https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44866621 - August 2025 (400 comments)
(slide 39, net migration to Earth is zero)
The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44866621 - August 2025 (400 comments)
(slide 39, net migration to Earth is zero)
Well, maybe if there was more equal income distribution, less overall penalization to those who do not have as many assets, and so on, then it would be more distributed?
I mean, that is basically what is happening anyway, but you have a nation distributing that wealth through social programs, instead of capitalists sharing their take willingly with those who helped them earn it.
This issue radically distorts the concept of who is contributing to society and who is living off the contributions of others.
The point I was making is that tax receipts don't really tell you much of anything about who's contributing to society. For instance farmers tend to be living close to broke and are typical recipients of various assistance programs. By contrast the Waltons have paid more in tax than most people will earn in their lifetime, many times over. Nonetheless, the world wouldn't even notice if the Waltons, and all like them, suddenly disappeared - whereas there'd be a catastrophic effect were the same to happen to even a tiny fraction of farmers.
In a way the current system is sort of like a privatized deflationary system. Your money becomes worth more over time, but only if you're wealthy enough to buy this privilege. For everybody else, inflation makes their money, and frequently their earnings, only decrease over time. And I think this is highly undesirable, even for somebody 100% okay with inequality.