you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

It’s not taking 30% and spreading it. It’s we only ever needed to be making 30% of our total being reasonably distributed for everyone to reach those standards.

I don't understand what you mean by those two sentences. They seem to be in conflict with each other.

You have 100 coins. To say we need to be making 30% of our total being reasonably distributed means you now have only 70 coins.

"leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments.”

You had 100 coins and now you have 70. You can still buy luxuries but 30% less than what you had before it was redistributed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think my sticking point is that it's not 30 of your coins, necessarily. This is probably where I'm going wrong, but I might only have 100 coins, but there's a multitude of people that have 1,000 coins, and some still that have 10,000 coins.

    I feel like I'm muddling up production/living standards and just plain wealth, but not every individual would need to give 30%. There would be a total amount equaling 30% that is re-allocated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The article was about production, not wealth. While Bezos certainly uses 1000x the production compared to a regular person, he doesn't use the 1Billion times that his wealth represents. He doesn't eat 1B cheeseburgers every day. So while you'd get more out of the 30% of extremely wealthy, it wouldn't be proportional to their wealth and there's only .1% of the population that's in that category.

  • source
  • parent