[flagged]
1. Progressive taxation scale. Not the fake system we have in every developed country, but the real progressive system, which doesn't end at the minuscule sum of 100-200k, but is proportional until the infinity, certainly into the billions.
2. "Ban" offshores and tax heavens.
If this has happened somehow magically a vast majority of the financial issues would go away immediately.
For arguments sake, I don't think it's outrageous to guarantee someone who has created great value that their children will live comfortably throughout their lives. But there may be a class of people who consume a disproportionate amount of goods and services who have not personally contributed to our society, but by fortune of birth are allowed to continue an extravagant lifestyle.
Wealthy people want to stay wealthy, powerful people don't want to give up power. Everything else is a struggle over the collective spreadsheet. "Should life be more fair? If so, what does that look like?" is what keeps all of this in perpetual tension.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live
Look at it from the perspective of the parents. My kid is my kid because I decided to have it and it's got 50% of my DNA. I decided to not have my kid in my Somalia. Just as my parents decided not to have me in Somalia.
And all around me I see how so many parents making terrible life choices.
I'm teaching my kid to answer "blame your parents".
We can't play roulette with our leadership. There is a reason monarchies are good as dead.
I worked at a shop where the pay scale worked out like the following.
- Eng2: 140k - Eng Manager: 180k - Eng Director: 250-500k depending - C suite: 20 MM per year (direct payment) - Founder: > 200 MM per year (ownership stake/cap gains).
I suspect that such scales are more common than we know.
These are mutually contradictory: if we can shift that ratio by policy, it’s a choice. Yes, some choices will have drawbacks but if the number has shifted by 20 points in recent decades it can’t be “the natural order of things” and it’s completely reasonable to ask whether different percentages would be better for society overall.
No matter who is in charge, the world is going to be messed up in various ways.
Upsetting the economic pyramid will naturally form a new pyramid, with concentrations of wealth at the top. Pereto + Solow–Swan...eg In communist(ish) countries, the concentration incidentally ends up in the hands of the highest political positions and a few private individuals.
No, there is nothing "natural" about our current ownership distribution. Was Gilded Age wealth concentration "the natural order of things"?
>>Its not like the 10%ers (outside the Physician cartel) are writing laws to entrench their positions.
Are you trolling? Have you never heard of PAC's? SuperPAC's? What do you think campaign contributions to legislators are buying? Many industries and wealthy individuals/groups are in fact doing exactly this.