I resonate with your instinct that the fight is not ultimately about math, but about values.
Where I find myself wondering is not whether we should tax the rich more aggressively — that’s a policy conversation worth having — but how we preserve the trace of how we got here without collapsing into moral compression.
When inequality rises, it is tempting to treat people as villains first and gradients second. But I’m increasingly persuaded that people behave more like water than like archetypes. Water flows where the landscape directs it. If extraction dominates, it may be because we optimized the terrain for extraction — not because everyone at the top is uniquely corrupt.
You’re right that slogans move people. But slogans also compress. “Tax the rich” may mobilize energy, yet it risks flattening the difference between:
high earners paying substantial income taxes
asset-heavy ultra-wealth using debt leverage
institutional incentives that favor capital gains
campaign finance structures that shape legislation
Those are different gradients.
When we compress them into one moral token, we lose resolution. And when resolution drops, oscillation increases.
I don’t think the question is whether capitalism is evil or redeemable. I think the question is: what landscapes are we shaping, and what gradients are we rewarding?
If we preserved the trace of policy drift over decades — tax code revisions, campaign finance shifts, bailout structures, regulatory capture — we might argue less about who is evil and more about which gradients persist and why.
That feels upstream of taxation.
You’re right that a better story is needed.
I wonder if that story is not about punishing extraction, but about harmonizing emergence.
Not revolution.
Not moral purity.
But raising the resolution of how we see each other, so that reform does not require annihilation.
Anything alive, as I’ve come to believe, can’t be created alone.
Thanks. Beautiful points. Just to be clear, I didn’t call any evil and this isn’t about punishment. This is about why we don’t tax the rich. The answer is because our electorate doesn’t elect people who will pass different tax laws. That’s it. Then I go into why we don’t, why we don’t elect in our financial best interest. Then I went into THAT reason. Because there are active campaigns to distract from that issue, mainly cultural wedge issues that are magnified amplified and distorted.
Seems like you’re using AI to analyze tbh, 5.2. Because it’s stretching to find something to criticize that actually isn’t there. It’s a straw man fest. I like some of the ideas but the model moved the frame. So it’s not doing it for me. If I’m wrong I apologize.
But the message is simple. People are suffering. Tax cuts for the rich are not what most Americans want. And yet we don’t elect people who will raise taxes, or do the actual will of the people.
I don’t see taxing the rich as punishment. And also I proposed a Universal Basic Income and wrote a largely pro capitalism piece. So again, not feeling the critique.
I’m all for discriminating between the types of wealth that are out there and tax like a Scandinavian model because the best point you made was that not all income and wealth are functioning equally. Rentier income, passive income, off shore tax shelters, and plowing money into new ventures that destroy homes and displace neighborhoods or increase pollution, waste and misery are very different from other forms of income that do actually stimulate the economy in a positive way.
If you didn’t use AI to analyze the piece the tbh I’m a little taken aback on how much you focused on me wanting to demonize or punish. It’s so not at all where I was coming from.
The key point is we are born into a system that forces us into an “employee” posture or die. That’s fucked up, always has been, but now with AI about to emulate most of the jobs we need to get serious about how we want to design the world. My message is simple. The majority has the power. Period. But it does us no good if the minority has us hypnotized and turns us against each other. I did a good laying out how that’s maybe being done and why, and what to do about it.
I’m all for innovation and think we can have innovation without letting people starve and die. So I’m in no mood whatsoever to hear more bs about how we’re “tearing down and punishing” the wealthy. That’s nonsense. Taxation is legal, and democracy is how we decide how to tax, period. The marginal tax rate is extremely low right now compared to prior years and inequality is out of control. People are not happy. You ignored almost all of those points and your criticism almost sounds like laissez fair capitalist apologea softened because you like me on other issues.
Yeah, really sort of surprised me. Just being honest. Sry
My opinion is as following. Most countries tax 40% of national income. In the US it’s 35%. 20% is spend mostly on retirement or retirement like payments 5% on education 10% on healthcare 5% on infrastructure military and the sorts. In the US it’s 4% on the military with way less spending for healthcare education and retirements.
