What you’re pointed at is that, unless the world’s GDP suddenly skyrockets millions of percents, we can’t make everyone a billionaire.
And if only select few can be billionaires, this is inequality.
Thereby, what is suggested is to redistribute money more evenly so that non-billionaires (i.e. pretty much everyone) could enjoy a better life, as opposed to few people buying their second golden toilet for the sake of it.
I’m not sure I follow. Thanks for seemingly being non-reactionary though.
If I could wave a magic wand, I’d first come up with some new form of socialism where maybe not everyone is 100% equal, but where literally everyone would get to live a fully comfortable life without fear of death or suffering. They’d get to take extended vacations and have fully paid healthcare. No starvation and no being limited to the shittiest food available. Maybe some people could have more than that, if they accomplished something to justify it.
Since I don’t have that magic wand, I’d just settle for billionaires paying equal percentages of taxes and being jailed when they break the law.
Apparently, suggesting the latter, for a lot of these commenters, means that I am a huge capitalist who loves inequality. Because I couldn’t possibly recognize that capitalism is both a huge piece of shit in practice but also does provide motivation to workers.
that capitalism […] does provide motivation to workers
I wonder how all of those people in other civilisations survived which didn’t had a capitalistic system.
In other words: I hope you’re aware that capitalism is not the only way to motivate people to do stuff. As if people weren’t interested in ensuring their survival or even progress.
Essentially, equality is directly proportional to the share of economy regular people enjoy, the only question is how equality affects the size of the economy itself.
In my opinion, billionaires should absolutely be taxed more, in percentage terms, and consideration should be taken to nationalization of industries further down the road.
A genuine attempt at civil discussion:
What you’re pointed at is that, unless the world’s GDP suddenly skyrockets millions of percents, we can’t make everyone a billionaire.
And if only select few can be billionaires, this is inequality.
Thereby, what is suggested is to redistribute money more evenly so that non-billionaires (i.e. pretty much everyone) could enjoy a better life, as opposed to few people buying their second golden toilet for the sake of it.
I’m not sure I follow. Thanks for seemingly being non-reactionary though.
If I could wave a magic wand, I’d first come up with some new form of socialism where maybe not everyone is 100% equal, but where literally everyone would get to live a fully comfortable life without fear of death or suffering. They’d get to take extended vacations and have fully paid healthcare. No starvation and no being limited to the shittiest food available. Maybe some people could have more than that, if they accomplished something to justify it.
Since I don’t have that magic wand, I’d just settle for billionaires paying equal percentages of taxes and being jailed when they break the law.
Apparently, suggesting the latter, for a lot of these commenters, means that I am a huge capitalist who loves inequality. Because I couldn’t possibly recognize that capitalism is both a huge piece of shit in practice but also does provide motivation to workers.
I wonder how all of those people in other civilisations survived which didn’t had a capitalistic system.
In other words: I hope you’re aware that capitalism is not the only way to motivate people to do stuff. As if people weren’t interested in ensuring their survival or even progress.
Essentially, equality is directly proportional to the share of economy regular people enjoy, the only question is how equality affects the size of the economy itself.
In my opinion, billionaires should absolutely be taxed more, in percentage terms, and consideration should be taken to nationalization of industries further down the road.
Yup, agreed