[Murky3515]

The referenced tweet: "Your periodic reminder that the government could seize all of American billionaires’ wealth and it wouldn’t be enough to fund its spending for a single year"[1]

I've had this conversation with the "there shouldn't be billionaires" crowd. Their response was almost always "do it anyways." The existence of people with surplus angers people in a deficit, regardless of if destroying that surplus helps. They want to do it out of anger against the system, not to fix the system.

That said, I don't think fixing the system is impossible. There needs to be a balance between preserving the hierarchy of (theoretical) meritocracy, and not letting too much wealth create a flywheel effect that warps economies. I've done some research of different ideas that could turn the wealth distribution curve from exponential to linear, thereby preserving ordering. Mostly these ideas revolve around each person having their own personal currency, with its own exchange rate which is dependent on different graph connectivity factors. In other words, a rich person's "$10" would be worth much less than a poor person's "$10", in terms of real value. I'd like to do more research into this, but I need help.

1. https://x.com/cafreiman/status/1810815193670373482

[3np]

Sounds a lot like the core idea behind Circles[0]. They've spent a lot of time looking into the economics around such models. I suggest you try connecting to people there, maybe join their forum/chat.

0: https://handbook.joincircles.net/docs/developers/whitepaper

[gjsman-1000]

One of the great ironies of life, is that almost everyone is in favor of spending money on the poor or for the sake of equality, when it's not their own money.

Spending other people's money is fantastic, equitable, fair. 20% additional tax on yourself? Cruel, unfair, inequitable.

[Murky3515]

I'm advocating for a self-balancing money system that maintains a linear curve of wealth distribution. You can still be richer than your peers, but you can't squeeze the bottom of the distribution.

[immibis]

I'd pay 20% extra tax if everyone was paying 20% extra tax and it was for a good reason. Right-wingists wouldn't, and they project this tendency of theirs onto left-wingists to whom it doesn't actually apply.

Evidence: I live in Europe, not the USA, by choice, so I AM paying 20% extra tax and enjoying it.

[claytongulick]

Yet conservatives give more to charity than progressives [1].

The ideological difference there is that, in general, conservatives and libertarians prefer to minimize confiscation by force, and believe that society is best served by voluntary charities vs authoritarian taxation.

I.e. "I know how to spend my money better than the government, and I know how to help my community better than someone located thousands of miles away that don't know my neighbors or their problems".

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00490...

[immibis]

The ideological difference is that conservatives and libertarians prefer the same amount of confiscation by force, but prefer it to be directed by billionaires rather than by democracy.

[claytongulick]

Do you have any evidence of this? Anything at all?

It might be worth taking a minute to understand what they actually believe, you may be surprised to find that even though they aren't part of whatever tribe you're in, that they are very reasonable people who also want the best for everyone.

[mike_hearn]

European tax rates are not very different to American tax rates, they certainly aren't 20pp higher on income tax presuming that's what you mean.

> they project this tendency of theirs onto left-wingists to whom it doesn't actually apply.

Mmmm really. Here's an embarrassing article the Guardian had to write when just days after attacking Tesco for reducing its tax bill, it was discovered that the Guardian Media Group was doing exactly the same thing:

https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2008/mar/06/...

Excuses offered included "The leader was written before journalists knew of the structure of the Emap purchase", "The relationship between the Guardian and GMG is a complicated one" and "the [Scott] trust was established in 1936 to avoid paying double death duties and ensure the continued existence of the paper".

Even Labour controlled local councils have been caught finding clever ways to reduce their tax bill, and they're a part of the government:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/embarrassment-for-...

Doesn't get more left wingist than the Guardian and Labour.

[immibis]

Our current hierarchy has very little to do with meritocracy, and pretending that it does is a poor justification for maintaining it.

People saw what happens when rich people "fix the system" and that's a good reason they don't want rich people to "fix the system" any more.

[plusfour]

do it anyways.