In article <4a86783f@news.povray.org>,
Warp wrote:

> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Warp schrieb:
>> >   Maybe, if there's a good economical reason to do so. However, I'd say
>> > equal tax % for everybody is a good lower limit (well, as long as that %
>> > is not exorbitant). Rewarding success shouldn't be done at the cost of
>> > punishing poor performance. That's morally daunting.
>
>> There would also be the problem that most rich people are rich because 
>> they were born into a rich family, and most poorer people are poorer 
>> because they were born into a poorer family.
>
>> Success may not always depend on performance, but also on the possession 
>> of assets.
>
>   But it's better to keep the rich people inside the country than drive
> them out with high taxes. The rich people will benefit the country they
> live in.

I would make sure that rich people don't have more say, directly or
indirectly, in the political voice of the country. I don't see this
happening at all, and it is there that I would work first.

Rich form a class, like the poor, and the people in between. As a
social class, common interests arise, and so a big rich company
identifies itself with the rich, and the sort of position that company
takes is really not popular. The most recent example: the Honduras
coup d'état.

The problem is really not exactly in the economic model, but in the
impunity of letting the rich decide for the poor through political
maneuvers and propaganda which exploits the ignorance of people.

You may choose P, but if all your friends choose R, then that's R that
it'll be. We have these large amounts of people in poverty and
oppression --- I'm not particular talking about one country ---, and
somehow the system is not with them. They must all be choosing R, even
though it is P that benefits them, but they do it anyway. That's very
unintuitive.

Take a poor woman in a good country. She gets, say, 1000 bucks on
welfare. That's welfare. Good. This country does something for
her. She gets it because she's poor. We give it; it's not the
government; it is us; we are the people. We wouldn't give 1000 bucks
on welfare to a rich person because that rich person doesn't need
it. Instead, we give a rich person a 1000 bucks on tax discounts, for,
say, creating jobs, which is something that poor people don't do.

(*) What about the middle class?

The middle class is interesting. They seem to have the same ideology
of the rich, except that they do not really get the benefits the rich
get (at the scale they do.) But they certainly don't think like the
poor. They go to the most-expensive school they can afford.

Post a reply to this message