Uma economia mais forte, justiça social e emprego
#TheFutureIsYours Uma economia ao seu serviço
Retiradas
To make super rich people give their fair share in order to provide better climate and social justice.
Denunciar conteúdo inapropriado
Este conteúdo é inadequado?
Inicie sessão
Pode aceder com uma conta externa
12 comentários
Conversa
I strongly disagree with this approach. Rich people (actually - everyone with some resources) invest in new ideas and new technologies that truly advance our economy. E.g. DeepMind and OpenAI are private companies that advance and do private most sophisticated research in Artificial General Intelligence. Methusaleh Fund and Kizoo Fund and SENS Research are doing top-level research in reversing the aging therapies. Tesla and Amazon are goind for Mars. BionTech and Modern mRNA vaccines against Covid are created in private companies using completely new approach - there have not been RNA vaccines before.
Only private companies are so ready to go ahead with such top themes. Governments will not do such progress and such efforts.
I support some form of redistribution, especially I support Unconditional Basic Income/Unconditional Divident, but personal growth, education and skills building should be the top priorities for any social policy.
Thank you for your comment. Of course, rich people invest in important new technologies which advance our economy and I don't think governments should do these efforts which you mentioned. The thing is, these innovative technologies make rich people often even richer and most of them are clearly rich enough to do both, invest in new ideas and pay extra taxes. These extra taxes could then be redistributed in things like for example education, health system, climate protection or unconditional basic income (like you support).
You define rich people as everyone with some resources. I suggest wealth taxes for multimillionaires like business people and heirs.
Conversa
While we can thank a lot our nurses and doctors in this Covid time, there won't be exit out of this crisis without vaccines. And vaccines are developed thanks to researchers and private investors.
Here is article that SARS vaccines was available already in 2012 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/scientists-were-close-coronavirus-vaccine-years-ago-then-money-dried-n1150091 but there were no money - no government, nor private to complete the clinical trials.
Currently Modern and BioNTech had entire platforms and workflows. In fact, private companies had virst RNA sequenced after month and after 2-3 months Moderna was ready to deliver first phase clinical trial dose to the human being. That is why private investors should be able to retain their capital and that is why every social policy should prioritize the development and growth issues.
Do you think that super rich people don't invest anymore if wealth taxes are obligated? All in all they get richer anyway.
I see the need for capital income tax and this tax should grow as wage share https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_share decreases. It is natural process that capital (software, AI, robots, etc.) is creating more and more value than limited pool of human resources and that is why capital income tax should increase and redistribution should follow. But we should look this in complex manner. We should frame, designate and enable this redistribution as a process for integral human development that enhances everyone's material opportunities to have education and to grow as persons. And not to ignite fight between pool people and rich peopl.
We should frame this in the framework of social-liberal policies that see the redistribution as a means for the development and growths and not as fight.
I agree with anything in this last comment, thanks for your opinion. However, I still don't get why you are against european wealth tax.
It is more about the framing of the idea.
1) It should be tax (possible progressive) on the capital income, there is no need to call it wealth tax. We should tax (possibly progressively) the income from the robotic/AI/software/machine work and not the people who are working or who are owning something. Of course, small taxes on work and ownership will be.
2) it should be spent on enhancing people life, boosting their growth and not just for spending of subsidized wages or on subsidies for existing green companies. The income from the robotic work should go to the growth - inspiring people to create new technologies (e.g. chemical recycling, robotic waste sorting systems, climate/geo-engineering systems) and not on subsidies on existing businesses that are connected to leftist politicians.
I have enough experience with left wing politics in my country and it is quite nasty.
Well - I just wanted to highlight that the framing is very important. Middle and upper middle class is the most active participants in the political process and I am not sure that they are ready to vote for wealth tax. If wealth tax can be framed as the tax on machine work and not on the people and if the tax is going to be spent on the empowerment and integral growth of humans then such ideas can appeal to middle and upper middle class and gain support.
We need new social contract for this digital economy with new language and new perspectives that respect the passion for growth.
The framing is job of the politicians. I don't mind about how to call the tax, and also for the redistribution many ways are fine for me, but subsidizing green companies or supporting climate protection in other ways are essential for enhancing peoples life and boosting their growth. However, there are many ways to spend the money in sensefull ways, once it is taken. And thats were the multimillionaires come in to play. A wealth tax for super rich people could relieve middle class and upper middle class.
A tax on machine work is a good idea.
Conversa
Wealth tax is a direct tax and a form of double taxation. Income is already taxed in most member states. You always get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize. the goal of the EU should not be to reduce personal wealth. Personal wealth that sits still is invested in the economy and creates new technologies that help improve standards of living.
It is a better idea to tax consumption. potentially through an expansion of the VAT system. higher VAT on luxury products "punishes" luxury consumption instead of productive investment that benefits the lower and middle class as much as it does the upper class.
Additionally, I believe it is important to avoid EU taxes if at all possible. let each country decide their own balance between taxation and expenses in a way that best suit it's needs.
It is true, the goal of the EU should not be to reduce personal wealth. Sharing for example 1-5 % of the personal property will not reduce the wealth of multimillionaires.
Higher VAT on luxury consumption/ climate-demaging consumption is a good idea.
Income should be taxed in every memberstate. I think the memberstates should have a partially uniform tax policy, otherwise big companies will always escape into low-tax countries, to share less money. Regarding the expences, individual state decisions are important.
A carregar comentários...