You can tax in 2 basic ways. 55% of GDP is produced by labor 45% by capital income, rents stock dividends and so on. Let’s simplify it 50/50. I think a 25% income tax is fine, but in practice it’s way more in most countries. And a 25% cooperate tax rate and rent income rate is fine too. Now you have taxed 25% of GDP.
Then I would additionally tax stuff that causes bad health. Booze, cow meat, cigarettes, sugar, soft drinks by an special value added tax of 50%. Luxury goods should be taxed too. Single household houses exceeding 400 square meters, yachts, expensive watches, escorts and prostitution, gambling, cars exceeding 100K USD should be all taxed high. Because whoever can afford that does not need more cash. That will make 35% of GDP more or less. Like the amount of taxes the US taxes from citizens.
Now the spending side should be I think as following 10% of GDP should be UBI. 5% of GDP should be rewarded to parents of new born babies. 5% education, 5% infrastructure, 5% healthcare. Basically by adopting Japans healthcare system. The remaining 5% can be military and other public spending. And 5% should be research and development because at the end technology creates wealth.
Concerning rich people I think they do an important job by allocating capital efficiently. But beside a 1% wealth tax I think the best way to tax them is to tax luxury goods because those goods harm people, they are inefficient and lead to very less utility per dollar spend
Stella,
I resonate with your instinct that the fight is not ultimately about math, but about values.
Where I find myself wondering is not whether we should tax the rich more aggressively — that’s a policy conversation worth having — but how we preserve the trace of how we got here without collapsing into moral compression.
When inequality rises, it is tempting to treat people as villains first and gradients second. But I’m increasingly persuaded that people behave more like water than like archetypes. Water flows where the landscape directs it. If extraction dominates, it may be because we optimized the terrain for extraction — not because everyone at the top is uniquely corrupt.
You’re right that slogans move people. But slogans also compress. “Tax the rich” may mobilize energy, yet it risks flattening the difference between:
high earners paying substantial income taxes
asset-heavy ultra-wealth using debt leverage
institutional incentives that favor capital gains
campaign finance structures that shape legislation
Those are different gradients.
When we compress them into one moral token, we lose resolution. And when resolution drops, oscillation increases.
I don’t think the question is whether capitalism is evil or redeemable. I think the question is: what landscapes are we shaping, and what gradients are we rewarding?
If we preserved the trace of policy drift over decades — tax code revisions, campaign finance shifts, bailout structures, regulatory capture — we might argue less about who is evil and more about which gradients persist and why.
That feels upstream of taxation.
You’re right that a better story is needed.
I wonder if that story is not about punishing extraction, but about harmonizing emergence.
Not revolution.
Not moral purity.
But raising the resolution of how we see each other, so that reform does not require annihilation.
Anything alive, as I’ve come to believe, can’t be created alone.
https://thesacredlazyone.substack.com/p/anything-that-is-alive-cant-be-created
Maybe policy can’t either?
Thanks. Beautiful points. Just to be clear, I didn’t call any evil and this isn’t about punishment. This is about why we don’t tax the rich. The answer is because our electorate doesn’t elect people who will pass different tax laws. That’s it. Then I go into why we don’t, why we don’t elect in our financial best interest. Then I went into THAT reason. Because there are active campaigns to distract from that issue, mainly cultural wedge issues that are magnified amplified and distorted.
Seems like you’re using AI to analyze tbh, 5.2. Because it’s stretching to find something to criticize that actually isn’t there. It’s a straw man fest. I like some of the ideas but the model moved the frame. So it’s not doing it for me. If I’m wrong I apologize.
But the message is simple. People are suffering. Tax cuts for the rich are not what most Americans want. And yet we don’t elect people who will raise taxes, or do the actual will of the people.
I don’t see taxing the rich as punishment. And also I proposed a Universal Basic Income and wrote a largely pro capitalism piece. So again, not feeling the critique.
