Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Wealth tax academic paper

including Budgets
Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418362

Postby Lootman » June 9th, 2021, 12:21 pm

XFool wrote:...I didn't like the way the article described their version as "The real tax rate". It simply being the rate using their method of taxation.

Yes, it is rather dishonest to perform the computation in a way that makes it look like the wealthy are hardly taxed at all. Conversely one could look at the situation in the manner which I saw represented a little while ago somewhere: Apparently the richest 2% pay over half of all taxes!

Tax rates depend at least partly on the gross amount of public spending. It might be fairer instead to look at how the tax take is split between different demographics and income/wealth bands. I suspect there is a good chance that the bottom one third pay no taxes. And ultimately only people with surplus funds can afford to pay taxes at all.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418387

Postby XFool » June 9th, 2021, 1:41 pm

Lootman wrote:I suspect there is a good chance that the bottom one third pay no taxes. And ultimately only people with surplus funds can afford to pay taxes at all.

Surely not true? Possibly true wrt income taxes, but everyone presumably has to pay VAT, one way or another.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 592 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418390

Postby SteMiS » June 9th, 2021, 1:45 pm

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:...I didn't like the way the article described their version as "The real tax rate". It simply being the rate using their method of taxation.

Yes, it is rather dishonest to perform the computation in a way that makes it look like the wealthy are hardly taxed at all. Conversely one could look at the situation in the manner which I saw represented a little while ago somewhere: Apparently the richest 2% pay over half of all taxes!

Tax rates depend at least partly on the gross amount of public spending. It might be fairer instead to look at how the tax take is split between different demographics and income/wealth bands. I suspect there is a good chance that the bottom one third pay no taxes. And ultimately only people with surplus funds can afford to pay taxes at all.

I presume you are referring to 'income tax' not 'tax in general' (which everyone pays)...

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418396

Postby Lootman » June 9th, 2021, 2:03 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:I suspect there is a good chance that the bottom one third pay no taxes. And ultimately only people with surplus funds can afford to pay taxes at all.

Surely not true? Possibly true wrt income taxes, but everyone presumably has to pay VAT, one way or another.

SteMiS wrote:I presume you are referring to 'income tax' not 'tax in general' (which everyone pays)...

Many taxes (in general) are only paid by the well off e.g. CGT and IHT (not that IHT only affects the wealthy by any means). With most other taxes the wealthier will pay more even if not at a higher rate. The only true "flat" tax we have is something like the TV license fee.

I suppose one can argue that even dirt poor people pay VAT and council tax. Although I would wager that for many of them, those tax contributions are low and in any event paid for by benefits and welfare, which one might reasonably regard as tax credits or negative taxes.

If someone can cite a better number than the richest 2% pay over 50% of taxes, then I would like to see a link for that.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 592 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418417

Postby SteMiS » June 9th, 2021, 4:38 pm

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:I suspect there is a good chance that the bottom one third pay no taxes. And ultimately only people with surplus funds can afford to pay taxes at all.

Surely not true? Possibly true wrt income taxes, but everyone presumably has to pay VAT, one way or another.

SteMiS wrote:I presume you are referring to 'income tax' not 'tax in general' (which everyone pays)...

Many taxes (in general) are only paid by the well off e.g. CGT and IHT (not that IHT only affects the wealthy by any means). With most other taxes the wealthier will pay more even if not at a higher rate. The only true "flat" tax we have is something like the TV license fee.

I suppose one can argue that even dirt poor people pay VAT and council tax. Although I would wager that for many of them, those tax contributions are low and in any event paid for by benefits and welfare, which one might reasonably regard as tax credits or negative taxes.

If someone can cite a better number than the richest 2% pay over 50% of taxes, then I would like to see a link for that.

I don't really want to divert the discussion but actually VAT and council tax hit the poor much harder than the rich and there's good evidence that the percentage of tax paid by different income quartiles is remarkably similar

Image
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/co ... e-richest/

[As the link describes, one has to take the figures for the very poorest with some caution as, for various reasons, there's a mismatch between declared income and declared expenditure of this section of the population]

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418435

Postby Lootman » June 9th, 2021, 5:16 pm

SteMiS wrote:
Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:Surely not true? Possibly true wrt income taxes, but everyone presumably has to pay VAT, one way or another.

SteMiS wrote:I presume you are referring to 'income tax' not 'tax in general' (which everyone pays)...

