Why on earth would taking wealth from everyone (and it turns into everyone – There are non-executive wage earners working mundane jobs who pay 50% taxes on their last bit of income and basically pay that on any overtime they work) and concentrating it in the hands of a few insanely powerful government workers ever result in less inequality? You’re literally making an overclass of super-powerful people a little bit stronger.
We’ve done that before – we gave all the power to people based not on their amount of money but instead their ownership and effective use of horsies and horsie accessories, hard clothing, and pokey sticks of varying descriptions and materials. It wasn’t a more equal society back then. The pokey stick hard clothing horsie people still got the nicest houses and could get a bunch of slaves to build big pointy buildings for them.
You’re just taking money from the super powerful (and everyone else) and giving it to the ultra mega powerful.
Take another shower. Taxes aren’t used to fix inequality. They’re used to fund infrastructure and services that we all need. They’re also used sometimes to redistribute income, but the idea isn’t to solve inequality. The idea is to get some income, in one form or another, to people who cannot or should not work, like the sick, children, the elderly, and anyone else excluded from the workforce. This non-working population needs income as much as the working population does and it doesn’t make sense to force them to get it in inefficient and harmful ways. Taxation to solve inequality is a myth that isn’t happening.
Stuff like wealth tax is being sold as a way tomfix inequality
Which non-executive mundane job worker is paying a wealth tax?
Where? I’m not a fan of her, but Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal is just a way to capture some more revenue (to do the things I mentioned) on a more progressive basis. There aren’t really any claims here about fixing inequality.
Firstly, you’re forgetting we live in a democracy. Voting is the source of that governments power - a mandate provided by the people.
Secondly, how the hell is this a shower thought? Shower thoughts are meant to be short, concise and interesting. This screed does not fit the bill.
Literally thought of it in the shower.
Indeed. And how is this a “…miniature epiphany that highlights the oddities of the familiar”?
It follows neither the letter nor the spirit of the community, and moreover creates disagreement in a community meant to be lighthearted and at worst, darkly amusing.
Shame there isn’t an “I’m 12 and this is deep” sub for idiotic posts like this.
The difference is that feudalism wasn‘t a democracy. In a democracy you can change what your tax income is spent on and you can decide whether or not you want it to go to welfare programs or whatever else. The money is not in the hands of government workers. Your taxes don’t go to the bank account of the head of state.
This is a bit oversimplified since there can of course be corruption inside of the government but in a functioning democracy, you are in a different position than what you describe here.
That’s not really true though. You can choose between the blue uniparty and the red uniparty (and occasionally an orange or light blue or purple uniparty)
Its a false choice. You get to choose between different colors of corrupt establishment who become rich off of their time in government because it turns out when you give someone that level of money and power they’ll definitely find ways to get some of it for themselves.
Yeah but the two-party system is a US thing which is ranking relatively poorly when it comes to democracies and is classified as a flawed democracy according to the Economist Democracy Index.
Your post makes it sound like increasing taxes for the rich will never lead to better circumstances for poor people but it absolutely does.
In a real democracy you can run to be elected. And if enough people like your policies you will be able to enact them.
There is a way to tax people at different rates based on there incomes. Marginally tax rates create brackets were the more inome you make the more taxes you pay porportionally.
If I make $500,000 in income I would pay more in taxes than someone making $27,000 in income. Creating an additional tax bracket with a higher tax percent could fund social programs.
There are additional ways to tax and ensure that those who need the money the most get taxed the least, maybe even note at all. You could do this just with the financial disclosure that everyone submits on their taxes every year.
Very short sighted OP. If we gave them more money they would finally have enough money to know how to ethically redistribute it ;] Taxation is theft.
