Should there be a wealth tax of 100% for net worth over $1 billion? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 05:11:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should there be a wealth tax of 100% for net worth over $1 billion? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should there be a wealth tax of 100% for net worth over $1 billion?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 73

Author Topic: Should there be a wealth tax of 100% for net worth over $1 billion?  (Read 1666 times)
Big Abraham
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,039
« on: April 11, 2021, 05:38:59 PM »

This isn't exactly my most bona fide leftist position, but it's not really "billionaires" that I inherently have a problem with.

Billionaires, or even the centi-billionaires as the richest subset among them, are really just a symptom of the economic system of a society which has gutted protections for the working-class, introduced austerity at every measure, drastically lowered the bargaining power of labor, and have stripped away the general affordability and attainability of most basic elements of life, such as one's education, living expenses and homeownership, transport, etc., coupled with wages that are so stagnant while the growth of the highest quartiles continues to grow at hitherto unheard of rates.

"Billionaires" only become to be seen as "the evil" due to the gross malapportionment of wealth. In reality, they are only the beneficiaries of the evil, and the workers the losers. But as the old saying goes: don't hate the player, hate the game. Billionaires wouldn't really be a problem at all if everyone had a floor of security in our society. During the Keynesian period, when the industrial working class probably had it the best at any time in history, the vast majority of working persons were able to, if they desired, enter a collective-bargaining agreement. If you look at the average wages/incomes for various trades in the year 1970 (prior to the neoliberal assault), you can see that, adjusting for inflation, the common laborer in construction was earning $75k a year on average (i.e., twice the average income of today), whereas the average price of a house was less than half what it is today. Simply put, no one today has even a fraction of the resources available to them that the earlier generation did, despite far higher rates of college graduation and the highest worker productivity levels we've ever seen.

Besides, the cut off at a billion seems incredibly arbitrary to me. Is someone allowed to attain a net worth of $999,999,999.99 but can't earn another penny after that? What is the point of that, exactly? As we have seen, it doesn't address the root problems of income inequality at all. And it would only further have the effect of causing would-be billionaires to invest their fortunes abroad in offshore tax havens, and prevent any further innovation on their part. Seems entirely pointless to me.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 14 queries.