Even if success greatest factor is luck it still requires merit. By punishing success you're punishing people that put money into savings, that attempt to innovate and improve human society, that invest in promising areas. In the long term society will be stagnant. And I doubt that in the short term society will be more equal because forced distribution of wealth historically increases inequality.
Citation needed. No, Europe is not doing just fine. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/americans-are-generally-richer...
try to find some statistics around spending power https://x.com/dima_heyqq/status/1758508340953448525?s=48&t=H...
Singapore – 7922 $ / month
Qatar 5628
UAE – 5585
Kuwait – 5250
Switzerland – 5232
Denmark – 4894
Germany – 4667
Austria – 4484
Saudi Arabia – 4419
South Korea – 4076
USA – 4066
Canada - 4026
Sweden – 3666
France – 3556
Hong Kong – 3219
Spain – 3148
UK – 3127
Finland – 2827
Israel – 2770
Poland – 2753
Portugal – 2220
Russia – 2159
China – 1823 (urban non-private) 1053 (urban private)
Thailand – 1769
Indonesia – 1051And the conclusion is the US generates more wealth for the middle class than Europe does.
If things are so good why Europe is being dominated by authoritarian populists?
I questioned the US paradoxes on philanthropy and meritocracy.
For all I care, you can hold on to your "America first, whatever country second", "F*k yea, America" and all that.
you can derive from my statements that I don't think the current landscape in the US is entirely meritocraric or democratic as a single person can amass serious influence by investing in the stock market.
you respond that at least the US is richer than the EU, which is probably right. But I don't understand what belief it challenges? That it should justify a less democratic or meritocratic system?
please enlighten me :)
I think there is a broad consensus that talent won't make you a billionarie in the stock market, otherwise we had seen many more people become billionaires in the stock market.
If you really believe that that the person in question got billionaire on the stock market by their merits that’s just wrong.
I like how you threw in the word "intelligently" like this investments was planned and thought out from the beginning ;)
Thresholds are are not that hard to decide: It is about taxation that takes macro-economic behaviour and targets into account.
We have a political party that wants to reduce capital gains tax in Denmark (currently 27%/42%). However, analysis shows that this would benefit only the wealthiest 2% so the consensus is that this is a bad idea from a macro economic perspective.
The value of money is relative. Your 1 million dollars are worthless if everyone else has 10 million dollars. The second people act upon and realise that, we can start to build good economic systems.