Conversation

My proposal that the great innovator Alice Walton make do on $50 billion instead of $60 billion is really bumming people out.

Quote Tweet

Ummon Karpe | 𑀅𑀫𑀦 𑀓𑀭𑀧𑁂

@The_Equationist

Mar 31, 2022

Replying to @AliceFromQueens

Okay, so the alternative is not to redistribute it to you individually, but to redistribute it to a bunch of people who will use it on consumer spending, rather than allocating it as capital.

Replying to

i bet u could make do on a bit less too

Replying to

Of course I can. Do you have an actual argument?

Replying to

everyone can make do on less, and saying "because they can make do on less this justifies taking their money" is an argument that makes me a lil uneasy

Replying to

If you're suggesting I wouldn't benefit more from the marginal dollar than the great American innovator Alice Walton would, that makes me more than a little uneasy.

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Replying to

@AliceFromQueens

Luckily I'm not suggesting that! My point is that "you can manage without this money" is a pretty bad justification to use for taking people's money from them; if you're gonna use a reasoning to remove people's property from them it should be pretty damn solid

7:36 PM · Mar 31, 2022

Replying to

Well my 1st justification for raising taxes on wealth and lowering taxes on labor income is greater net social utility. My 2nd justification is greater justice. In re to ppl w transference issues that lead them to fret abt the Waltons, I add an obvs fact: they can afford it

Show replies

Replying to

and

I think is a pretty good argument if you use the un-twitterated version that includes "Alice Walton can manage better with less money than almost anyone on Earth and it's not even close"

Replying to

and

If reducing taxes creates “property” out of thin air, then you’re going to need a pretty solid definition for what property is.