Why would they unless they are suffering at the bottom? How does it actually affect you? Or is it just envy of those who have more?

If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further.

>> Many people think [massive wealth inequality] is a problem, or at least an undesirable situation.

> Why would they unless they are suffering at the bottom? How does it actually affect you?

You might want to spend some time thinking their alternate perspectives.

> Or is it just envy of those who have more?

Not any more than it being greed that's motivating you to take your positions.

It's generally not very enlightening to take personal swipes like you did there.

> If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further.

This seems to be hinting at a kind of libertarian worldview that sees the government and politicians as some kind of unaccountable independent power. That's not the only way to think about government, and I'd argue that it's a pretty limited and ultimately unhelpful perspective.

A more democratic perspective is not so opposed to the people gaining more power through their elected representatives.

If you're able to tell me a max level of wealth needed then you can likewise tell me a min level of comfort. So raise people up to that, and then what's the complaint?

I came from a country and living that is far less than anything in the US, and yet billions have it worse. Once you reach a good standard of living, what perspective other than envy is there? And I'm talking about the collective, not you.

> "people gaining more power through their elected representatives"

What does taxes have to do with this? It solves nothing if those politicians continue to spend poorly, as they are now and have been for a very long time. I hear no solutions for this, only claims that somehow more money handed to the govt will fix everything.

> If you're able to tell me a max level of wealth needed then you can likewise tell me a min level of comfort. So raise people up to that, and then what's the complaint?

For a democratic society to really work, it helps that individuals are more or less equal. Don't interpret more or less too rigidly. Past a certain point, economic inequality breeds democratic disfunction and oligarchy.

> Once you reach a good standard of living, what perspective other than envy is there?

That's is a pretty messed up perspective. If a dictator provides you with what he considers a good standard of living; is it envy to want to have some of the power he denies you?

I suspect such accusations of envy are merely a way to defend the status quo by delegitimizing critiques and proposals for change. I'm not saying you're consciously trying to do that.

>>> If political power is created from economic power, then you're just transfering even more power to politicians by creating wealth taxes. It is concentrating it further.

>> This seems to be hinting at a kind of libertarian worldview that sees the government and politicians as some kind of unaccountable independent power. That's not the only way to think about government, and I'd argue that it's a pretty limited and ultimately unhelpful perspective.

>> A more democratic perspective is not so opposed to the people gaining more power through their elected representatives.

> What does taxes have to do with this?

Some of your questions are getting tedious. I quoted you some of the relative context from the thread, so you can answer your question yourself. It's pretty obvious.

> It solves nothing if those politicians continue to spend poorly, as they are now and have been for a very long time. I hear no solutions for this, only claims that somehow more money handed to the govt will fix everything.

This is hyperbole and a strawman. No one thinks more money will magically fix these problems, but it's pretty clear withholding money from the government has caused problems and will probably prevent the many problems from getting fixed at all. And even if all the money is wasted, there's still some value gained from decreasing inequality through the actions of taxes.

The difference is a dictator takes power. In a democratic and capitalist system, there is nothing stopping you from gaining that power for yourself. So what is there other than envy?

Taxes do not give more power to the people, if that's your answer. They concentrate it in the hands of a few, except this time its politicians.

Withholding money from the government is already illegal. The only possibility is an arbitrary judgement that there should be "more" paid, and if more money won't magically solve these problems then why isnt the attention placed no properly spending the money that is collected instead?

But the finance sentence hints at the real purpose - to take from those who have. Inequality isn't the problem. It's proper isolation from power. Money should be removed from politics, not poured into it.

> The difference is a dictator takes power. In a democratic and capitalist system, there is nothing stopping you from gaining that power for yourself.

lol.

The difference isn't as big as you think. It's just as accurate to say "there's nothing stopping you from toppling a dictator and gaining his power for yourself." You see that it's obviously complicated and difficult to do such a thing, and you're ignoring similar complexities in your statement.

