• flossdaily@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s absolutely what I’m advocating for.

    Keep capitalism. Allow people to become rich. Use the promise of money to fuel innovation and labor.

    … but, after the wealth is generated, we use an extremely aggressive, progressive tax system to functionally call wealth at some level that fuels ambition, but recognized that the majority of that vast wealth was generated by the workers.

    For example, Bill Gates at one point was with 80 BILLION dollars. Can anyone say with a straight face that back when he was working out of a garage, he would have been any less motivated if he knew he could get (only?!) 50 million dollars?

    Of course not. That’s a fortune… That’s all your material needs met for your whole life, and a great inheritance to leave for your family. So why not ramp up all taxes, exponentially, forn income and wealth beyond $50m?

    The innovations would be the same, the companies would be the same, but either by taxes or by salaries or stock options, the WORKERS would have shared in that 80 BILLION that Gates hoarded.

      • flossdaily@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. Higher, even as you get close to 50m.

        Current wealth distribution in the US is INSANELY skewed… Corrections will have to be extremely drastic.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t want to do this?

          In 2018, U.S. households held over $113 trillion in assets. For context, that is over five times as much as all the goods and services produced in the U.S. economy in a single year. If that amount were divided evenly across the U.S. population of 329 million, it would result in over $343,000 for each person. For a family of three, that’s over a million dollars in assets.

    • Stinkywinks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Does wealth really fuel ambition? Id feel like eventually it would just become a growing number in an account. I think a lot of people on top want power but I believe the innovators are fueled by creativity and curiosity. Maybe some jobs are useless. Do we need 10000 fast food choices? Do we need 10000 different stupid apps? Do we need to constantly grow like a virus, destroying the planet and anything that stops our growth? Enslaving people in meaningless jobs to keep the machine growing.

      • flossdaily@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ability to get acquire wealth ABSOLUTELY fuels ambition. The concept that working harder and smarter will yield financial rewards? It’s driven more innovation than anything else in history.

        Creativity, discovery, and problem solving are fun… but taking an new idea and turning into something useful… That’s MOSTLY drudgery, and very expensive in both time and money. The financial rewards at the end of the journey are what fuel people and institutions.

        • Stinkywinks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure not starving to death and living a comfortable life, but I’d say there’s a limit to most. What is it for you? The number in the account, all the useless materialism, or the power of being in charge of everything and everyone you own? I don’t think any of the reasons is a good way to live, and I doubt most even want to live that way. We don’t need to be mindless hoarders.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have know and worked with people who have made a lot of money. Not billions, but millions. The ones who actually do the innovating don’t do it for the money. And most of the ones not innovating actually are doing it because they are competitive. They want to be the best. Money is part of that, but only in the relative to others sense.

      Now here’s the rub. The innovators can’t innovate without someone paying the bill. And the competitors aren’t just competing with people in their own country.

      So any solution needs to deal with those complexities.

      • within_epsilon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would build software even if I was not being paid for doing the work. I am lucky to trade my time for money in something I would be doing anyway. I have less say over my projects than I would like, but at least I get to make projects that make me happy.

        I seem to be bad at making money when owners make my yearly salary per hour.

      • flossdaily@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Government grants… Democratic influence over where research is directed.

        Publicly owned venture capital firms.

        Non-profit grants

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We have government grants. But it is impossible to find a body to decide who gets them that isn’t biased and/or corrupt.

          We also have publicly owned venture capital firms

          Not sure what the last one is exactly… but pretty sure we have that too.