The challenge about change is that it doesn't happen evenly or neatly. Wealth transfer is an element of capitalism and has been happening progressively, but as time passes, it is speeding up, aided by the global digital economy, and took a transformative leap during the pandemic. Alongside that we still have many prevailing and conflicting ideologies stemming from the world as it was in the mid-twentieth century.
Gary is, as you say, opening up the debate and naming it. It's interesting that the Labour government have asked to come on to his podcast - it means he is getting through, which is something, and the money is on the government not liking it (video and discussion here).
Your pictures are interesting: there are many places in London, the King's Road, for one, where on one side of the road, the household income is about £10,000pa and on the other, in excess of £100,000pa (not specially high for London, but illustrative of the inequality).
Thanks for publishing the post.
Your comment is upvoted by @topcomment
Info - Support - Discord
Thank you.
Yeah, i saw that video about labor wanting to come on. I think he should do it. To me all these debates that he is doing is where real progress can happen. From getting better at his presentation and remaining calm to actually exchanging ideas and adapting. I watched a great debate he did on diary of a ceo last week. I left thinking that the real answers lie somewhere in the in between of the arguments and points.
The example of after world war 2 we taxed the rich and had a time of the strongest middle class is and was true for then... our world is very different now.
Aspects could be repeated, but the same approach wouldn't work today. So adaptation to the idea of taxing the rich is where we all need to think out of the box.
I'm into an idea of being rational. The willingness tax. Tax me, but let me control how a portion of my taxes are spent.
I'm into this idea for all wealth categories. Imagine if you could choose where 25%-50% of your tax money went. When we paid our taxes we could fill in a box and say, i want ...% to go to schooling, and this % to go to welfare.
Another person could say i want 100% to go toward military.
If we could vote where a % of are tax money headed, it would force areas of government to justify themselves and prove they are worthy of us sending a % to them.
Rather than bloated beuracracies that receive money with little accountability. Flip the script and empower people to put their money toward the things they see as important, and force the areas of government to prove their value to the people.
I dunno, my real point is, through dialogue and debate, through looking directly at issues instead of away from them...thats when we stumble into the answers.
Thanks for coming and visiting my post!
Sort of a DHF for where our taxes go? If this could be modified to support things for a number of years so there is sustainable funding to see things through, that would be good.
There are some places where smaller versions of this are being piloted, something like community accounting where there is a pot for a service or activity and the community decides expenditure.
I agree, debate, or sometimes, even just conversation explaining something, are really important. We have moved back to in person meetings (usually 25-30 people in a meeting) as the dialogue is richer and deeper. We had an issue over the summer last year where there were a lot of polarised views (some of those exacerbated by the behaviour by one of the regional authority) but an open conversation in one of our in person meetings, where everyone had a chance to understand what was happening, turned everything around. It was a very quiet and ordered conversation - no raised voices or anger (or frustration at not being heard), but I guess some of that is that these people have been working together for many years and the meetings are well-managed - people know they will get an opportunity to speak.