Regarding your last paragraph, and at the risk of sounding like a broken
record, I think it's important to note that throughout history, wealth has primarily been in the form of land ownership. When a relatively few owned all the land, that truly was a zero sum game and as a direct result everyone else lived in poverty. That IS/WAS a destabilizing force. I don't understand how the fact that Bill Gates is worth nearly $100 billion (had has pledged almost his entire fortune to charity) is destabilizing. And I don't understand how making Bill Gates worth less will make me any better off. In fact it will make me worse off because I own MSFT through a variety of mutual funds.
If we're simply talking about a wealth tax as means to raise additional revenue, I'm not terribly opposed to the idea, although I think the amount of revenue raised will be FAR less than expected. But if the objective is to make Bill Gates worth less...just because, well, I think that's a stupid and counter productive objective (I'm not suggesting you're saying that... but that certainly seems to be part of the spirit behind Sander's and Warren's anti-rich populist rhetoric)
|
(
In response to this post by ftwuva)
Posted: 01/30/2019 at 07:15AM