pull down to refresh
Some people create things that other members of humanity want to use more than others.
Being a citizen of a nation where there is a strong economy and rule of law improves your chances of this happening.
Even someone who works as a labourer in a wealthy nation tends to earn more and enjoy a better standard of living than a labourer in a poverty stricken hellhole.
Get it yet?
Some people create things that other members of humanity want to use more than others
Yes. I'm of a mind that such people should get to keep the profit they make for doing this.
I suppose you would say a person's success is more dependent on their circumstances than on their choices. But wealthy nations do not exist because of magic, they exist because they are the product of "some people creating things that other members of humanity want to use."
Now before you get angry, wealthy nations also exist because they waged war and stolen things from others. I can see how this makes for the argument that such nations should redistribute their wealth to those who are poor. However, the evidence I see and have learned from history is that such efforts are always worse than the sickness.
'I suppose you would say a person's success is more dependent on their circumstances than on their choices.'
You suppose wrong.I never said that. The monetary success of people is a combination of factors- luck, hard work, and circumstances- but circumstances certainly include the structure of law and order and security that taxes enable.
Yes this is true of nations too although any study of history shows that some nations have exerted considerable power projection over other nations and hegemony over those weaker nations enabling the dominant nations and their citizens to enjoy significantly more opportunity and wealth than the nations who are subjugated.
But considering the notion of wealth taxes, especially in the context of the USA which is both globally the dominant power and where within the US there is huge inequality a wealth tax is highly justified as it would both recognise the significant advantage people have in the USA to achieve exceptional levels of wealth and the very high rate of inequality.
You assert that wealth redistribution does not work- it all depends on how it is done of course but in the Nordic countries for example there are high rates of tax and welfare support and most citizens accept this as it minimizes inequality. If you think inequality is not a problem then you have a different perspective-perhaps you have never experienced real poverty and the debilitating effect it can have on people. Personally I have lived in both a very egalitarian society (New Zealand of the 1970s) and a much less egalitarian society- New Zealand today- and I would say I much prefer the former. There are pros and cons but imo a highly unequal wealth distribution is both dangerous and unhealthy- and history shows this- high levels of inequality are highly correlated to civil unrest, corruption and economic and social decline.
As a relatively wealthy person I would much prefer a more egalitarian society as there is in my experience less societal tension and more utilisation of human capital.
Why does this seem to only happen to some people? For instance, Amjad Masad, the guy who started Replit, did not come from a wealthy family. However, now he is, I assume, much wealthier than me. What happened that made it so he benefited from the economic opportunities that collective human organized groups render to their citizens?