Many taxes (in general) are only paid by the well off e.g. CGT and IHT (not that IHT only affects the wealthy by any means). With most other taxes the wealthier will pay more even if not at a higher rate. The only true "flat" tax we have is something like the TV license fee.

I suppose one can argue that even dirt poor people pay VAT and council tax. Although I would wager that for many of them, those tax contributions are low and in any event paid for by benefits and welfare, which one might reasonably regard as tax credits or negative taxes.

If someone can cite a better number than the richest 2% pay over 50% of taxes, then I would like to see a link for that.

I don't really want to divert the discussion but actually VAT and council tax hit the poor much harder than the rich and there's good evidence that the percentage of tax paid by different income quartiles is remarkably similar

[As the link describes, one has to take the figures for the very poorest with some caution as, for various reasons, there's a mismatch between declared income and declared expenditure of this section of the population]

Yes but again it shows how very different results can be derived depending on how you represent the data. So if I want to show how little tax the wealthy pay, then I show tax as a percentage rate of income/wealth, and then invite people to conclude that taxation is not really that progressive. On the other hand if I want to show how much tax the wealthy pay, then I show data showing the actual amount of tax paid by that very small percentage of the population, thereby demonstrating what a huge part of the total burden they bear. Fun with statistics.

Everyone in this game has an agenda. But for the record I think that everyone should pay at least some tax, because otherwise they are tempted to always vote for higher taxes (on everyone else).

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 592 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418443

Postby SteMiS » June 9th, 2021, 5:36 pm

Lootman wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
Lootman wrote:
Many taxes (in general) are only paid by the well off e.g. CGT and IHT (not that IHT only affects the wealthy by any means). With most other taxes the wealthier will pay more even if not at a higher rate. The only true "flat" tax we have is something like the TV license fee.

I suppose one can argue that even dirt poor people pay VAT and council tax. Although I would wager that for many of them, those tax contributions are low and in any event paid for by benefits and welfare, which one might reasonably regard as tax credits or negative taxes.

If someone can cite a better number than the richest 2% pay over 50% of taxes, then I would like to see a link for that.

I don't really want to divert the discussion but actually VAT and council tax hit the poor much harder than the rich and there's good evidence that the percentage of tax paid by different income quartiles is remarkably similar

[As the link describes, one has to take the figures for the very poorest with some caution as, for various reasons, there's a mismatch between declared income and declared expenditure of this section of the population]

Yes but again it shows how very different results can be derived depending on how you represent the data. So if I want to show how little tax the wealthy pay, then I show tax as a percentage rate of income/wealth, and then invite people to conclude that taxation is not really that progressive. On the other hand if I want to show how much tax the wealthy pay, then I show data showing the actual amount of tax paid by that very small percentage of the population, thereby demonstrating what a huge part of the total burden they bear. Fun with statistics.

Everyone in this game has an agenda. But for the record I think that everyone should pay at least some tax, because otherwise they are tempted to always vote for higher taxes (on everyone else).

I think the point is that pretty much everyone pays tax (even if you live off savings and have no 'income').

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418445

Postby Lootman » June 9th, 2021, 5:44 pm

SteMiS wrote:
Lootman wrote:
SteMiS wrote:I don't really want to divert the discussion but actually VAT and council tax hit the poor much harder than the rich and there's good evidence that the percentage of tax paid by different income quartiles is remarkably similar

[As the link describes, one has to take the figures for the very poorest with some caution as, for various reasons, there's a mismatch between declared income and declared expenditure of this section of the population]

Yes but again it shows how very different results can be derived depending on how you represent the data. So if I want to show how little tax the wealthy pay, then I show tax as a percentage rate of income/wealth, and then invite people to conclude that taxation is not really that progressive. On the other hand if I want to show how much tax the wealthy pay, then I show data showing the actual amount of tax paid by that very small percentage of the population, thereby demonstrating what a huge part of the total burden they bear. Fun with statistics.

Everyone in this game has an agenda. But for the record I think that everyone should pay at least some tax, because otherwise they are tempted to always vote for higher taxes (on everyone else).

I think the point is that pretty much everyone pays tax (even if you live off savings and have no 'income').

Possibly but again it depends how you show the data. To my mind if someone receives more in welfare than they pay in tax, then there is a very real sense in which "they pay no tax". They are not part of funding the government but rather are a net liability.

quelquod
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1019
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 196 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418489

Postby quelquod » June 9th, 2021, 10:38 pm

Lootman wrote:
SteMiS wrote:I think the point is that pretty much everyone pays tax (even if you live off savings and have no 'income').