Obviously many barriers prevent a common man from "gaining that power for [himself]." Things like not having the money (e.g. it helps to have money to make money), connections, or luck. These are things that a pull yourself up by the bootstraps capitalist fairy tale can't help with.

> So what is there other than envy?

A desire for democracy rather than aristocracy, for one.

Look, your question is the wrong one. It's clear you've internalized some false beliefs about how fair the current system is, and that prejudices you against those who want to change it. It would suggest you reflect and critically examine those beliefs. I did that, and got over similar beliefs as yours.

> But the finance sentence hints at the real purpose - to take from those who have.

No, that's not the real purpose, just your projection. The real purpose is to help remedy society's problems, and I think it would be beneficial to not to have an aristocracy.

> Inequality isn't the problem. It's proper isolation from power. Money should be removed from politics, not poured into it.

I think I said it before, but that kind of isolation is impossible. It's not the solution.

A dictator is not elected. It specifically means people do not choose the leader, whereas in a democracy you do have the power vote for candidates and run for office yourself.

Capitalism is nothing but an economic system where an individual owns the means to production. That's it. Nothing more. You take the risks, create leverage, and either suffer the failure or enjoy the profit. Nobody needs to give you permission or gets to tell you what to do. It's the ultimate freedom to create your own living.

Many complaints about capitalism are just complaints about life not being fair. In that case, there is absolutely no other system that will give you more opportunity.

Instead of telling me my question is wrong or saying I have inherent biases, why not provide the actual argument? Otherwise I can just do the same to you and we end up nowhere.

Again, if those at the bottom are at a sufficient level of comfort, then there is no need to take from those above. And if political power is properly isolated from the influence of wealth, just about every issue with the wealthy now will go away.

> A dictator is not elected. It specifically means people do not choose the leader, whereas in a democracy you do have the power vote for candidates and run for office yourself.

So? It's just a society that's structured a little differently. There's "nothing" stopping you from taking the insane gamble to topple the dictator, and you would have a chance at success. Perhaps that chance can be reckoned as being "fair."

> Instead of telling me my question is wrong or saying I have inherent biases, why not provide the actual argument?

I've told you already: your premises are flawed.

> Capitalism is nothing but an economic system where an individual owns the means to production. That's it. Nothing more. You take the risks, create leverage, and either suffer the failure or enjoy the profit. Nobody needs to give you permission or gets to tell you what to do. It's the ultimate freedom to create your own living....

> Again, if those at the bottom are at a sufficient level of comfort, then there is no need to take from those above. And if political power is properly isolated from the influence of wealth, just about every issue with the wealthy now will go away.

Again, that kind of isolation is impossible. Let's consider a simple, extreme scenario that's illustrative: imagine a capitalist society where one person has managed to own everything, but deigns to employ all the common people and provide them with a "sufficient level of comfort." Even if there's still some nominal democratic system, it can't truly function. He owns and therefore controls the presses, the TV stations, and the servers, so only messages he approves can get out. The economic power of his wealth gives him control over the electoral system, and thus extreme political power. The democratic processes would be turned into a sham. Attempts at "proper isolation" would be incompatible with the rights of control that wealth implies, and would amount to taking property away from the world-owner.

Furthermore: In this scenario, no one can capitalistically challenge the world-owner's economic power, since he totally controls the resources they'd need to do so. No one else has their own freedom or autonomy, since they live in his system. It's also likely they'll disagree with the his idea of what a "sufficient level of comfort" is (as the history of shitty working conditions attest that owners have poor sense of this). The common people who may want to take away the world-owners wealth aren't driven by envy, they're driven by a desire for freedom and autonomy of their own.

This scenario is extreme, but its broad features hold in other systems of extreme inequality, such as a single corporate world-owner or an aristocracy. Democracy functions best when there aren't the extremes of inequality. You could say the same thing about capitalism, too (if your focus is on the general welfare and not some individual).

There's all kinds of books and resources that go into these topics and ideas much more skillfully than I can. I suggest you seek them out.