ST Alpha - "Rather than the "valid reason" perspective I prefer the "extreme wealth in the hands of the few is incredibly inefficient for economic growth" stance. -- (edited)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 152

In response to "With Bezos looking to be the first trillionaire, time to bring back the 90% tax rate. There is no valid reason for any individual to hold that much " by TWuG

Rather than the "valid reason" perspective I prefer the "extreme wealth in the hands of the few is incredibly inefficient for economic growth" stance. -- (edited)

Posted by Max May 15 '20, 10:15

Being rich is valid, it's just that the rich will still be & get rich if the middle class (or pooled government funds) has a lot more disposable income. The validity of enriching the middle class is a much, much stronger case. You can still be a capitalist champion without being a supply-sider.

Responses:

"Capitalism until I get mine, then Feudalism" -- nm - Reagen May 15, 11:00
I would add that I think it's ultimately counterproductive for the rich as well. This level of wealth inequality is ultimately destabilizing. -- nm - pmb May 15, 10:30 1
- I agree with you 100% though it's one of those "well climate change will screw someone else over not me" thing for some people (not the smarter or mor - JackDawson May 15, 10:33
Perhaps the most persuasive reason for it (if only people understood it though) -- nm - JackDawson May 15, 10:16

Post a message top

Rather than the "valid reason" perspective I prefer the "extreme wealth in the hands of the few is incredibly inefficient for economic growth" stance. -- (edited)

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.