'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.
'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.