[bena]

Let's say that you could somehow increase your wealth by 1% each day.

If you have $100, tomorrow you will have $101. Then $102.01. And so on and so forth. At the end of the year, you'll have $3778.34

Now let's say that if you give $50 to someone else, you can both increase your wealth by 1.1% each day. At the end, both of you will have $2711.08. Individually less, but collectively more.

That's the issue: individually less.

While you may get some benefit from the collective betterment of society, it still requires sacrificing some portion of your potential maximum wealth.

[blackflame7000]

Ok now do year 2 and see how that $50 turned into a net loss of $146,998.73

[bena]

You realize you have to double that, right?

It's $146,998.73 for each person. No matter how you slice it, 1.1% is greater than 1%. We're still working with $100 initially.

And if you're talking about one person's unrealized gain, we've already addressed that.

Individually, we may make less, but collectively, we make more.

The idea is that since fortune is largely based on luck and then exploiting that luck, we could be leaving a lot of progress on the table. A landlord who makes their wealth simply by charging rent isn't really doing anything to advance anything. He just happened to own the right bit of land at the right time.

So if we tax him and then use those taxes to provide for those who did not have the same breaks, we may be enabling someone to actually create something that advances technology or science or medicine.

I mean, "individually less, collectively more" also explains why the individual doesn't want to voluntarily give up anything.