I’m all for discriminating between the types of wealth that are out there and tax like a Scandinavian model because the best point you made was that not all income and wealth are functioning equally. Rentier income, passive income, off shore tax shelters, and plowing money into new ventures that destroy homes and displace neighborhoods or increase pollution, waste and misery are very different from other forms of income that do actually stimulate the economy in a positive way.
If you didn’t use AI to analyze the piece the tbh I’m a little taken aback on how much you focused on me wanting to demonize or punish. It’s so not at all where I was coming from.
The key point is we are born into a system that forces us into an “employee” posture or die. That’s fucked up, always has been, but now with AI about to emulate most of the jobs we need to get serious about how we want to design the world. My message is simple. The majority has the power. Period. But it does us no good if the minority has us hypnotized and turns us against each other. I did a good laying out how that’s maybe being done and why, and what to do about it.
I’m all for innovation and think we can have innovation without letting people starve and die. So I’m in no mood whatsoever to hear more bs about how we’re “tearing down and punishing” the wealthy. That’s nonsense. Taxation is legal, and democracy is how we decide how to tax, period. The marginal tax rate is extremely low right now compared to prior years and inequality is out of control. People are not happy. You ignored almost all of those points and your criticism almost sounds like laissez fair capitalist apologea softened because you like me on other issues.
Yeah, really sort of surprised me. Just being honest. Sry
My opinion is as following. Most countries tax 40% of national income. In the US it’s 35%. 20% is spend mostly on retirement or retirement like payments 5% on education 10% on healthcare 5% on infrastructure military and the sorts. In the US it’s 4% on the military with way less spending for healthcare education and retirements.
You can tax in 2 basic ways. 55% of GDP is produced by labor 45% by capital income, rents stock dividends and so on. Let’s simplify it 50/50. I think a 25% income tax is fine, but in practice it’s way more in most countries. And a 25% cooperate tax rate and rent income rate is fine too. Now you have taxed 25% of GDP.
Then I would additionally tax stuff that causes bad health. Booze, cow meat, cigarettes, sugar, soft drinks by an special value added tax of 50%. Luxury goods should be taxed too. Single household houses exceeding 400 square meters, yachts, expensive watches, escorts and prostitution, gambling, cars exceeding 100K USD should be all taxed high. Because whoever can afford that does not need more cash. That will make 35% of GDP more or less. Like the amount of taxes the US taxes from citizens.
Now the spending side should be I think as following 10% of GDP should be UBI. 5% of GDP should be rewarded to parents of new born babies. 5% education, 5% infrastructure, 5% healthcare. Basically by adopting Japans healthcare system. The remaining 5% can be military and other public spending. And 5% should be research and development because at the end technology creates wealth.
Concerning rich people I think they do an important job by allocating capital efficiently. But beside a 1% wealth tax I think the best way to tax them is to tax luxury goods because those goods harm people, they are inefficient and lead to very less utility per dollar spend
Oooh. Hot take from a bird. Love. It.
" 'They' aren’t evil...", just need a little help to feel what it is like to be fully Humane;
"Not communism. But Capitalism that doesn't start with zero[!]" For one has to live before one can work;
What you wrote here (together with other UBI-related posts you did)... reminds me how...
... back in 2020, when I, for the first time in my life, had a "steady" "job", producing a steady four-digit number on my back account....
... AND on top of that, received a five-digit amount as inheritance from my recently deceased grandmother ....
.... resulted in me, suddenly, "losing faith" in UBI, just like that.
After being a massive fan and supporter since around 2008, it just .... disappeared.
Realizing: No it's not about money. And not about "employment" either.
It's about people being interested in, or attracted to, each other's actual "shape and form".
About seeing each other as more than just a potential threat, inconvenience, or annoyance.
Cool. Now I'm able to "sustain myself", we're "free" never to bother each other no more. How nice.
Even in a "post-scarcity" society.
ESPECIALLY in one.
Or ... ?!