Possibly but again it depends how you show the data. To my mind if someone receives more in welfare than they pay in tax, then there is a very real sense in which "they pay no tax". They are not part of funding the government but rather are a net liability.


Perhaps you’d then consider that everyone paid from the public purse pays no tax - NHS staff, civil servants, MPs even and the rest. Goodness, no wonder I seem to be carrying a burden!

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418521

Postby Lootman » June 10th, 2021, 7:22 am

quelquod wrote:
Lootman wrote:
SteMiS wrote:I think the point is that pretty much everyone pays tax (even if you live off savings and have no 'income').

Possibly but again it depends how you show the data. To my mind if someone receives more in welfare than they pay in tax, then there is a very real sense in which "they pay no tax". They are not part of funding the government but rather are a net liability.

Perhaps you’d then consider that everyone paid from the public purse pays no tax - NHS staff, civil servants, MPs even and the rest. Goodness, no wonder I seem to be carrying a burden!

I would draw a distinction between someone being paid welfare and someone who works for and is paid by the government, or who draws a state pension paid for by prior contributions from working. That said the size of the public sector is a problem and a burden. Just a separate one.

My bigger point was that these academics express the breakdown of who pays taxes in self-serving terms. An analogy might help. Suppose you owe £1,000 to some guys. If you don't pay them back by tomorrow they are going to break your legs. Now suppose a rich man gives you £950 and a poor guy gives you the other £50.

Most people would feel much more gratitude to the guy who repaid 95% of their debt. But the academics instead say: "But look, the poor guy gave half of all he had whilst the rich guy only gave a tiny fraction. That is technically true but is not how ordinary people use words or express gratitude for generosity.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 592 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418684

Postby SteMiS » June 10th, 2021, 6:16 pm

Lootman wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
Lootman wrote:Yes but again it shows how very different results can be derived depending on how you represent the data. So if I want to show how little tax the wealthy pay, then I show tax as a percentage rate of income/wealth, and then invite people to conclude that taxation is not really that progressive. On the other hand if I want to show how much tax the wealthy pay, then I show data showing the actual amount of tax paid by that very small percentage of the population, thereby demonstrating what a huge part of the total burden they bear. Fun with statistics.

Everyone in this game has an agenda. But for the record I think that everyone should pay at least some tax, because otherwise they are tempted to always vote for higher taxes (on everyone else).

I think the point is that pretty much everyone pays tax (even if you live off savings and have no 'income').

Possibly but again it depends how you show the data. To my mind if someone receives more in welfare than they pay in tax, then there is a very real sense in which "they pay no tax". They are not part of funding the government but rather are a net liability.

There's all sorts of unequal benefits that people receive from the state that is not reflected in simple cash 'rebates'

Those with children v those without - education expenditure
Those with poor health v those with good - health expenditure

I'm very much in favour of successful entrepreneurs benefitting from the fruits of their efforts. But let's be honest, they couldn't achieve it without the infrastructure (soft and hard) that the government provides from taxes. So it' not unreasonable that, in principle, their contribution is proportionate to their benefit they receive. It's not a 'favour' that they do that...

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 592 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418687

Postby SteMiS » June 10th, 2021, 6:22 pm

Lootman wrote:My bigger point was that these academics express the breakdown of who pays taxes in self-serving terms. An analogy might help. Suppose you owe £1,000 to some guys. If you don't pay them back by tomorrow they are going to break your legs. Now suppose a rich man gives you £950 and a poor guy gives you the other £50.

Most people would feel much more gratitude to the guy who repaid 95% of their debt. But the academics instead say: "But look, the poor guy gave half of all he had whilst the rich guy only gave a tiny fraction. That is technically true but is not how ordinary people use words or express gratitude for generosity.

I'm not sure that's even true. Sometimes you see reports in the press about how a pensioner has sent £20 from their pension to a particular charity or a school kid has saved up £5 from their pocket money to do so. I think most people would attribute more to that than if, say, Bill Gates just donated £500 every year*.

[* Yes, I know he doesn't, but if he did...]

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418764

Postby Lootman » June 11th, 2021, 8:22 am

SteMiS wrote:
Lootman wrote:My bigger point was that these academics express the breakdown of who pays taxes in self-serving terms. An analogy might help. Suppose you owe £1,000 to some guys. If you don't pay them back by tomorrow they are going to break your legs. Now suppose a rich man gives you £950 and a poor guy gives you the other £50.

