[thunkingdeep]

Realistically? Taxes and tax enforcement. That’s really the only consistent and persistent way to change the incentives of the world’s economies. In most developed economies, the ultra wealthy are able to avoid paying their fair share, and the same goes for large corporations as well.

Without fairness, there’s really no easy way to talk about strategy.

[parineum]

What's a fair share?

I don't get how this phrase has got ao much traction from the people who are in support of various social safety net programs that are specifically designed to benefit those who don't pay their fair share.

If you and I split a pizza and I pay for none but eat half, is that fair? Even if I'm poor and your rich, that's not fair.

It might be right, it might be good but it's certainly not fair.

[thunkingdeep]

In the context of taxes and tax enforcement, I have no choice but to assume you are being intentionally obtuse as to what I mean by “fair share”

[parineum]

> In the context of taxes and tax enforcement

In the context of politicians rallying their base, it's meant to insinuate the actual antithesis of it's normal meaning. Furthermore, it's a subjective word that means different things to different people so politicians can appeal to everyone's internal definition of fair, which is usually making everyone that makes more money than them pay more.

It's a political slogan. It adds nothing to the actual discourse but it does get people out to vote!

I guess the only "intentionally obtuse" part of my comment was the "I don't get how this phrase has got so much traction..." part.

The "ultra-wealthy" and "corporations" pay plenty of taxes, they just pay it significantly different than you do so that if you want to compare W2s, it looks wrong but that's another disingenuous tool to con you into voting.