(07-26-2024, 11:14 PM)captivating Wrote:

(07-26-2024, 04:00 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: This is exactly my point. It's impossible to fill in all the holes. It's a nonsense term when applied to humanity. It can't be broadly applied to large concepts because there's just too much variability. People who use the term and paint with a broad brush can ONLY do it by bringing others down. It's not a concept you can use to build a civilization. You can use the word equity in very specific circumstances for specific reasons, and anyone who's trying to broaden the term is either disingenuous or stupid.

In fairness you do have to bring others down.  But that's pretty much the status quo and the cost of civilization.  It''s not a free-for-all. A progressive tax system, for example, aims are bring others down.  But it's the price we pay for a civilized world.

As for your last sentence, that's just [BLEEP].

Progressive taxation does take more from those who have the most income, but they still maintain their position in the income rankings.  If I made more than you before taxes, I still made more than you after taxes.  They are still ahead and can still buy more stuff than everyone else if they want to.

Progressive taxation has almost no impact on the income ladder and the days to day economic relationships and incentives.

But progressive taxation makes it harder to build wealth and climb the generational wealth ladder.  If you're an aristocratic family you would actually favor progressive taxation even though it makes you pay more, because it will prolong your family's time in the sun and delay the time when the nouveau riche take over and have their children dominate yours.

---