top | item 36566808

(no title)

learn-forever | 2 years ago

[flagged]

discuss

order

eschaton|2 years ago

You’re assuming economic inequality will always exist, and using that to at least imply that the answer to “What should we as a society do about economic inequality?” is “Nothing.”

There’s a whole lot that a society can do to address the negative aspects of wealth inequality. Almost all of it means that the wealthiest people will have to make some sacrifices—in proportion to their wealth, *incredibly small* sacrifices—and will have to accept that just being poor shouldn’t be a death sentence, that everyone should have food, and water, and housing, and education, and medical care, and transportation, to a reasonable baseline level, simply for existing.

Our species is prosperous enough that no member need ever experience homelessness, nor hunger, nor untreated injury nor disease, nor unwilling ignorance, nor an inability to pull up stakes and move. The only reason the status quo persists is that it is to a small number of wealthy and powerful peoples’ benefit, not because it’s the best possible arrangement for society.

Did you notice what I didn’t suggest? I didn’t suggest that the rich should lose their wealth or position. In fact, they don’t even necessarily have to pay more in taxes than the middle class. They just need to pay around the same *proportionately* as the middle class.

lapcat|2 years ago

> In fact, they don’t even necessarily have to pay more in taxes than the middle class.

The top 20% of earners pay more taxes than the other 80% of earners combined.

This is due primarily to the total amount of their earnings rather than their tax rates.