@muehlfield @freemo
I think it's not about taxing people in a post-match redistribution. It's about wealth distribution at the production of the wealth.
At the business level, when generating wealth, you share it between :
- workers (salaries, health plans etc.)
- society (corporation taxes)
- owners of the means of production (banks, shareholders etc.).
That's the place where you actually can change things.
About rich people : we do not need billionaires to maintain the economic system.
π³π±
We dont **need** a lot of things. Whether we need billionaires or not is not a sufficient argument against them.
We also dont need deserts in a society. Generally cakes and other sweets do not feel any **needs** only indulgence. But I also wouldn't argue that we should abolish sugar and outlaw it in society simply because we dont need it.
@muehlfield@social.tchncs.de
@freemo @muehlfield Well it was about shares. So let's talk about shares.
Like the desert share should not be 99% of all the lunches of all the people, 1% richest should not possess more than the 99% others.
As you said, money is not a zero-sum game. Still, wealth is shared at one specific moment and this sharing should be fair.
Workers create wealth. Owners "take risks" as a mean of producing wealth. I don't hear a lot about billionaires losing enough to go poorer than median-revenue people.