View Single Post
  #222  
Old 09-06-2019, 12:16 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
You will not find it by nutpicking.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

Swing and a miss again, there is no affirmation on the fable about what you claim here. Some versions (also in the link) do point at the miser's gold being the result of selling his state (or fortune coming from dubious sources) and for sure, not giving any part to the government
So you’re still misinterpreting cites, still not standing behind your own cites, still spouting garbage pointless clichés and inanities, and still not answering questions directly related to the subject of the OP. Well at least your consistent.

Again: What is the liberal position on wealth?

Here, let me help you out. Liberals are concerned about the growing inequality between society’s top wealth-holders and bottom wealth-holders. They also dislike the fact that some rich people achieved their wealth through cronyism or corruption. Liberals are concerned that some people are actually the victims of capitalism; people who’ve lost their jobs due to technological change or international trade. They note that some people got rich from those changes. Liberals also recognise that there are inefficiencies in the tax system, and many of those inefficiencies are intentional; essentially they’re corrupt as they’re designed to make taxes less fair, not more.

A few liberal politicians have come along and declared that the solution to the above issues is a wealth tax. Many on the liberal bandwagon cheer and shout some version of “Right On!”. They become emotionally attached to the idea. And when people start asking questions about the details behind the wealth tax, and criticising the lack of thought behind it, the liberal response is an emotional one. The politicians cheered them up and the critics are reducing their cheer. The critics therefore are mean people who have no interest in solving the problems listed in the above paragraph.

For myself, I’m less concerned about inequality than the typical liberal. I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. They’re actually benefiting society. My concern towards the the poor is that I want people to move out of poverty measured in absolute terms – not measured in relation to the rich. And the elimination of poverty is going to depend on innovation and investment – things spurred on by the rich. Should there be a safety net? Definitely. Should society be investing not only in corporations, but in itself through education and infrastructure? Absolutely. Fund that investment through income taxes. And if some rich person decides to cash in some of their shares or property, that’s income. Tax it. But if someone builds a company with a paper worth of $1 billion, should the government come along and tell them they have to sell a portion of the company worth $47.6 million to pay a wealth tax? No. If there are problems with the tax system, fix them. If there’s cronyism or corruption in government spending, stop it. If the government is underinvesting in society, either move spending from other areas into education and infrastructure, or raise taxes (but gradually, please). But soak the rich because it’s the “Right On!” thing to do? It isn’t.