this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
1528 points (96.1% liked)
Memes
45727 readers
1542 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do not hate billionaires for being billionaires. But I'm against a system that unjustly and inefficiently concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people while basic necessities such as housing become unaffordable because the beneficiaries of that system are turning it into an investment through which extract more wealth from the people below themselves.
To illustrate how bad this argument is. Middle Ages nobles made contributions to society in the form of collecting taxes, managing land and organizing armies. That doesn't mean that feudalism isn't a bollocks system nor that you shouldn't come up with ways of collecting taxes, managing land and organizing armies that don't incentivize privilege and corruption.
I agree that concentrated wealth isn't an efficient distribution.
So what can we do, 100% taxes over a million?
What's the incentive then to work harder if you earn over a million?
Billionaires paying the same tax rate as high paying professionals is just fine. And no tax evasion using non-profit facades.
If you're are literally working so hard that you're 100 times more productive than someone earning minimum wage, take a vacation. If you don't want to, it's clear that money isn't what motivates you the most when you choose to continue working.
Of course, you must be really ignorant to believe that people earn 100 times more than someone earning minimum wage because they're 100 times more productive. Your capacity to produce is not the same as your capacity to earn money.
But that's the point, you're spray taking 100 types the risk when starting a business.
That's what's greenbelt not taken into account.
The start up costs, the risk involved, the investment capital.
The owners of the business hold all this risk so they should receive the reward as well.
50% of business don't survive the first five years.
Investing isn't working, and you were talking about working harder.
I'm talking about risk. The workers don't saddle the risk.
And just because you haven't said it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So we can only talk about one thing?
That's a ridiculous position.
If we're talking about X, you argue A, I counter with B, and instead of counter-arguing you just jump to a different point or framing, you just don't want to admit that your premise didn't hold much weight to begin with. "I want a system that rewards hard work" "This system doesn't reward hard work" "Whatever, I want risk-taking people to be rewarded" You aren't so much arguing as you're rationalizing your position, rather than sincerely taking a look at your own argument when it's challenged.
I said that billionaires produce something many people want.
I didn't specifically say they work harder.
And part of the rain why they are paid more is because they have a higher risk element than the average worker.
It's an especially part of the conversation.
I'm not just going to exclude it just to make you right.
It's part of the reason why they should be rewarded with higher payments, because they took the higher risk.