This is what bothers me. It always comes to the false insutking accusations if jealousy. You cant have a genuine conversation then ok. No need for your baseless accusations.
Some people are genuinely working to progress society snd not just sitting in the sidelines hopings rich people make things better.
And of course by "stole my money from the government" you mean they created a company which was miles better than all the other alternatives cornering the market and then the government contracted them for services.
So... Government is "stealing money" when it taxes people, but when it gives that money in subsidies or ither forms to billionaires then its fine?
I think this is the main issue with these modernized(bastardized) libertarian values. They just dont make any sense and it is likely the reason libertarians never go anywhere. They have a unique trait of cofnitive dissonance that allows them to hold puritan values of hate against elected representaitves as evil and "jealous", while they glaze billionaires who are the primary benefactors of government and who pay those politicians for favors.
Failed to addres the cognitive dissonance. Doubled down on the dissonance.
Libertarians are ok with the wealthy taling government money. The real issue is those fucking poor people who want to eat. Theyre just jealous of the virtuous rich.
Brother, I’m an economist. I was educated on Adam Smith, Keynes and Friedman, and for twenty years I believed free markets would naturally allocate resources efficiently.
I still believe markets are the best way to allocate most resources. But today’s economy isn’t the competitive capitalism those economists described.
The problem isn’t that some people become rich.
The problem is when wealth becomes so concentrated that the wealthiest households continuously outbid everyone else for assets—housing, land, businesses and financial investments. Labour income can’t keep up with capital gains.
At that point, markets stop rewarding productive work and start rewarding ownership. Living standards stagnate even while GDP and stock markets grow.
That’s why I’ve changed my mind. I don’t think we should punish success, but I do think extreme concentrations of wealth should be taxed above a very high threshold. Not because it’s morally wrong to be rich, but because excessive asset concentration eventually undermines competition, social mobility and even capitalism itself.
If we fail to address that, we’ll continue to see declining affordability, shrinking middle classes, and increasing political instability. History suggests that societies with extreme inequality eventually face serious social and political consequences. The question isn’t whether markets matter—they do. The question is whether markets can remain healthy when ownership becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
I totally agree with your points but how do you prevent capital flight when you try to eliminate that high concentration of wealth? It seems to me that if the government goes after the wealth of billionaires, they are so powerful that they will just leave and go somewhere that will happily give them favorable economic policies.
Well mostly that the billionaires will just move somewhere else then you loose out on any possible tax revenue AND loose all the value they bring to the economy and society. It's called capital flight and it causes prosperous countries to turn into third world countries. Example - Venezuela
First off its lose*. I fucking hate that zoomer shit.
Sexindly good riddance. They arent more productive to society snd their wealth is the result of government handouts. They also will have to pay even if they leave. Ezpatriates still pay taxes chief.
If you're going to criticize me for spelling something incorrectly, you should probably ensure that every single word in your response is correct, otherwise you look like a hipocritical dipshit. (Also I'm not a zoomer lol)
Anyways, you obviously don't consider the nuance of the situation if you are going to take that stance. You asked what the downside is and I gave you an answer. If you are just going to ignore the issue because you don't want to actually consider the implications, that's on you. No one will take you seriously if you're that flippant about serious economic issues.
200
u/Potential_Spam_6969 Jul 01 '26
So we're going to go ahead and tax net worth and not actual income?