Who has more representation in society? The wealthy man, or the not wealthy man?
In politics? Well sure, money talks; money fixes the potholes, and pays for election campaigns.
Who is afforded more opportunities and freedoms due to their wealth?
That's what wealth IS; more wealth equates to more opportunities and freedoms; it's cause & effect.
What you describe is like a suburbanite buying three cars because they can afford it—and blaming them because their neighbor cannot afford more than one. (...or none)
It appears as though you might side with the notion to brute -[violent]- force any wealthy person to raise up their neighbors before having the gall to buy a second car. (...when their neighbors might be jerks, or lay-abouts.)
Have your read the Odyssey? Those suitors are as old as humanity, and the type still exists to this day. They surf on the waves made by others, and take whatever they can by whatever means they can. These are people that walk out of a catered party with the host's cheese plates; sticking it to the rich is a malignant thrill. I have worked parties like this; even seen staff abscond with decorations that I created.
Not equal contributions; they pay more, and are hated behind their backs. (Sure... some of them earn that enmity, but all of them get it.)
Why should the man that has benefited from society so well (especially if inherited)
Inherited wealth is not free; a rich brat might not deserve it—nor ever do anything good with it, but it was their parents' gift to them; not their gift to the masses. No one [else] should have a right to that.
Taxes are an investment in our own society that we all contribute to.
But not equally.
Many billionaires support efforts to rehaul our tax system that would see them pay more anyways. there will always be abusers at the extremes. let's not throw the baby out with the bath water though.
Some of the wealthy seem to imagine the sword of Damocles above them, and might say anything to appear charitable, and almost publically appologetic of their own wealth... for sake of appearances. Unless it was an outright gift to them, I don't believe a word of it—not if they accomplished it themselves. They should have too much self respect for that to be true.
There is nothing wrong with allowing Billionaires to optionally pay more in taxes; nor even to incentivise them to do it. But it is wrong to punish a person for their success.
Equal tax for a carpenter and an oil magnate doesn't sound like the best society.
People do what they are trained for, or talented at; sometimes both. Not all jobs lead to a high salary, not all jobs are worth a high salary, or daily wage. Mandating them to be so does harm anyone needing to hire someone. Why should the oil magnate be singled out for a larger share of the bill than anyone else?
The reason seems to be because they are mentally capable of running an oil company; again, punish the tall poppies.
When an employer has a budget that allows for a finite number of employees, they can stay afloat with those employees. But when forced to nearly double their wages... That doesn't nearly double their sales as well, nor does it halve their operating costs—it just makes their business cost more to run; meaning that prices go up, and there is less reason to run the business. They will very likely have to lay off employees until they can afford to pay the number of those remaining.
No. The baker determines the price as they see fit to sell it at. If people find it to be worth the price they will pay it (with exception to consumer protection laws). If you're looking to tax based on goods and services it will largely take care of itself with the associated costs of the goods and then in turn the % of tax applied as we do now.
But two adjacent bakers can sell very different amounts; one might be a wretched cook, or just average, while the other is by their own talent, exceptional....and... the exceptional one will pay more in taxes for this. Why then should they bother running a bakery, or in the very least why should they care to make better baked goods instead of merely average? They literally get penalized for being the tall poppies.
*Consumer protection laws [mentioned above] should not be allowed to affect price. If I want to sell $95 cups of lemonaid —(or
$40 bottled water), I should be able to, and everyone should be able to laugh at it, and go make their own.
[...unless, unless it's found to be worth it; to be so unnervingly good as to pay the price for it. There is nothing wrong with selling $95 lemonade opposite several other stands selling cups for 50¢. And when you close with a few thousand dollars, it was not unfair to the other vendors. You took the risk, you succeeded, you profited.]
Again. At some point it is physically impossible to put the manhours in to create the wealth that we're talking about with billionairs.
And it's not necessary... The [future] billionaire pays
work-for-hire (like anyone else), just on a larger scale.
A landscaping crew who designs a multi acre back yard gets paid for it, and at that pay is in lieu of the client doing the work themselves; for all intents afterward (except litigation for bad yard work), the client has done the work themselves. The crew has no claim to it—they were paid.
