Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
Wealth inequality has been periodically rising up at the forefront of political discussions since 2008: almost 20 years now. With the same seemingly smart analysis pointing out that wealth inequality results in social unrest, often terminating with the "solution" of taxing the rich. First of all, although it does seem that wealth inequality leads to social unrest today, it's not at all a historical fact, when historical societies with massive wealth inequality have persisted for centuries. This raises the question of political manipulation and instrumentalisation. It also points out to a material switch in the moral compass that occurred more than century ago. Fruit of a materialism Zeitgeist that colored of all the "isms" of the era: Capitalism, Marxisim, Socialism and Communism ideologies, etc.. . All raised materiality has a moral imperative. Above kindness, honesty, generosity, honor, and the rest of the set of virtues that humanity has recognized for ages.
When inflation rises the value of assets compared to money increases. It means that, as money devalues, if you own land, stocks, businesses, and things of the sort, you do not get to be richer, but you get to keep what you have. This is what is commonly referred to as "the transfer of wealth" to the richest. It's not a transfer at all, the word "transfer" suggests that wealth is being taken from the population at large and given to the richest. What is happening is that the asset of most people is "Money / Currency". This is a devaluating asset by design (the inflation rate set by central banks), and the more it devalues, the less it is worth compared to everything else.
Then there is taxation. Taxation disproportionately affects people who derive their income from good paying salaries. . When adding up all taxes indexed on their salaries and the indirect taxes, their tax burden can be over 60%. These are historically high numbers, nowhere near the taxation levels of asset owners, or the low salaries earners. It means they don't even get to keep half of what they made. These incredibly high numbers also hinder the capacity of the most productive members of the population to acquire assets, start businesses, and over all participate into the economy to their full extent.
In comparison, the lowest payed workers. However they are disproportionally affected by indirect taxation and consumption taxes (ex: VAT). That represent a higher percentage of their income.
The most direct solution to reducing wealth inequality, is not to make the richest poorer. It's to make everybody richer, and the shortest path to do that is to get rid of inflation, lower the tax burden on salaries and, have a very low or even no consumption tax. It seems obvious, let people keep most of what they make so that they attain higher levels of material wellbeing doing what they already do. And make sure that their savings do not lose value over time.
Share:
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/406360391
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
Wealth inequality has been periodically rising up at the forefront of political discussions since 2008: almost 20 years now. With the same seemingly smart analysis pointing out that wealth inequality results in social unrest, often terminating with the "solution" taxing the rich. First of all, although it does seem that wealth inequality leads to social unrest today, it's not at all a historical fact, when historical societies with mass wealth inequality have persisted for centuries. This raises the question of political manipulation and instrumentalisation. It also points out a material switch in the moral compass that occurred more than century ago. Fruit of a materialism Zeitgeist that colored of all the "isms" of the era: Capitalism, Marxisim, Socialism and Communism ideologies, etc.. . All raised materiality has a moral imperative. Above kindness, honesty, generosity, honor, and the rest of the set of virtues that humanity has recognized for ages.
When inflation rises the value of assets compared to money increases. It means that, as money devalues, if you own land, stocks, businesses, and things of the sort, you do not get to be richer, but you get to keep what you have. This is what is commonly referred to as "the transfer of wealth" to the richest. It's not a transfer at all, the word "transfer" suggests that wealth is being taken from the population at large and given to the richest. What is happening is that the asset of most people is "Money / Currency". This is a devaluating asset by design (the inflation rate set by central banks), and the more it devalues, the less it is worth compared to everything else.
Then there is taxation. Taxation disproportionately affects people who derive their income from good paying salaries. . When adding up all taxes indexed on their salaries and the indirect taxes, their tax burden can be over 60%. These are historically high numbers, nowhere near the taxation levels of asset owners, or the low salaries earners. It means they don't even get to keep half of what they made. These incredibly high numbers also hinder the capacity of the most productive members of the population to acquire assets, start businesses, and over all participate into the economy to their full extent.
In comparison, the lowest payed workers. However they are disproportionally affected by indirect taxation and consumption taxes (ex: VAT). That represent a higher percentage of their income.
The most direct solution to reducing wealth inequality, is not to make the richest poorer. It's to make everybody richer, and the shortest path to do that is to get rid of inflation, lower the tax burden on salaries and, have a very low or even no consumption tax. It seems obvious, let people keep most of what they make so that they attain higher levels of material wellbeing doing what they already do. And make sure that their savings do not lose value over time.
Share:
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/406201554
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
Wealth inequality has been periodically rising up at the forefront of political discussions since 2008: almost 20 years now. With the same seemingly smart analysis pointing out that wealth inequality results in social unrest, often terminating with the "solution" taxing the rich. First of all, although it does seem that wealth inequality leads to social unrest today, it's not at all a historical fact, when historical societies with mass wealth inequality have persisted for centuries. This raises the question of political manipulation and instrumentalisation. It also points out a material switch in the moral compass that occurred more than century ago. Fruit of a materialism Zeitgeist that colored of all the "isms" of the era: Capitalism, Marxisim, Socialism and Communism ideologies, etc.. . All raised materiality has a moral imperative. Above kindness, honesty, generosity, honor, and the rest of the set of virtues that humanity has recognized for ages.
When inflation rises the value of assets compared to money increases. It means that, as money devalues, if you own land, stocks, businesses, and things of the sort, you do not get to be richer, but you get to keep what you have. This is what is commonly referred to as "the transfer of wealth" to the richest. It's not a transfer at all, the word "transfer" suggests that wealth is being taken from the population at large and given to the richest. What is happening is that the asset of most people is "Money / Currency". This is a devaluating asset by design (the inflation rate set by central banks), and the more it devalues, the less it is worth compared to everything else.
