Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I don't know because I think if people got paid fair wages the world would look very different, and the cost of living calculations we currently use to determine fair wages would change in ways I can't predict.
I think that with aggressive progressive taxes, we'd see the range of incomes get compressed, and lift lower incomes. I'm not entirely sure how that'd affect cost of living, it'd probably go up, but wages would go up more.
But if I had to guess, if say everyone should be making between $100k and $300k, and I should probably be somewhere in the middle of that.
Funny enough, California has a very progressive tax system, and has higher than normal income inequality but a higher base standard of living than the rest of the US. I think having an economy with more opportunities for people inflates everyone's income, including the rich.
But it brings up a question, if everyone were to have a decent standard of living, is it as big a problem that rich people exist? Obviously we're not there yet, but hypothetically in a post scarcity world, it's an interesting thing to think about.
To me, the ideal system would be everyone has enough to live comfortably, and the rest is allocated according to how hard or smart people work.
The problem is loopholes, but I'm not a tax lawyer, which is why I provi such a vague answer.
I think that ostentatious wealth is a sign you're not doing your share to help the society that supports you, so the disgustingly rich shouldn't exist. But I'm not opposed to a little inequality as reward for doing important work or going above and beyond, but what we have now is crazy.
I wouldn't really say that California's tax is especially progressive compared to taxes in the past, like the golden age of the USA. But even then, lobbyists have opened so many loopholes that it doesn't even really matter what the tax rate is