←back to thread

131 points Traces | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.629s | source
Show context
samiv ◴[] No.44442587[source]
I hope this works. The only way to save the economy and the society is by taxing the rich.

Think about it for a minute. The rich people hoard all the resources, financial assets, means of production and in the competition for resources they will (and are doing so) displace everyone else in the economy (and really from society also).

This means that those who are displaced have no means to participate in the economy. And not only that but also they will be pushed to the fringes of the society and exists in slum conditions. This will stiff the economy and hollow it out.

Let's say for arguments sake that the government taxes X hundred of millions of $ from the bezos/musks/gates/etc. and put that into the economy by

  - indirectly or directly hiring people
  - building infrastructure
  - providing services for the citizens (education, health care etc)
  - providing benefits to those who need. 
All that money will immediately go back into the economy stimulating all kinds of economic activity. And essentially two weeks later that same X hundred million is back in the bank account of bezos/musk/gates and it can be taxed again!

By letting the uber rich hoard the wealth that wealth is essentially away from the economy providing very little economic activity.

In economy this is known as the "high propensity to spend". The "poor" (i.e. working/middle class people) have high propensity to spend, the rich have low propensity to spend.

Tax the wealth, not the work!

This has been done before and it can be done again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

replies(5): >>44442678 #>>44442803 #>>44442851 #>>44443141 #>>44450759 #
tzekid ◴[] No.44442678[source]
In modern societies: top 1% of earners pay roughly 30% of taxes top 5% pay 65% of taxes top 10% pay 80% of taxes while bottom 50% usually barely make 2% of taxes.

Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better.

replies(7): >>44442710 #>>44442717 #>>44442719 #>>44442741 #>>44442742 #>>44442804 #>>44443065 #
myrmidon ◴[] No.44442804[source]
Sure, but how "heavy" is that redistribution though?

Top 1% paying 30% of taxes sounds like a really rough deal for them at first, but if those 1%ers already own over 30% of your country in the first place (which is the case in the US), then thats barely their "fair share", and you are not really achieveing any redistribution at all.

How can you be certain that the problem is "progressive taxation is not working" instead of "taxation does not help against wealth inequality because it is actually barely progressive"?

replies(1): >>44442848 #
hnhg ◴[] No.44442848[source]
Also the top 1% covers everything from the very affluent middle class to billionaires - the distance from the least rich part of the 1% to the richest part spans billions, much greater than the rest of the distribution's 99%.
replies(1): >>44443105 #
1. cloverich ◴[] No.44443105[source]
top 1% net worth is around 10 million says google. That's enough to live off and not need to work at any age. It's clearly not middle class.
replies(1): >>44444472 #
2. hnhg ◴[] No.44444472[source]
It depends on where you are. There are parts of the USA where a 10 million net worth does not mean you are "yacht rich" (but certainly very comfortable).
replies(1): >>44448054 #
3. ethbr1 ◴[] No.44448054[source]
No one has a right to live anywhere specific. That seems like an individual's problem rather than a government's.