What’s radical in the US is common sense in a lot of places.
To the downvoters: Isn’t universal healthcare considered radical by many in the US? How about free college? Or, most of the stuff that Bernie Sanders wanted and was considered “too radical”, except his political view would be considered somewhat conservative where I’m from.
For some that ideas are radical, yes. However what I find more radical with Sanders is how he wants to fund all these “free” things. It’s basically a playbook of “how many different ways can we possibly tax the rich for more money than they have”.
Edit: since people seem to not get it, he wants to have taxes based on net worth, which will mean taxes that cost more than the amount of money these people have. Net worth isn’t the same as money/cash.
Yes, and a lot of countries do tax accrued wealth. It’s taxed in such a way that most people would want to be in the position of being taxed on accrued wealth. Norway, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Italy… the list goes on. But, the concept that people who are well off. Like… those it applies to can life a perfectly happy life without any concern and better off than 99% of the world, and pay a tiny bit more. Still remain in the same situation… Hm. I’m not sure it is productive to explain this. It’s the kind of thing that “makes sense”, and the inverse is borderline morally bankrupt. So, to you it seems ridiculous. But, you would not trade a minor inconvenience to the few who have it better than good, and will still have it better than good, for a significant societal improvement on the whole.
I would say that it is political views like yours who “do not seem to get it”.
The problem I have with taxing wealth is this. Let’s say you start a company, it blows up and becomes the next Amazon or whatever. You own most of the company still, or at least a controlling share in it.
Should you be forced to sell away some of your ownership in your own company just because the market values that ownership and voting power to be worth billions? Personally I don’t think so. There is a reason these big companies like Amazon, Apple, Tesla, etc can’t exist outside of the US, the owner would be forced to sell away their company just to pay for taxes on money they don’t have.
What’s radical in the US is common sense in a lot of places.
To the downvoters: Isn’t universal healthcare considered radical by many in the US? How about free college? Or, most of the stuff that Bernie Sanders wanted and was considered “too radical”, except his political view would be considered somewhat conservative where I’m from.
For some that ideas are radical, yes. However what I find more radical with Sanders is how he wants to fund all these “free” things. It’s basically a playbook of “how many different ways can we possibly tax the rich for more money than they have”.
Edit: since people seem to not get it, he wants to have taxes based on net worth, which will mean taxes that cost more than the amount of money these people have. Net worth isn’t the same as money/cash.
Yes, and a lot of countries do tax accrued wealth. It’s taxed in such a way that most people would want to be in the position of being taxed on accrued wealth. Norway, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Italy… the list goes on. But, the concept that people who are well off. Like… those it applies to can life a perfectly happy life without any concern and better off than 99% of the world, and pay a tiny bit more. Still remain in the same situation… Hm. I’m not sure it is productive to explain this. It’s the kind of thing that “makes sense”, and the inverse is borderline morally bankrupt. So, to you it seems ridiculous. But, you would not trade a minor inconvenience to the few who have it better than good, and will still have it better than good, for a significant societal improvement on the whole.
I would say that it is political views like yours who “do not seem to get it”.
The problem I have with taxing wealth is this. Let’s say you start a company, it blows up and becomes the next Amazon or whatever. You own most of the company still, or at least a controlling share in it.
Should you be forced to sell away some of your ownership in your own company just because the market values that ownership and voting power to be worth billions? Personally I don’t think so. There is a reason these big companies like Amazon, Apple, Tesla, etc can’t exist outside of the US, the owner would be forced to sell away their company just to pay for taxes on money they don’t have.
You have a much higher chance of becoming homeless than hitting the black swan lottery.
What does that have to do with anything? Should I only care about what’s best for me, no matter how much it screws someone else?