The wealth taxes people are suggesting wouldn't stop wealth inequality, even if they were efficient. They would barely slow it down. If you actually made them so high, as to be effective, you would risk tipping over into deflation and causing a sovereign wealth crisis. And there is nothing to stop the government from using the new tax income for more give-aways to the rich. For instance, they could hit Elon with a 6% wealth tax. His wealth would still grow much faster than the economy. And they can then give his companies environmental subsidies, NASA projects with inflated prices, AI innovation grants, Department of Defense work, free land for data centers, etc. Or they could rent the data his apps collect, and use that to track everyone. That's one way how he got so rich, in the first place: carbon credits for Teslas. **People are right to think that wealth inequality at these levels are a scourge on humanity and a gross injustice, and they are right to be angry about it. We should all be angry about it.** But they are wrong to think that they can solve the problem of wealth inequality with politics, as the government is what made these people so rich, and these people now effectively own the government. These measures can only offer a temporary reprieve and assuage the righteous anger for a bit, which is better than nothing, but they do not solve the underlying problem of the government being way too big and printing way too much money. We have to fix the money, to fix the world.

Replies (13)

We need to think and feel ourselves into a new way of seeing the world, a new state of consciousness that can embrace the idea of deflationary money and with it an economy that doesn't have to grow in a material way in order to produce wealth.
We need more of this. Recognizing the problem is still (very much) a problem, while acknowledging the government isn’t the solution. The general population has lost their motivation/imagination.
oh the carbon credits for Teslas. that made my blood boil. i was paying 300$ a month to ride an *electric* subway to work while my roommate got $5000 + $7500 check in the mail from federal and state governments for LEASing a fuel cell powered car. at least in that case the money went to Toyota. that was my first realization that the gov wasn't helping do it's own stated goals of carbon emission. if they were, all of us poor folk crammed on the subway would have gotten free or cheaper tickets. And the electric cars got free rides in the toll lanes and bridges... and once Elon drained California/Obama subsidies, they rebranded and moved to Texas and started on the right wing subsidies. i can't be too mad tho because i'm using Starlink and self-driving Teslas are incredible.
I feel the same way about houses. The more energy-efficient the houses are, the bigger people build them, and the more the government subsidizes the building. But they most energy efficient housing is old and small because it didn't take that much energy to erect, doesn't take much to run, and it is continuing to be used
We do have the beginnings of a list. Look at scenarios like Nest smoke detectors. Google bought Nest then killed the smoke detector line because they couldn't figure out how to spy profitably enough using them. Now there is nothing equivalent that works reliably.
Facebook and Amazon are notorious for buying up any promising competition and then closing them down. That's why they killed Skype; to promote Teams.
hopefully they still have these sweet EV tax rebate deals even for leases! i just ranked all vehicles in reliability, size(car camping) and ground clearance (high as possible but unibody). the matrix converged on early 2000s Highlander/Subaru if i had to do it today, i would look for those early 2020s used Teslas with self driving already payed for.
a subaru mechanic highly recommended subaru so it's probably a good one to go with. Honda Ridgelines also look solid
↑