I disagree, at least not with so simple an implementation. I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes. There should be at least a minimum threshold where wealth is completely untaxed so that people can live freely and not have to work until they die. Enough for a house, some property and land, and a retirement fund. I'd consider it more justifiable to tax someone like Bill Gates with billions of dollars and millions of acres of land, but it's just unnecessary for taxes to be absolutely inescapable.
This comment perfectly encapsulates the political/societal leanings I completely disagree with. This sentiment of "nobody can have anything nice unless there's enough for absolutely everyone to have an equal amount."
Life's not fair, and no amount of politics or regulations will change that. There will always be some people with better health, more attractiveness, more intelligence, more charisma, better connections, more drive, better self-control, and so on. I have excellent physical and mental health despite hardly ever going to a doctor in my life; I have good genes and I have a natural interest in eating healthy and exercising. Some people are born into rich families and will never have to work a day in their life if they don't want to. Some people are beautiful and go about their life just shy of being worshipped because of their looks. That's life.
I have zero problem with a world in which some people have a way better life than everyone else. My goal is to avoid bringing anybody down while bringing as many people as possible up. Let the rich guy be rich, and find a way to help the poor guy educate himself and get more opportunities. Let the beautiful people be beautiful, and help everyone else take care of themselves better and learn to make the most of what they have. It's anti-freedom and dictatorial to force everybody to wage slavery just because some people are born poor or are careless about their finances.
> This comment perfectly encapsulates the political/societal leanings I completely disagree with. This sentiment of "nobody can have anything nice unless there's enough for absolutely everyone to have an equal amount."
That's not what the OP said. They said that they're against a system that permits some to escape work while others never can. In other words, some people can comfortably retire when they're old, and some are basically forced to work until the day they die, and some never have to work at all. That's not at all the same as saying that everyone should have equal outcomes at all levels of the game, so much as saying that everyone should eventually be able to cross the same finish line.
> It's anti-freedom and dictatorial to force everybody to wage slavery just because some people are born poor or are careless about their finances.
What you're failing to recognize is that wealth disparities are artificially created by government policies. The government isn't going around dictating to people what is or is not beautiful, or dictating what you must eat so you will be healthy, or what you must wear to be fashionable, but they are dictating what every person must pay into the system to keep it running.
It turns out, the people who are benefitting the most from the system are not paying into that system. If you're really interested in spreading freedom, then perhaps you should be more invested in the 99.9% whose financial freedoms are being curtailed in order to prop up that remaining 0.01%.
> In other words, some people can comfortably retire when they're old, and some are basically forced to work until the day they die, and some never have to work at all. That's not at all the same as saying that everyone should have equal outcomes at all levels of the game, so much as saying that everyone should eventually be able to cross the same finish line.
That's exactly what I was referring to. Unless everybody can retire, nobody can retire. No thanks. I will do whatever it takes to keep the US from becoming that kind of a dystopia.
> What you're failing to recognize is that wealth disparities are artificially created by government policies.
I don't hold that belief. Disparities and inequality are fundamental to human life, which is why I gave the example of attractiveness, health, etc. I also mentioned careless people because you'll always have people who are self-destructive or unable to support themselves, and you can't help every single person. I'm not bothered by that, I accept it as reality. Thus I think it's utopian to believe it's possible to live fully equally, and it only keeps anybody from having nice things just because there's not enough for everyone.
> That's exactly what I was referring to. Unless everybody can retire, nobody can retire.
No, it simplifies to "everybody can retire, period".
> I don't hold that belief. Disparities and inequality are fundamental to human life
When someone refers to "wealth inequality", they're not talking about disparities of 1 or two orders of magnitude, they're talking about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. Show me a disparity in beauty or health of 6 orders of magnitude.
It's pretty clear that these analogies are not remotely faithful to what we're discussing here.
> No, it simplifies to "everybody can retire, period".
Sure, I'd love that too. It's a great goal but not one that I remotely believe is actually achievable. Feel free to come back within the next 50 years and say you told me so if I end up being wrong.
> When someone refers to "wealth inequality", they're not talking about disparities of 1 or two orders of magnitude, they're talking about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.
This is an unfounded claim. I'd love to see what data you're basing this on.
> Show me a disparity in beauty or health of 6 orders of magnitude.
I can also easily show you disparities of that magnitude: just look at any of the many chronically ill patients that rack up medical expenses throughout their life, versus people who smoke and drink into their 80s and 90s without a problem and never see a doctor. You can easily use total lifetime medical cost as a metric if you want to meet your arbitrary disparity threshold. If you're in the "everyone's beautiful/healthy/smart in their own way" crowd then we have fundamentally different stances and there's little use talking further.
What incentive would I have in your system to be a frugal hard worker that practices delayed gratification instead of a dopamine-addicted wasteful lazy consumer?
What incentive do I have in not-that-system to be a cooperative, generous hard worker that practices collectivism instead of a power-addicted exploitative ambitious business magnate?
Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. I'm a misanthrope and I don't want to live in a collective society, I want to live in a society where I can get away from other humans and keep to myself. Taxes and laws are enough to keep society civil and functional; going beyond that is imposing your own personal beliefs on everyone else, like a theocracy or dictatorship.
This is a pretty hilarious take IMO. Cooperation is literally the only reason humans are the dominant species on the planet. But sure, "overrated and unnecessary".
There's a difference between collectivism and cooperation. I contrast collectivism with individualism; i.e. valuing the collective over the individual vs valuing the individual over the collective. I want to live in an individualist society, not a collectivist one.
Most of the wealth tax proposals I've seen don't even kick in until you have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think anybody needs to be worried about those people having to work until they die.
> I think no matter what you do, bad unintended consequences will occur.
I agree, and that's why I don't freak out when we have inequality. It's unavoidable for as long as we allow humans to grow based on genetic lottery rather than pre-approved personalities. No matter what system you have, if I'm smart and selfish enough, I'll find a way to exploit it for my benefit at least, and maybe go out of my way to harm others if I'm sadistic, too.