Most people would feel much more gratitude to the guy who repaid 95% of their debt. But the academics instead say: "But look, the poor guy gave half of all he had whilst the rich guy only gave a tiny fraction. That is technically true but is not how ordinary people use words or express gratitude for generosity.

I'm not sure that's even true. Sometimes you see reports in the press about how a pensioner has sent £20 from their pension to a particular charity or a school kid has saved up £5 from their pocket money to do so. I think most people would attribute more to that than if, say, Bill Gates just donated £500 every year*.

Perhaps, but ultimately what matters to the charity or to the Exchequer is the total amount of money received, since that is what can be spent. That £500 buys a lot more than the £20 or the £5. The ultimate point of taxation is to collect the required amount and not to endlessly tinker around with who pays it to ensure some kind of optimal curve. And that "required amount" already overwhelmingly comes from those who are well off.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 592 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418799

Postby SteMiS » June 11th, 2021, 11:08 am

Lootman wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
Lootman wrote:My bigger point was that these academics express the breakdown of who pays taxes in self-serving terms. An analogy might help. Suppose you owe £1,000 to some guys. If you don't pay them back by tomorrow they are going to break your legs. Now suppose a rich man gives you £950 and a poor guy gives you the other £50.

Most people would feel much more gratitude to the guy who repaid 95% of their debt. But the academics instead say: "But look, the poor guy gave half of all he had whilst the rich guy only gave a tiny fraction. That is technically true but is not how ordinary people use words or express gratitude for generosity.

I'm not sure that's even true. Sometimes you see reports in the press about how a pensioner has sent £20 from their pension to a particular charity or a school kid has saved up £5 from their pocket money to do so. I think most people would attribute more to that than if, say, Bill Gates just donated £500 every year*.

Perhaps, but ultimately what matters to the charity or to the Exchequer is the total amount of money received, since that is what can be spent. That £500 buys a lot more than the £20 or the £5. The ultimate point of taxation is to collect the required amount and not to endlessly tinker around with who pays it to ensure some kind of optimal curve.

Tax has all sorts of other 'purposes' in our economy as well; to modify (i.e. encourage/discourage) behaviour, to manage demand, to address iniquity. You may not agree with them all. I may not agree with them all. But that's how it's used.

Lootman wrote:And that "required amount" already overwhelmingly comes from those who are well off.

Whilst it's true that the well off generally pay more tax in pound note terms I don't think it's quite as extreme as the

"the richest 2% pay over 50% of taxes"

you quoted (which relates purely to income tax). As I posted earlier (viewtopic.php?p=418417#p418417), the percentage of income paid by the different quartiles is relatively similar. According to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... le_2.4.pdf it is the top 25% that receive 53% of total income (before tax). So bearing in mind the similar overall percentage tax rates of the different deciles (and the fact that not all tax is personal tax) I'd say that's a better, albeit crude, view of where half the taxes come from...the top 25% not the top 2%.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#418805

Postby Lootman » June 11th, 2021, 11:31 am

SteMiS wrote:
Lootman wrote:And that "required amount" already overwhelmingly comes from those who are well off.

Whilst it's true that the well off generally pay more tax in pound note terms I don't think it's quite as extreme as the

"the richest 2% pay over 50% of taxes"

you quoted (which relates purely to income tax). As I posted earlier (viewtopic.php?p=418417#p418417), the percentage of income paid by the different quartiles is relatively similar. According to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... le_2.4.pdf it is the top 25% that receive 53% of total income (before tax). So bearing in mind the similar overall percentage tax rates of the different deciles (and the fact that not all tax is personal tax) I'd say that's a better, albeit crude, view of where half the taxes come from...the top 25% not the top 2%.

I cannot now recall whether my 50%/2% quotation was about only income tax, or was about all taxes. As I noted before there are some taxes that are only paid by the better off e.g. CGT and IHT.

But even if it was only income tax, we can both be correct i.e. the percentage of income paid by each decile may be comparable AND the vast majority of tax is ​paid by the well off. It really depends whether one chooses to look at the tax as a percentage of income or look at the total amount of tax paid.

Those who want to hit the wealthy more generally prefer the first method of description, for fairly obvious reasons.

Steveam
Lemon Slice
Posts: 974
Joined: March 18th, 2017, 10:22 pm
Has thanked: 1746 times
Been thanked: 534 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#419124

Postby Steveam » June 12th, 2021, 10:04 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... hs-affairs

I agree with Gemma McGough (quoted in the article) and

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 63828.html

There needs to be reasonable, even generous, reward and recompense for the wealth creators and risk takers but excessive reward and wealth is divisive.

