[random023987]

> This is a strange sentiment to find on a board that is at least a partially targeted at aspiring company founders.

It's not inconsistent. Most founders are trying to create companies that provide economic value; one can believe that the creation of economic value is a good thing, while also believing that more of the economic surplus created should directly go to the common good.

[jacquesm]

And that you can do this while keeping an even keel in the ethics department.

[andrepd]

Exactly. Everything he's saying seems reasonable, but the consequence is that there are single people that own 150,000,000,000$. Such a staggeringly absurd amount of money cannot be be a good thing for the public at large. We shouldn't rely on the good will of our fief lords to donate their money, in fact just look at Mr 150 billion who openly says "I can't think of anything that deserves a donation".

The corollary is obvious. Tax the ultra-rich at high marginal rates to force them to contribute back to the society that made their success possible in the first place.

[prepend]

The money is a byproduct of a good thing. Amazon is a net positive for humanity. Bezos having $150B is a byproduct of the amazing thing he and many others made.

So a single person having that much can certainly be a good thing, or a neutral thing, or a bad thing. But it’s not something that I have to think about fixing.

The literature is really clear that taxing the rich won’t do what you think it will do. It’s also surprising because this sentiment somehow thinks the rich are not already taxed. Wealth is taxed during transactions, not at rest. And the rich buy stuff like all others.