It really depends on what your goal is. If the goal is to dillute power and prevent corruption this would be the minimum I think. Anymore and it just frees up too much money that will inevitably be used to tip the scales in a typical representative democracy.
Honestly though it is really needs to be a solution everyone can agree to even if there are some winners and losers. Figuring out a way to allow people to accumulate without damaging society really is the goal and you could argue ultimately it is just a cultural issue and perhaps not a policy one.
I personally think in the US the greed culture has completely dominated and overshadowed everything else to a point that only money matters anymore. Classism it out of control and no one is around to say stop. We are reminiscent of a spoiled toddler that has never been told no.
The goal should be to address wealth inequality, which inevitably leads to oppression, as the wealthy have more power to write laws and entrench their wealth and power further. We either mitigate this legally / socially, or it will fix itself, and the fix will not be comfortable or gentle.
If someone has hundreds of billions of personal wealth then he has more individual wealth than the cumulative sum of the bottom perhaps 30 or 40% of the planet. This is 2 to 3B people. This is not defensible.
To be honest I think it’s weird to have a system where you give people a bunch of wealth only to then have the state later take it away. Why does the system work such that they get all that wealth to begin with?
Yes the problem lies in how the wealth is accumulated, its extracted from someone.
If they all worked super hard for it nobody would have a problem. But the reality is, all workers get a paycut so the equity owner can chill and see his money rise.
Originally it was just a really high tax rate at the highest bracket. This accounted for a monetary system that is essentially gamed. In the US the government reversed this under the theory of trickle down economics. This allowed a large group of people to greatly grow their investments and their wealth accordingly.
Inheritance tax is used to recoup some of these lost taxes but it is a poor way to do it. The correction should be at the beginning not the end. I agree with you.
99.9999% tax rate beyond $10 million total worth would be a great start.
You’re even harsher than I am, I would put it at 100M, but I’m totally down to negotiate.
I would even go up to 1B.
It really depends on what your goal is. If the goal is to dillute power and prevent corruption this would be the minimum I think. Anymore and it just frees up too much money that will inevitably be used to tip the scales in a typical representative democracy.
Honestly though it is really needs to be a solution everyone can agree to even if there are some winners and losers. Figuring out a way to allow people to accumulate without damaging society really is the goal and you could argue ultimately it is just a cultural issue and perhaps not a policy one.
I personally think in the US the greed culture has completely dominated and overshadowed everything else to a point that only money matters anymore. Classism it out of control and no one is around to say stop. We are reminiscent of a spoiled toddler that has never been told no.
The goal should be to address wealth inequality, which inevitably leads to oppression, as the wealthy have more power to write laws and entrench their wealth and power further. We either mitigate this legally / socially, or it will fix itself, and the fix will not be comfortable or gentle.
If someone has hundreds of billions of personal wealth then he has more individual wealth than the cumulative sum of the bottom perhaps 30 or 40% of the planet. This is 2 to 3B people. This is not defensible.
Execute anyone over $10 million net worth
To be honest I think it’s weird to have a system where you give people a bunch of wealth only to then have the state later take it away. Why does the system work such that they get all that wealth to begin with?
Yes the problem lies in how the wealth is accumulated, its extracted from someone. If they all worked super hard for it nobody would have a problem. But the reality is, all workers get a paycut so the equity owner can chill and see his money rise.
Originally it was just a really high tax rate at the highest bracket. This accounted for a monetary system that is essentially gamed. In the US the government reversed this under the theory of trickle down economics. This allowed a large group of people to greatly grow their investments and their wealth accordingly.
Inheritance tax is used to recoup some of these lost taxes but it is a poor way to do it. The correction should be at the beginning not the end. I agree with you.
Because capitalism is the best way to distribute resources (to the top).