|
|
|
|
|
by thr_w
2663 days ago
|
|
Agreed. This avoids the common argument against socialism removing incentives to success, while still providing social safety nets. Allow people to succeed, but when they do, tax them and regulate them to benefit the less fortunate members of society. The rich got rich in part because of the protections and services afforded them by our modern society. In having reaped a greater share of benefit, why should they not contribute a greater share of taxes? There is a stark difference between socialism rooted in the above idea and socialism rooted in jealousy and vindictiveness toward the wealthy just because they're wealthy. We're not trying to punish the wealthy and we can still allow them to be very wealthy. But as the US currently stands, the wealthy could contribute much more while still having far greater quality of life than almost everyone else. |
|
The reality is that people compete for status, success, money, and power, within the framework they are given.
I mean we've actually tried this. If you take a group of incredibly skilled business people and tax them heavily you don't get some dystopia, you get Switzerland.