Bonus question: how much would a company have to pay you for you to give 100% effort at work?

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Funny enough, California has a very progressive tax system, and has higher than normal income inequality but a higher base standard of living than the rest of the US. I think having an economy with more opportunities for people inflates everyone’s income, including the rich.

    But it brings up a question, if everyone were to have a decent standard of living, is it as big a problem that rich people exist? Obviously we’re not there yet, but hypothetically in a post scarcity world, it’s an interesting thing to think about.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      The problem is loopholes, but I’m not a tax lawyer, which is why I provi such a vague answer.

      I think that ostentatious wealth is a sign you’re not doing your share to help the society that supports you, so the disgustingly rich shouldn’t exist. But I’m not opposed to a little inequality as reward for doing important work or going above and beyond, but what we have now is crazy.

      I wouldn’t really say that California’s tax is especially progressive compared to taxes in the past, like the golden age of the USA. But even then, lobbyists have opened so many loopholes that it doesn’t even really matter what the tax rate is

    • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      To me, the ideal system would be everyone has enough to live comfortably, and the rest is allocated according to how hard or smart people work.