[wat10000]

This is why I think taxes on the very wealthy should be so high that billionaires can't happen. The usual reasons are either about raising revenue or are vague ideas about inequality. It doesn't raise enough revenue to matter, and inequality is a fairly weak justification by itself.

But the power concentration is a strong reason. That level of wealth is incompatible with democracy. Money is power, and when someone accumulates enough of it to be able to personally shake entire industries, it's too much.

[Aerroon]

You'll just get a different form of power concentration. Do you think the Soviet Union didn't have power concentration in individuals? Of course it did, that's why the general secretary of the party was more important than the actual heads of state and government.

[wat10000]

Do you think I’m proposing anything like the Soviet system?

[Aerroon]

No? I'm saying that power concentration is pretty much unavoidable. The question is more about what they can do with that power. I suspect that people getting more power through wealth in the modern world is better than people concentrating power through politics.

[1718627440]

> I'm saying that power concentration is pretty much unavoidable.

It's avoidable by formalizing the execution of power. The head of state is very powerful, but he can't create laws or anything. That all needs to be done be the parliament, which is several hundred people.

[Aerroon]

Most democratic countries use the parliamentary system, where the party that wins elections creates the government through the prime minister. They are also the largest party in parliament.

Sure, the US does it differently, yet the parliament seems to often just not do anything and let courts legislate instead. Then you end up in this weird situation where the supreme court positions end up being extremely partisan to set the "correct" precedent.

Either way there's a lot of power in the executive in either system.

[wat10000]

I don't think it's unavoidable. I don't see why you couldn't have a relatively weak government that's otherwise pretty laissez-faire besides taxing the hell out of extreme wealth. And a strong government doesn't have to have extremely powerful individuals. Power can be divided, and representatives are ultimately accountable to the people.

What you're saying basically boils down to: kings are inevitable, might as well choose them by economic success instead of the more old-fashioned approaches. I reject the first part.

[Aerroon]

You cannot have a "relatively weak government" that "taxes the hell out of the wealthy".

First, if the people can incentivize the government enough to tax the wealthy with outrageous amounts, then those same people will demand regulation on everything whenever something goes wrong. You end up with a poor country this way. Second, the wealthy can just leave or influence the policy to be changed.

Also, the irony is that the US is already one of the best countries when it comes to taxing the wealthy instead of the poor. You don't have a 20-25% VAT that applies to everything you buy. You have a progressive income tax and your payroll tax (that avoids the progressive part) isn't a giant ~30% of gross income. You don't have giant excise taxes on things like gasoline that makes everything more expensive (including food). You also generally don't have punitive taxes on things that poor people buy a lot of, like sodas and similar.

The list above are things that are done by (a lot of) European countries. Our "welfare states" don't exist because rich people pay a large share, it's because everyone does.

[aianus]

Someone needs to allocate capital, might as well be someone that has done it successfully in the past.

[Ray20]

> But the power concentration is a strong reason.

A centralized authority capable of so severely restricting the economic freedom of the most powerful people implies a far greater concentration of power than the one you're fighting against. You're proposing to cure the common cold with AIDS.

[1718627440]

> A centralized authority capable of so severely restricting the economic freedom of the most powerful people implies a far greater concentration of power

Yes. That's the idea. Make the largest concentration of power an elected body auditable by the commons and whose actions are formalized by a bunch of rules, that they can choose, but still need to stick to.

[Ray20]

> largest concentration of power an elected body auditable by the commons

So, billionaires are bad because they can use their money to enter into voluntary deals with other people, which can lead to them achieving goals we don't like. Therefore, we create a single point of concentration of power with totalitarian control and dictatorial powers, that can take resources from people they don't like and give those resources to others they do like.

And these people with totalitarian control over the commons and dictatorial powers over the commons and the most powerful lever on everyone whatsoever and especially on everyone with huge amount of money, will continue to be electable and auditable by the commons because... I don't know, probably because they feel like it, there is literally no other reasons or incentives for them to do so.

"Big money give a human to much power, so let's take all that power from EVERYONE, concentrate it in ONE PLAСE, and add to this power dictatorial powers and totalitarian control over society. Some might argue that this is the exact opposite of the stated goals of the whole undertaking, but they do not take into account the insurmountable protection in the form of MAGICAL RULES with the help of which society will be able to control all of this"

[wat10000]

Gotta love libertarian thinking. In a society where survival requires participating in the economy, transacting with a billionaire is “voluntary.” Paying taxes on vast wealth you chose to accumulate, leaving you merely fabulously rich instead of wealthy beyond comprehension, is “involuntary.”

What matters to power is people, not places. Having power concentrated in one place, made up of hundreds of people who are elected and can be replaced, is fine. Having power concentrated in one or a few people is where things go wrong.

[wat10000]

Why? We already tax people. This would be a difference of degree, not of kind.