Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Estro Felino]

Limiting the free & legal activity of others
won't generate a rising tide for all boats.
Or for any boats.
That professor suffers from ivory tower
isolation, & the politics of envy.

Exactly.
There are billionaires who own many banks who cannot breathe unless they gain their daily million of dollars.
They start having convulsions...or even a seizure if they gain less than that a day.

Because they need to spend it on very spiritual and edifying activities. In casinos and luxury brothels.

 

[Estro Felino]

There is something called monetary circuit.
The more billions few banking dynasties phagocytize monstrously, the more poor people there will be.
Money is finite. It's a circuit.
It's not inexhaustible.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are billionaires who own many banks....

I think you should date one.

 

[Heyo]

Often gnawing at the back of my mind, especially when seeing the taxes avoided by the wealthy, what are your thoughts on this issue?

‘No one should have more than €10m’: the author of Limitarianism on why the super-rich need to level down radically

Prof Ingrid Robeyns has spent a decade studying wealth and ethics and says that limits are essential if we want to eradicate poverty and protect social cohesion and the planet

www.theguardian.com

This is a philosophy that appeals to me more than most, and which mostly has done all my life, given that apart from the iniquities of vast wealth differences, unearned power often comes with such wealth as well as the greater chance to escape justice or wield such power for dubious purposes, and of course the notion that some should be rewarded exponentially more than others - because they own or control a business - is just ludicrous, and why I would like to see more public ownership - certainly of essential services. But no doubt many will disagree.



Got my vote.



I think I have this book - Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty - but as usual, economics books are about as much top of my reading list as religious and political ones are.

Any interested in economics/politics and/or philosophy want to chime in?

While I agree that nobody needs more than $10,000,000, I think that capping the wealth isn't the right thing to do.
There are better methods which may or may not lead to an effective cap, but at least they lead to an end of the ever wider opening of the wealth gap. There are:
- the 100% inheritance tax that would effectively stop the accumulation of wealth, or
- the progressive income tax (with a formula that has a 100% income tax for someone with an 100% income), and
- UBI

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Often gnawing at the back of my mind, especially when seeing the taxes avoided by the wealthy, what are your thoughts on this issue?

Reminded me of this with I saw on YouTube this morning.

Elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty is also a core Baha'i principle.

Regards Tony

 

[Estro Felino]

While I agree that nobody needs more than $10,000,000, I think that capping the wealth isn't the right thing to do.
There are better methods which may or may not lead to an effective cap, but at least they lead to an end of the ever wider opening of the wealth gap. There are:
- the 100% inheritance tax that would effectively stop the accumulation of wealth, or
- the progressive income tax (with a formula that has a 100% income tax for someone with an 100% income), and
- UBI

Article 14, Grundgesetz
(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
(3) Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good. It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation. Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. In case of dispute concerning the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.


Do we need more, here?
I don't think so: the law says it all. An equitable balance between the public interests an the interests of privates
The public good is the limit to people's excessive greed.

In Socialist Europe, that's a given.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Limiting the free & legal activity of others
won't generate a rising tide for all boats.
Or for any boats.
That professor suffers from ivory tower
isolation, & the politics of envy.

Well envy is always thrown at those with such views but I think it is really unfair - I certainly don't envy the rich, given that it tends to be those with wealth who are the targets for criminals so often.

 

[Mock Turtle]

While I agree that nobody needs more than $10,000,000, I think that capping the wealth isn't the right thing to do.
There are better methods which may or may not lead to an effective cap, but at least they lead to an end of the ever wider opening of the wealth gap. There are:
- the 100% inheritance tax that would effectively stop the accumulation of wealth, or
- the progressive income tax (with a formula that has a 100% income tax for someone with an 100% income), and
- UBI

A cap doesn't strike me as too useful either but I don't know what might reverse the current trend as to wealth inequality.

