Comment on If AI takes most of our jobs, money as we know it will be over. What then?

• Vinstaal0@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Which goes through the government.

  Again if you want more income for those at the bottom you want efficient tax methods and 100% is not an efficient tax method since people will do EVERYTHING they can to avoid it. If people can accept a tax rate, they will pay it. Well a lot more people will pay it.

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Yes, it goes through the government and is technically a tax, my point is that it’s not funding the government.

    The point isn’t to be an effective way to redistribute money, the point is to ensure the winners earned it as much as possible. When someone “succeeds” entirely because of their parents’ wealth, we run into the same issues as we had under kings where those at the top feel like they “deserve” to be there without actually earning it. If rich people decide to donate it all to causes they support instead of having it be redistributed, that’s totally fine, because the point isn’t to help the poor, it’s to prevent generational wealth from determining winners and losers.

    source

    • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Like I said, 100% tax is just stealing.

      It’s not an issue to actually tax the rich, but the first x schould be tax free and after that a bracket should be low tax until y and then you can charge z percentage above that, but it cannot be 100% tax.

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Sure, if you recognize generational wealth as being legitimate, taking that away is stealing.

        I’m arguing that you only own the value you create. Inheriting wealth doesn’t create value, so it’s not really yours. I do think there’s a legitimate argument for taking care of your family after you die, hence why I believe in some amount of exclusion for gifts (say in the million to tens of millions), because there are absolutely cases where it’s necessary (i.e. if you have a special needs child or something) and that’s not really the government’s business. However, I do think the excess should be returned back to society, either through charitable donations or a direct redistribution.

        Here’s how I see it happening:

        1. upon death, all wealth is tabulated, and all real property is given a valuation by the local tax authority
        2. taxes are evaluated to determine how much gift tax exclusion still remains, and the will is consulted to determine how much each heir gets
        3. heirs get first dibs on real property from 1, and then the rest is handed out as the estate is liquidated (real property is auctioned)
        4. any remaining real property after the gift tax exclusion (or the will’s terms have been meted out, whichever is less) goes to the state for redistribution; none of this money can be used for funding the government, it can only be used for direct costs of redistribution

        I don’t see permanent ownership of real property as being legitimate, and I don’t think inheritances are legitimate, because that promotes dynasties. The average person will be well below the gift tax exemption, so children of wealthy parents will absolutely have a step up over other people, but they won’t automatically be filthy rich.

        source

        • -> View More Comments