure). — ssu
Above all, one has to have a power elite and rich class that feels that it is their obligation or role to take care of the ordinary people and the poor. One typical way is for the power elite to be patriotic and have a sense that they have a mission for the country. — ssu
At worst the power elite and the rich are afraid to loose their power and wealth and percieve "the people" as a threat, as the ignorant violent rabble, that has to be policed and prevented from destroying the society and collapsing everything into anarchy. In this case there isn't much if any social cohesion, and you basically have this feeling of class warfare. — ssu
Care to give an example of a country that doesn't have a power elite? An executive branch?Care to explain why one "has to" have a power elite in the first place? — Echarmion
No, absolutely not, my argument is that a healthy society starts with social cohesion. Antagonizing classes against each other isn't the way to create prosperity for all.So, your argument is that we should fear the rich, and therefore not antagonize them? — Echarmion
If their influence is impenetrable, then we can't pass laws increasing their tax burden either. — Hanover
Yes.Isn't the economy a contingent goal given your own argument? The actual first priority is the well being of the citizens. The economy is a means to an end. — Echarmion
on the basis that somehow nothing could possibly work properly without them. Now that's social engineering. — Baden
Care to give an example of a country that doesn't have a power elite? An executive branch?
Basically any kind of centralized government means that there is in one form or another a power elite. Quite ignorant or hypocrite to assume there wouldn't be a power elite. — ssu
No, absolutely not, my argument is that a healthy society starts with social cohesion. Antagonizing classes against each other isn't the way to create prosperity for all. — ssu
And do notice that the power elite doesn't have to be bunch of rich billionaires and wealthy families. It can be, like in the case of Venezuela, adamant socialists clinging to their power. Or in the case of China, a communist party that has thrown away communism and replaced it with state run capitalism, which could be described as fascism. — ssu
Yes.
But do note that any political ideology starts as the objective being "the well being of the citizens". This well being then can be tried to be reached with quite horrible means, starting with killing off a social class or an ethnic or racial minority. — ssu
I made the emphasis as typically in the West nowdays it's just assumed that economy will do just fine and is taken as granted. And do note that it's the institutions themselves that also protects the citizens from monopolies, cartels or corruption.
That is, if corruption isn't made legal as in the US. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.