Quote (Ylem122 @ Apr 3 2014 09:09am)
wealth inequality and capitalisim becomes a problem when the capitalists dont take the effort to constantly give back to society in a variety of ways.
id like to see an extra tax placed on the rich and buisnesses, id like to see these taxes go to a fund headed by a group of publicly elected individuals who in order to be elected must be in the braket that pays this tax. this group of individuals would make 100% transparent decisions on what to do with the funds, abiding to a seperation of church and state, how the funds are used do not have to agreed upon by any other government entity. sure there are alot of finite details, like who gets paid, where the funds for that come from, and how the elections run along with how recall elections work.
Still all in all i dont think the idea of the rich and high revenue buisnesses paying an extra tax which goes to a fund headed by elected rich individuals that pay this tax where they can use this fund to invest in 100% transparent acts of giving back to the nation is all in all a bad idea.
mainly though because i came up with it.
This reminded me of one of my favorite authors.
Quote
"Give back to the community" is a phrase used to implore people who have been successful in business to donate their time, talent, and treasure to some cause besides their business. There is no arguing with the injunction to serve others, but there is a problem with the phrase "give back." It implies that people with money have taken something from others. But presuming that the businessperson has been successful through enterprise, their wealth comes not from taking but from cooperating with willing buyers.
Let's see how this works: When you need milk in a hurry, you dash to the convenience store and pick up a carton. You put it on the counter and the clerk says what you owe. At that moment, there is a calculation made. The clerk determines that he (or the person who employs him) values $2.50 more than the milk. You, on the other hand, determined that you value the milk more than the $2.50 you have been asked to pay for it. You exchange, and voila — you are both better off as a result.
You have done a service to the convenience store, and the convenience store has done a service for you. The store is richer in money, and you are richer in goods. What do the two parties to the exchange owe each other afterwards? Nothing. What does justice demand? That they keep the bargain, and nothing else. The milk can't sour. The check can't bounce. Nothing else is required or asked. Now, if the store clerk is sick and needs help, or the customer is poor and needs shelter, that's another matter. But what is asked in this case is completely unconnected from the results of the economic exchange.
Expand this logic more broadly, and we can see that it applies to all people who make money, even vast amounts. Even the richest person, provided the riches comes from mutually beneficial exchange, does not need to give anything "back" to the community, because this person took nothing out of the community. Indeed, the reverse is true: Enterprises give to the community. Their owners take huge risks, and front the money for investment, precisely with the goal of serving others. Their riches are signs that they have achieved their aims.
-Jeffrey A Tucker
http://mises.org/daily/2962/Does-Money-Taint-EverythingAs you can see they already give quite a bit to society through voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.
As a group they are responsible for most of the tax burden and much of the charitable giving as well.
The witch hunt to further punish and deride "rich people" is extremely counterproductive and a bit of a farce.