|
|
|
|
|
|
by the_lego
1037 days ago
|
|
|
> Don't think anybody even implied such a thing. But they could have, thanks to imprecise usage of "equality". Therefore the difference is not of interest only to pedants. > I think the point is that in Capitalism, the money flows to the top, the top then has the money, can pay off the government, sway officials, and get 'un-equal' advantages. This then destroys democracy, because the rich can buy the power and votes don't matter. I don't dispute this part, and apologize if I gave a different impression. |
|
|
If the 'Rich', can buy power, or inherit wealth. Then they didn't really 'earn' it 'equally' or 'fair and square'. Are they equal? They seem more than equal. Their wealth can't simply be taken away so that they start out 'equal'. In an extrema, we could have 100% inheritance tax, so all children start out equal. That would never work.
Yet today we have the extrema the other way, the rich pass along such exorbitant wealth to their heirs that it creates like 'icebergs of capital' in the economy that don't really produce anything, these people aren't driven. Spending money on another dozen mansions isn't producing the next technology breakthrough.
I'd argue for some basic minimum of equality. Equal schools, equal access to knowledge. Maybe even a basic income, so everyone knows they can eat and not starve. And yes, do need to tax the rich, to free up their capital to put it back into circulation.