This, along with the idea that you can just "tax his wealth" like it's some kind of liquid holdings, are the two largest misunderstandings I see when talking about someone else's holdings.
Most of this is just what's called "paper gains", which are not actually cash in the bank. So the little cards popping up behind mentioning how this is equivalent to someone's income are somewhat nonsensical. It's not even the same sort of income.
Really, all stuff like this makes me ask is "what point are you trying to make?". Yes, there's people out there who've earned more money, and obviously people with more money tend to accumulate more money, more rapidly than those without.
Is the implicit suggestion that we should appropriate his property and hand it over to the state to spend on whatever the state spends money on? Or that we should hand it over to "the people" (whatever that means)?
To me the only question here is this: Did Jeff Bezos get his holdings legitimately, or illegitimately? If the former, then this isn't anyone's concern how much he makes per unit time. If the latter, then a discussion can be had about righting the illegitimate appropriation.
I don't think you should. You should be charged for your utilities, and the cost of the roads around you should you have access to them, but paying taxes on property which was already taxed in a fair transaction between private persons is nonsensical. Should you pay a "computer tax" yearly for the value of a computer you own?
If you own a landlocked property, which many people do, what exactly do you pay taxes for?
> If you own a landlocked property, which many people do, what exactly do you pay taxes for?
School districts, fire departments, police departments, libraries, local parks, roads to get around my city (not just off my property), bike trails, walking paths, and a government to manage it all.
Then charge individual levies for the use of those specific services, should the individual use them, as I mentioned in the comment you replied to.
You've essentially just enumerated individual utilities I suggested charging levies for, then framed it as if I was suggesting people not pay for them at all.
Your point does nothing to explain away the taxes for a landlocked property which makes use of no services at all. Consider wilderness properties, or hunting land where people have to charter private aircraft into. There's no services used to charge the owner for. Why charge them levies on top of the sales tax?
Good assessment. I'd disagree that it being an edge-case isn't illustrative also, but that's a moot point. Appreciate you not trying to hammer me into agreement!
If you, or anyone else for that matter, is ever interested in at least understanding this sort of position I highly recommend Robert Nozick's work in response to John Rawls A Theory of Justice entitled Anarchy State and Utopia.
Most of this is just what's called "paper gains", which are not actually cash in the bank. So the little cards popping up behind mentioning how this is equivalent to someone's income are somewhat nonsensical. It's not even the same sort of income.
Really, all stuff like this makes me ask is "what point are you trying to make?". Yes, there's people out there who've earned more money, and obviously people with more money tend to accumulate more money, more rapidly than those without.
Is the implicit suggestion that we should appropriate his property and hand it over to the state to spend on whatever the state spends money on? Or that we should hand it over to "the people" (whatever that means)?
To me the only question here is this: Did Jeff Bezos get his holdings legitimately, or illegitimately? If the former, then this isn't anyone's concern how much he makes per unit time. If the latter, then a discussion can be had about righting the illegitimate appropriation.