Best wishes,

Steve

Steveam
Lemon Slice
Posts: 974
Joined: March 18th, 2017, 10:22 pm
Has thanked: 1746 times
Been thanked: 534 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#419566

Postby Steveam » June 14th, 2021, 9:46 pm

This from an article in today’s FT

“There is nothing built into the economy that says you can’t tax unrealised capital gains. It’s not an immutable law of economics, it’s a deliberate policy choice, a choice that, based on the explosion of inequality in the US in recent decades, appears to be a pretty bad one. Wealthy investors like me, a former Wall Street executive, simply should not be allowed to pick and choose when we want to pay taxes on our investments.”

The article is “How the Wealthiest Americans get away with paying no tax”

Best wishes,

Steve

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#419600

Postby Lootman » June 15th, 2021, 6:50 am

Steveam wrote:“There is nothing built into the economy that says you can’t tax unrealised capital gains. It’s not an immutable law of economics, it’s a deliberate policy choice, a choice that, based on the explosion of inequality in the US in recent decades, appears to be a pretty bad one. Wealthy investors like me, a former Wall Street executive, simply should not be allowed to pick and choose when we want to pay taxes on our investments.”

The "choice" not to tax unrealised gains wasn't really made at all. Rather it is the overwhelming default of almost every national government around the world. Of course that includes the various jurisdictions that do not tax capital gains at all. So you need a compelling reason to change that.

An obvious reason why nations continue to tax only realised gains is the principle that in general we tax transactions and not valuations. There are exceptions such as IHT in the UK, and more arguably council tax. But the principle in general is that tax should be applied where a transaction has happened because that transaction results in the individual actually having cash to pay a tax. If you tax a house or share position based on its uplift in value over the last 12 months then there is no assurance that individual has any actual cash to pay the tax. And forcing him/her to then sell to raise those funds would simply add more to their tax burden.

Of course in the UK by the time you have exempted one's main home, ISAs and SIPPs, the take would be a lot less than envisaged anyway. But the real cost of doing this would be to disincentivise people taking risks with capital. It might also drive investment to less punitive jurisdictions. There are sound reasons why CGT works the way it does, not that the envy mob cares about that in their war on success.

Steveam
Lemon Slice
Posts: 974
Joined: March 18th, 2017, 10:22 pm
Has thanked: 1746 times
Been thanked: 534 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#419611

Postby Steveam » June 15th, 2021, 8:31 am

Hi Lootman, I was reading your post and thinking about the points you make - some of which I think are quite sound - when I came to your throw away about the envy brigade. Why say this? Are you trying to suggest that everyone who supports or wants to explore wealth taxation is a members of the envy brigade?

I’m driven by a desire for a fairer society and a fear that (increasing) inequality will have adverse consequences. Given my personal circumstances it’s unlikely that I’d be a member of the envy brigade.

Best wishes,

Steve

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Wealth tax academic paper

#419614

Postby Lootman » June 15th, 2021, 8:43 am

Steveam wrote:Hi Lootman, I was reading your post and thinking about the points you make - some of which I think are quite sound - when I came to your throw away about the envy brigade. Why say this? Are you trying to suggest that everyone who supports or wants to explore wealth taxation is a members of the envy brigade?

I’m driven by a desire for a fairer society and a fear that (increasing) inequality will have adverse consequences. Given my personal circumstances it’s unlikely that I’d be a member of the envy brigade.

People play games with words all the time. So those who want a wealth tax claim it is about "fairness" and dismiss those who oppose it as "greedy". Whilst those who oppose a wealth tax will talk about concepts like "freedom" and "success", and dismiss those who support it as "envious" or "punitive". Isn't that just all part of the game? Fun with words?

Underlying all this is the central issue of "inequality". Those who dislike inequality think almost anything is justified to eradicate it. Whilst others like me really do not see a problem with some people having a great deal of money. It is really a question of values rather than facts. Personally I think it is a bit unhealthy to look at Gates, Bezos or anyone else and feel resentment or bitterness. I do not feel that way at all, and so struggle a little bit with what can easily be seen as envy against such people.

In fact the whole inequality bandwagon irks me, not least because nobody has ever successfully explained to me exactly how I am supposedly harmed by it.


Return to “The Economy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests