I agree with these principles 100%, but your methods I couldn't disagree with more strongly. Allow me to explain.
No. When those large corporations(wealthy) go away what happens is there is less money in the total pot. You have more equality at the cost of a lower overall standard fo living. Eventually foreign large corporations will take advantage and you'll lose on both fronts.
This things comes from the income distribution gap: e.g.
source to see how different sectors are doing.
Bottom 90%: -5%
Top 10%: 75%
Top 0.01%: 325%
*The more you graduate the greater the raise
That seems damning until you consider that the largest income growth in that comparison period was coming from foreign markets. See the world curve does not look like this at all(we are averaging). The reason for the massive growth rate at the top is foreign wealth enters the country through the top 0.01%. Changes in the 0.01% in this period reflect those realities. This new income is only distributed indirectly for the 99.5% the domestic growth rate is much lower.
Another thing worth considering is although that accounts for inflation that is a very poor way of measure changes in living standards. Taxes were way less as government provided far less public services in the past not to mention changes in technologies, choices and expectations. The advantages of owning a car in 1960 say equivalent to modern transportation options which can cost a lot less, what is the worth of a $50/mo internet connection, a luxury item like a tv or computer is now in most people's pockets? On that a car or house, is the average one built in 1960 the same as one built today? Houses are bigger now, more energy efficient etc etc. Car are more environmental friends, faster, comfier, have computers build in etc etc
An upper-middle class life in 1970 would be maybe working class by 2019 standards. In terms of lack of technology, healthcare, entertainment, convinces etc.
Living standards have certainly not gone down or improved as slowly as that chart alone would indicate.
I agree with most of these although likely disagree in detail. The problem with progressive taxation is it is scam. For example In 2018 we had 2,208 billionaire in the world worth 9.1 trillion dollars of 317 trillion (3%). In 2000 we had 470 worth about 1 trillion of 117 trillion USD (less 1% of total).
470 -> 2,208 increase by a factor of 4.4 (440%)
1% -> 3% increase by a factor of 3 (300%)
6b -> 7.7b increse of 28%
116,000/6 -> 317000/7.7 increase factor of 1.12 (112%)
Diversification of the top is fastest growing factor, yes there is a concentration but slower than the rate of which people are joining and with a significantly more wealth being added for the 99.9% of people(doubling and then some).
Progressive taxation may or may not affect the rate of concentration but not by much since that is not caused by having unfairly low taxation (in fact we find the opposite). It will however vastly affect the diversification factor as income is what is needed to go from 99.9% to 0.01%. So what you would certianly see is who is wealthy stays wealthy.
The income is often coming from offshore in the first place and second what do you think is more likely to be a new growing small business a new yacht company or one that makes a mass consumer product like groceries?
Kind of like how the government concentrates more and more wealth and gives especially nicely to those at the top they deemed more politically important?
That is why the fact we have more billionaire than most is to the American advantage. The US has 1.7 billionaires per million, China 0.3, France 0.5, Zimbabwe 0.05. Etc etc. In which country does the 0.01% hold more power the one with 585 or 1?
