Aren't properly bracketed* or properly incentivized for the less wealthy*.
Taxes at this moment are more than high enough for lower to middle class, but that's the class who can't spend millions in tax write offs through charity and 'expenses' or hire financial advisors and managers. Also the class who sees the least return on investment through federal tax usage despite making up the most of collection.
Im not sure she’s worked 600x more so far in her 19 year career than the average American does in their entire lifetime.
Average American lifetime earnings: 1.7 million
1 billion is 588 times more than 1.7 million.
I don’t think we’re all equal, or that we all deserve equal wealth, but I think it’d be more just if our income was dependent on how hard we work, and not how the market values the type of work we do.
Sorry, that's not good for me. Work means 100 different things and can't always be measured by "how much you do."
When the amount of money a person exceeds the benefit they can possibly receive is when society needs to intervene. Money is a social agreement and does not belong to any one person. If we had a cap it would disallow people to exploit others and would give more people opportunity to max out. There could be exceptions and permits for distribution purposes but otherwise if the cup never overflows it will never trickle down.
Income being dependant on how hard we work instead of the type of work is a waste of resources though. The goal of economic systems is to allocate our limited resources to our unlimited desires as efficiently as possible.
Some usage of resources are more efficient than others. Capitalism says that peak efficiency can be reached by letting supply and demand dictate the price. Other systems have other methods.
Your proposed system values 1 hour of shoveling the same as 1 hour of moving ground with a specialized machine, which makes no sense since the latter produces much more value with the same amount of work. I'm also assuming that amount of work = hours spent doing that work, but how else would you measure it? Any other measuring system is as subjective as 1 hour of Taylor swift = 1800 hours of average american.
On the flip side, who is benefitting from her billions, other than herself and her immediate family?
While billionaires are scum, a good chunk of their money is tied up in businesses that keep tens/hundreds of thousands of people worldwide employed.
I like Taylor Swift, but I don't know her well enough to know if she actually is the exception to the rule. None of us do. The real question is "what does she need $1b for?"
I'm gonna side track a little, but it's actually super cool how many people we meet these days that are more class conscious. I feel like when I was younger people instantly idolized the rich for no good reason.
I forget what podcast was, maybe Cognitive Dissonance, but the hosts were talking about extreme wealth, and made an argument that maybe society should cap that shit. So, for example, if you make a billion and 300 million dollars a year, that 300 million automatically gets transferred to government social programs to help the community around you. It seems harsh at first, but when you stop to consider how much a billion dollars is, and how it's basically impossible to spend that much money, and just having that much money automatically generates millions more for you everyday, there's no point to having more than that. There is no thing you can buy that costs more than a billion dollars, unless you're buying up entire companies. Doing something like that would act as a breaking mechanism to prevent run away wealth disparity like we have now.
Imagine living on a planet with millions of people struggling day to day with bare essentials like food and water and also having people that own enough money help millions. Why is it ok to hort wealth while you could easily help a lot of people? Like dont get me wrong, Taylor Swift is a cool artist not doing anything considered wrong by society. I simply find it odd to see people literally starving or freezing to death outside in the winter while they could be helped and no one bats an eye.
Oh I think you totally have a point. Came across this post in the main feed. The moral thing for her to do would be spend a shit ton of that wealth helping people in need. I was just commenting about how it's nice for someone to end up rich without being a complete piece of crap to get there.
One of the things you’re all forgetting is that she’s a billionaire because of her catalog and music and stuff. She does not have a bank account with $1,00,000 sitting in it. I’m not saying billionaires should or shouldn’t exist, just reminding you that the valuation comes from intangible things that don’t have that value unless they’re sold to somebody. Her music is only worth what somebody wants to pay for it, if she even wants to sell it in the first place.
Most billionaires make their fortune exploiting people. Taylor has employees, song writers, producers, PR, etc, but I doubt any of those people feel exploited.
You could stretch it to say she's making money off the predatory scalper economy run by Ticketmaster, but unless she's buying and reselling the tickets herself, that's a bit of a stretch.
For me it's not how she got it, it's how she's using it. So far, we have yet to really see her use a meaningful chunk of her money. We've seen her do some basic sums to local food pantries and charitable stuff here and there, but I want to see her spend an actual percentage of her fortune towards something good.
Things like helping stop climate change (after she has used that private jet so much and her tour releases a ton of emissions), donating more to LGBTQ+, or the biggest one, using her money to invest/start up her own label/rival to Ticketmaster.
The label one is important, as labels are seeing what she has done to recover her masters and are trying to stop other artists from doing the same. She could start her own label redefining the rules for musicians, and not only would it help but it would also make her even more in the long run.