[nikofeyn]

are you seriously arguing that heavily taxing insanely wealthy people is unethical? i mean, we're literally living in a moment in which public school closures means many kids don't have reliable access to food anymore. there are plenty of other examples in which people are seriously struggling. and somehow taxing the wealthy is unethical. the fact that you bifurcate people into the "haves" and "have nots" speaks volumes.

and of course UBI is literally wealth distribution. what would you consider public schools, roads, infrastructure, and other things paid with taxes?

[frobozz]

> are you seriously arguing that heavily taxing insanely wealthy people is unethical?

I don't think that is what allovernow is saying at all.

> There's a point where it becomes unethical and/or counterproductive...but where that point is perhaps remains to be seen.

So, potentially

- Tax the billionaires down to 999millionaires. Not unethical or counterproductive in the slightest.

- Implement a tax that makes every worker's net income identical. Probably both counterproductive and unethical.

- Implement a tax/UBI system that puts a worker's net income below that of a non-worker. Definitely counterproductive, unsustainable and unethical.

The point that allovernow is describing is somewhere between those extremes.

[sokoloff]

Not GP, but I think there’s a reasonable argument that taxing income for the purpose of funding essential government services is on stronger ethical footing than taxing wealth for the specific purpose of wealth redistribution.

The latter is IMO not ethical if it excessively punishes productive activity. In this case “impractical is unethical”, even as I’d prefer a UBI world in many ways.