Slashdot Mirror
'The Second Gilded Age Is Upon Us' (theguardian.com)
Robotron23 writes: Wealth inequality is at its highest since the turn of the 20th century -- the so-called 'Gilded Age' -- as the proportion of capital held by the world's 1,542 dollar billionaires swells further. The report, commissioned by the Swiss banking giant UBS and UK accounting company PwC, discusses the impacts of technology and globalization on the situation, and arrives weeks after the IMF recommended that the world's richest pay higher taxes to ease the disparity of wealth.
It could apply to most countries in South America, Africa, Asia, and even eastern Europe.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Unless they were made rich by being a part of the corrupt Venezuelan government, then probably yes. The "rich" in Venezuela are seeing everything they have worked for and accumulated eroded by rampant hyperinflation and there are few decent prospects for the future. Living in a cardboard box under a bridge in the States doesn't have to be a permanent state, but by living in a safer environment with a more stable economy they would be able to restart their lives and succeed again.
This doesn't have to be the state of affairs in Venezuela, but the Venezuelans voted for that over and over and over again.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
No. You can't decide that taxation is theft when it is for something you agree with, and that it isn't theft when it is for something you don't.
Yes, I certainly can. The purpose of the tax is critical in determining if it is a valid tax, and if it is invalid then it is theft. You can't get away with the idea that "no tax is a bad tax", or the opposite "every tax is a good tax". That's how we get so many taxes -- people who have never met a tax they didn't like.
When the purpose is solely to take money from some people to give it to others, it is a bad tax, and it is theft. There is no justification for that kind of tax.
Taxation is the price you pay to own property,
We're not talking about a property tax.
buy goods,
We're not talking about a sales tax, and in any case, a "sales tax" is not the justification for being able to buy things. I get to buy all kinds of things without paying a sales tax. Nobody has EVER said that a sales tax is necessary to give anyone the right to buy something.
and earn an income in a specific society.
How about the price for being able to breathe? You forgot that excuse.
No, it doesn't. The attitude isn't "you don't need your money".
That is EXACTLY the excuse being presented for over-taxing the rich. "You don't need that much money" is a statement that they don't need all of their money, so THAT part of their money belongs to the state, to be given to other people.
The attitude is "let's use our elected representatives to create an economic policy that is optimal".
Social engineering is yet another false purpose for taxation. Paying for common services, yes. Giving it to people because you think they deserve to have more is not.
Our system is allowing people to die because they don't have money,
Hyperbole much?
while other people are using excess money to plate their bathrooms in gold,
That's yet another example of "you don't need your money". Taking it away from them because you think they have too much so you can give it to someone else is not a valid reason for taxation. Remember, this is about taxation to ease the disparity of wealth, not to provide healthcare or education. It's to take money away from some people who YOU think shouldn't have it to give it to people YOU think should have more.
In fact, I explicitly said that we should create our policy to enable meritocracy to the greatest extent possible.
No, you're quite ready to take money from the people who earn it because you don't think they deserve it. That's not enabling meritocracy, that's punishing it.
People don't have equal access to education. If you disagree, then let's pick the school your kids attend by random lottery.
School funding is a local issue. If your local community chooses not to fund schools well, well, take it up with them. Why should people who live on the other side of the country pay for educating YOUR children if YOU vote down any and all school tax levies that would pay for more things? In any case, funding it not the only reason some schools excel. In fact, some schools do very well on a lot less money than others, and it is often correlated to number of staff and overhead more than just dollars per student. But again, we're not talking about a tax to fund schools, it's to "ease wealth disparity".
Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy.
Yes, and? Bills take place after the care is provided. I've yet to see a hospital come take back the kidney they stitched into someone because the bill wasn't paid. I have heard about hospitals writing off bills for people who cannot pay.
It's not much, but I donate $50 a month to Living