 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | | I’d totally agree, and that’s why I reckon they should be taxed much more than they currently are. |
I think the compromise is to tax capital that's not in motion. 'Use it or lose it', a bit like taxing vacant second properties when there's a housing shortage. The problem is excess wealth locked up in safe-as-housing investment, which is a massive socio-economic co$k blocker and power accumulator.
Housing is the best example. Land and cities are finite, so subsequent generations are disadvantaged as population grows, which is an enormous looming menace for young people and creates generational lines of wealth and power. No one owns the nation and the city, and no one earns the right to have a bigger say in perpetuity. Allowing the hoarding of wealth at a risk-free premium (i.e., parked safe-as-houses capital) ruins the whole game for everyone. It's the complete opposite of competition.
A great example is AFL versus European football. In the latter, only a few billionaire or oligarch-funded clubs (and the odd fluke) can ever win. Do Aussie Rules players look like they're suffering because they can't earn what top soccer players earn? Happiness and success are highly elastic.
As you know my philosophy is that it's the quality of competition that matters most. |
Great post, PTID – agree 100%.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