 

[Heyo]

Well envy is always thrown at those with such views but I think it is really unfair - I certainly don't envy the rich, given that it tends to be those with wealth who are the targets for criminals so often.

Envy is a really bad argument. It is assigning a motive with only weak evidence. I can counter that by assigning a motive to the rich with the same amount, in fact, the same, evidence. The rich are just greedy.
Now we have two (Christian) "sins" which both aren't even illegal. It's a wash.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well envy is always thrown at those with such views but I think it is really unfair - I certainly don't envy the rich, given that it tends to be those with wealth who are the targets for criminals so often.

The "politics of envy" doesn't mean that every
adherent envies the wealthy. Only most.
It's natural to want the plenty that others have.
How to get it?
Instead of working for wealth, have government
just take & re-distribute it. Easy peasy!
But there'll be consequences that the would-be
beneficiaries never address. Nor do they offer
evidence that it'll work, eg, real world examples.

I'm reminded of a tenant I once had. He was poor.
He didn't work. (He found it onerous.) He carped
that he had no money because "the rich people
took it all". That attitude led to eviction.

 

[Estro Felino]

The "politics of envy" doesn't mean that every
adherent envies the wealthy. Only most.
It's natural to want the plenty that others have.
How to get it?
Instead of working for wealth, have government
just take & re-distribute it. Easy peasy!
But there'll be consequences that the would-be
beneficiaries never address. Nor do they offer
evidence that it'll work, eg, real world examples.

For example, Anti-Natalists say it's a matter of resources. Not of money. Neo-Malthusianism is similar.
So they advocate for a reduction of the population, by decreasing births (of course those who can afford children, they will have them):
What do you think of this stance, as a liberaltarian?

 

[Revoltingest]

For example, Anti-Natalists say it's a matter of resources. Not of money. Neo-Malthusianism is similar.
So they advocate for a reduction of the population, by decreasing births (of course those who can afford children, they will have them):
What do you think of this stance, as a liberaltarian?

I advocate voluntary population reduction.

 

[Estro Felino]

I advocate voluntary population reduction.

I asked you another question. Of macroeconomics.
Do you think that the population reduction will have a positive influence on the world economy (and on the national economies)?

 

[Revoltingest]

I asked you another question. Of macroeconomics.
Do you think that the population reduction will have a positive influence on the world economy (and on the national economies)?

It depends upon what you believe is "positive".
Define that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

For example, Anti-Natalists say it's a matter of resources. Not of money. Neo-Malthusianism is similar.
So they advocate for a reduction of the population, by decreasing births (of course those who can afford children, they will have them):

Do you only advocate for a "reduction of the population" for people you deem unable to afford children, or does that extend to everyone regardless of financial status?

 

[Estro Felino]

It depends upon what you believe is "positive".
Define that.

By positive I mean that there will be much more social justice and less inequalities.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you only advocate for a "reduction of the population" for people you deem unable to afford children, or does that extend to everyone regardless of financial status?

Only for the people who can't afford them. The first.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Only for the people who can't afford them. The first.

And where do you think those people are, and what is their impact on natural resources compared to those who have a far higher standard of living?

Should poor Italians and other poor Europeans stop having children, then?

 

[Estro Felino]

And where do you think those people are, and what is their impact on natural resources compared to those who have a far higher standard of living?

Third world people do want to have a higher standard of living. Otherwise they would not migrate, I guess.

Should poor Italians and other poor Europeans stop having children, then?

Absolutely.
And I also mean middle class people. They should avoid that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Third world people do want to have a higher standard of living. Otherwise they would not migrate, I guess.

Yes, most people want a higher standard of living. My point is that as things currently are, there's no evidence that the poorest people in the world have anywhere near a globally significant impact on natural resources.

If you have such evidence, I would like to see it.

Absolutely.
And I also mean middle class people. They should avoid that.

It seems strange to me that you would criticize wealthy people and "lounge-loving elites" so often but then make an argument that effectively entails that only they should have children.