[GreenJelloShot]

If sharing wealth leads to greater wealth, then why is it necessary to try to take wealth (by force)? Why don't people willingly give up their wealth so that they can make more?

If it is possible to make more wealth by giving up some, why not let people choose whether or not they will share? If you theory holds true, then people who share will get richer and the people who don't share will get poorer and the problem will solve itself.

[mytherin]

Prisoner's dilemma. A single wealthy person giving up their wealth will not have a large enough effect on society to actually change anything. It will only make them worse off (as they now have less wealth). From the perspective of a single person, hoarding as much wealth as possible is a local optimum.

When all wealthy people get together and divide their wealth, this enables education, housing, preventative health care, etc for poorer people in society. This will in turn lead to reduced crime, reduced homelessness, reduced illness and a much more productive society as a whole. This will then in turn generate more money for them.

This is a global optimum that will make everybody better off, including the rich, but it is not easy to achieve. It requires long-term vision, which is difficult in a world driven by quarterly reports and four year election cycles.

[abfan1127]

there seem to be a ton of assumptions in this comment.

[jamie_ca]

Parent's "wealth for all" does not mean "wealth for each."

Of course taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise, which is why they tend not do do so voluntarily.

However, if it makes most people better off, and makes society as a whole better off, then maybe it's worth it for the government to force their most-successful citizens away from their selfish instincts to the betterment of the nation?

[GreenJelloShot]

> However, if it makes most people better off, and makes society as a whole better off, then maybe it's worth it for the government to force their most-successful citizens away from their selfish instincts to the betterment of the nation?

So basically it's ok to sacrifice the minority, as long as it benefits the majority, huh?

[chipotle_coyote]

A lot of these arguments also tend to elide the fact that even under the most "extreme" tax structures in place or being proposed in first-world democracies across the globe, wealthy people are still wealthy even with those taxes. In practice, no one serious is actually talking about forcing Bill Gates to give up all his money so it can be apportioned equally to every American citizen. If Gates had to pay an annual wealth tax of 2%, started with $90B (the most recent estimate of his net worth I can find), and made $2B a year (which is less than the most recent estimate of his annual wealth increase I can find), then after 20 years he would have... $93B.

I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry."

[blackflame7000]

>taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise

No taxing the wealthiest results in the wealthiest moving their capital investments elsewhere.

[lsiebert]

People don't always make the rational choice for long term benefits when there are short term gains to be had. Individuals, thanks to bounded rationality, tend to seek satisfactory solutions, not optimal ones. It takes coordinated effort to find optimal solutions.

Another way to think of it is, that by benefiting from public goods (roads, law enforcement, health regulations) already in existence you and your family have already entered into a social contract with the government, which acts as a representative of the collective will of all people towards a more perfect union, and in which payment is due for the benefits you have obtained.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

[GreenJelloShot]

> People don't always make the rational choice for long term benefits when there are short term gains to be had. Individuals, thanks to bounded rationality, tend to seek satisfactory solutions, not optimal ones. It takes coordinated effort to find optimal solutions.

Translation: People are stupid and need to be forced to do the right thing. (Where the "right thing" is defined by the current people in charge.)

[bosswipe]

Everybody gains from the wealth created by something like a city park, whether they contribute or not. So there's a game theoretic problem that prevents reaching the wealth maxima without public collaboration. For example you might end up with a strip mall that produces more wealth for a few people but less overall wealth for the whole community then the park because surrounding land values don't benefit as much.

[mcguire]

Because "enlightened self interest" is an oxymoron?

By the way, "people who share will get richer and the people who don't share will get poorer" is a misstatement of the theory.

[rorykoehler]

Delayed gratification is one of many reasons.

If exercise leads to greater health, then why is it necessary to try to encourage people exercise? Why don't people willingly exercise so that they can be healthy?

[GreenJelloShot]

There is a difference between "encouraging" and "forcing".

Should we force people to exercise?

[bena]

Let's say that you could somehow increase your wealth by 1% each day.

If you have $100, tomorrow you will have $101. Then $102.01. And so on and so forth. At the end of the year, you'll have $3778.34

Now let's say that if you give $50 to someone else, you can both increase your wealth by 1.1% each day. At the end, both of you will have $2711.08. Individually less, but collectively more.

That's the issue: individually less.

While you may get some benefit from the collective betterment of society, it still requires sacrificing some portion of your potential maximum wealth.

[blackflame7000]

Ok now do year 2 and see how that $50 turned into a net loss of $146,998.73

[AnimalMuppet]

> The marker of the arrested mind of the libertarian.

Personal insults are against site rules, and that comment comes mighty close.