@spruce112358 said
I actually have no problems with the rich pursuing wealth unhindered as long as they:
1) Don't harm, impose on, or place others at risk without consent, and,
2) Support the government that protects all our rights equally, proportionate to their wealth.
It's exactly the same standard I hold the Middle and Poorer Classes to.
A few more principles:
1) Taxes hav ...[text shortened]... en't paying attention.
We have to start paying attention.
*1% is a tad ambitious. Let's say 5.
Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting rich either. I do think using political office to get rich should impossible, and politicians' assets should be put into blind trusts while they are in office. This should be extended to their families too, insofar as family members are in a position to make capital out of it (viz. Jared Kushner getting $2 bn. from the Saudis for unknown services rendered).
'No taxation without representation' was a battle cry for the original British colonists in the 18th c. It needs to be tightened up these days: 'no tax without a plebiscite.' Govt. should have no power or authority to levy a new tax, or reduce or increase an existing tax, without putting it to a vote of those affected by it (meaning the people who will have to pay for it or it's effects). This is how Switzerland runs, by the way. If the Swiss govt. wants a tax, the constitution requires a plebiscite to be held; if the govt. says 'yes' and the tax payers say 'nay', the 'nays' have it and the govt. must accept this. This is a practicable recipe for fiscal responsibility. I would recommend this for every industrialized and post-industrialized nation. It presupposes, of course, a well- and truthfully-informed public, and that means a reliable and free press.