@muehlfield The people who ever told me that were well educated, and not particularly wealthy, individuals. In fact the wealthy people I know all go out of their way to voluntarily redistribute a portion of their own wealth.

@muehlfield If you are talking USA I strongly disagree. Their tax rate is already insanely high, higher than some of the most socialist nations.

Depnends on which country.. But generally the idea that "having rich people in a society is bad thus we must strive to eliminate it" is a short sighted and faulty premise. Money isnt like a pie, one person having more money doesnt mean there is less for everyone else.

Money is not a zero-sum game.

@muehlfield A vat is a flat tax (same rate no matter what your income). Therefore it wouldnt represent wealth redistribution.

As such I support VAT as well.

I most countries the rich dont avoid taxes though they may pay less through taking advantage of tax laws (like everyone else).

For example the 500 wealthiest people in the USA pay for mmore than half of all taxes.

@muehlfield Actually ive always supported eliminating income tax and replacing it with VAT.

The one exception to what you propose is that the VAT rate should follow the luxury of the item. Grocery food should be 0 VAT while a new porche should be high VAT, but otherwise I agree.

But the important part here is your original post about redistribution of wealth isnt what your proposing here. thus I agree with you. The rich would pay the same rate as the poor so this scenario would not eliminate or reduce rich people, so I can support it fully.

@muehlfield @freemo
I think it's not about taxing people in a post-match redistribution. It's about wealth distribution at the production of the wealth.

At the business level, when generating wealth, you share it between :
- workers (salaries, health plans etc.)
- society (corporation taxes)
- owners of the means of production (banks, shareholders etc.).
That's the place where you actually can change things.

About rich people : we do not need billionaires to maintain the economic system.


We dont **need** a lot of things. Whether we need billionaires or not is not a sufficient argument against them.

We also dont need deserts in a society. Generally cakes and other sweets do not feel any **needs** only indulgence. But I also wouldn't argue that we should abolish sugar and outlaw it in society simply because we dont need it.


@freemo @muehlfield Well it was about shares. So let's talk about shares.
Like the desert share should not be 99% of all the lunches of all the people, 1% richest should not possess more than the 99% others.

As you said, money is not a zero-sum game. Still, wealth is shared at one specific moment and this sharing should be fair.

Workers create wealth. Owners "take risks" as a mean of producing wealth. I don't hear a lot about billionaires losing enough to go poorer than median-revenue people.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!