Then there is taxation. Taxation disproportionately affects people who derive their income from good paying salaries. . When adding up all taxes indexed on their salaries and the indirect taxes, their tax burden can be over 60%. These are historically high numbers, nowhere near the taxation levels of asset owners, or the low salaries earners. It means they don't even get to keep half of what they made. These incredibly high numbers also hinder the capacity of the most productive members of the population to acquire assets, start businesses, and over all participate into the economy to their full extent.
In comparison, the lowest payed workers. However they are disproportionally affected by indirect taxation and consumption taxes (ex: VAT). That represent a higher percentage of their income.
The most direct solution to reducing wealth inequality, is not to make the richest poorer. It's to make everybody richer, and the shortest path to do that is to get rid of inflation, lower the tax burden on salaries and very low or even no consumption taxes. It seems obvious, let people keep most of what they make so that they attain higher levels of material wellbeing doing what they already do. And make sure that their savings do not lose value over time.
Share:
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/406200693
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
Wealth inequality has been periodically rising up at the forefront of political discussions since 2008: almost 20 years now. With the same seemingly smart analysis pointing out that wealth inequality results in social unrest, often terminating with the "solution" taxing the rich. First of all, although it does seem that wealth inequality leads to social unrest today, it's not at all a historical fact, when historical societies with mass wealth inequality have persisted for centuries. This raises the question of political manipulation and instrumentalisation. It also points out a material switch in the moral compass that occurred more than century ago. Fruit fa materialism Zeitgeist that colored of all the "isms" of the era: Capitalism, Marxisim, Socialism and Communism ideologies, etc.. . All raised materiality has a moral imperative. Above kindness, honesty, generosity, honor, and the rest of the set of virtues that humanity has recognized for ages.
When inflation rises the value of assets compared to money increases. It means that, as money devalues, if you own land, stocks, businesses, and things of the sort, you do not get to be richer, but you get to keep what you have. This is what is commonly referred to as "the transfer of wealth" to the richest. It's not a transfer at all, the word "transfer" suggests that wealth is being taken from the population at large and given to the richest. What is happening is that the asset of most people is "Money / Currency". This is a devaluating asset by design (the inflation rate set by central banks), and the more it devalues, the less it is worth compared to everything else.
Then there is taxation. Taxation disproportionately affects people who derive their income from good paying salaries. . When adding up all taxes indexed on their salaries and the indirect taxes, their tax burden can be over 60%. These are historically high numbers, nowhere near the taxation levels of asset owners, or the low salaries earners. It means they don't even get to keep half of what they made. These incredibly high numbers also hinder the capacity of the most productive members of the population to acquire assets, start businesses, and over all participate into the economy to their full extent.
In comparison, the lowest payed workers. However they are disproportionally affected by indirect taxation and consumption taxes (ex: VAT). That represent a higher percentage of their income.
The most direct solution to reducing wealth inequality, is not to make the richest poorer. It's to make everybody richer, and the shortest path to do that is to get rid of inflation, lower the tax burden on salaries and very low or even no consumption taxes. It seems obvious, let people keep most of what they make so that they attain higher levels of material wellbeing doing what they already do. And make sure that their savings do not lose value over time.
Share:
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/406077059
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
Wealth inequality has been periodically rising up at the forefront of political discussions since 2008: almost 20 years now. With the same seemingly smart analysis pointing out that wealth inequality results in social unrest, often terminating with the "solution" taxing the rich. First of all, although it does seem that wealth inequality leads to social unrest today, it's not at all a historical fact, when historical societies with mass wealth inequality have persisted for centuries. This raises the question of political manipulation and instrumentalisation. It also points out a material switch in the moral compass that occurred more than century ago. Fruit fa materialism Zeitgeist that colored of all the "isms" of the era: Capitalism, Marxisim, Socialism and Communism ideologies, etc.. . All raised materiality has a moral imperative. Above kindness, honesty, generosity, honor, and the rest of the set of virtues that humanity has recognized for ages.
When inflation rises the value of assets compared to money increases. It means that, as money devalues, if you own land, stocks, businesses, and things of the sort, you do not get to be richer, but you get to keep what you have. This is what is commonly referred to as "the transfer of wealth" to the richest. It's not a transfer at all, the word "transfer" suggests that wealth is being taken from the population at large and given to the richest. What is happening is that the asset of most people is "Money / Currency". This is a devaluating asset by design (the inflation rate set by central banks), and the more it devalues, the less it is worth compared to everything else.
Then there is taxation. Taxation disproportionately affects people who derive their income from good paying salaries. . When adding up all taxes indexed on their salaries and the indirect taxes, their tax burden can be over 60%. These are historically high numbers, nowhere near the taxation levels of asset owners, or the low salaries earners. It means they don't even get to keep half of what they made. These incredibly high numbers also hinder the capacity of the most productive members of the population to acquire assets, start businesses, and over all participate into the economy to their full extent.
In comparison, the lowest payed workers. However they are disproportionally affected by indirect taxation and consumption taxes (ex: VAT). That represent a higher percentage of their income.
The most direct solution to reducing wealth inequality, is not to make the richest poorer. It's to make everybody richer, and the shortest path to do that is to get rid of inflation and lower the tax burden on salaries. It seems obvious, let people keep most of what they make so that they attain higher levels of material wellbeing doing what they already do. And make sure that their savings do not lose value over time.
Share:
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/406077055
