There are some rich people who recognize that higher taxes are actually good for them in the long-term by increasing growth and decreasing income inequality (which in the long-term, leads to rolling heads). But it’s a Prisoner’s Dilemma style situation - if they, as individuals, donate additional wealth to the government, nothing happens except that their own wealth makes a tiny little drip in the ocean, and their competitors then benefit at no cost to themselves. But if the government imposes a uniform levy on them all, then the cost and the benefits are evenly applied, instead of one ‘suffering’ (and I use the term very loosely) and the others slightly benefiting.
My point here isn’t to lionize them, because ultimately most of them are voicing this opinion out of personal interest, not morality. But it is probably a sincerely held personal interest, rather than pantomime.
There are plenty of selfish reasons for everyone to act in solidarity. I don’t care if they do it for moral reasons, just as I don’t give a shit if my neighbor does. They should do it because it’s better for them and it’s better for all of us. Voting for solidarity can be a selfish thing and that needs to be okay too.
Here’s where it feels like pantomime - the comment above you says this
The 2020 election cycle saw $5.7 billion in political spending on the presidency, and $8.7 billion in the congressional races.
Princeton showed policy decision is basically made by wealthy donors. The wealthy are holding the levers by which they WOULD be taxed additionally and are not currently. Polls are virtue signaling, call me when the tax code changes.
There are some rich people who recognize that higher taxes are actually good for them in the long-term by increasing growth and decreasing income inequality (which in the long-term, leads to rolling heads). But it’s a Prisoner’s Dilemma style situation - if they, as individuals, donate additional wealth to the government, nothing happens except that their own wealth makes a tiny little drip in the ocean, and their competitors then benefit at no cost to themselves. But if the government imposes a uniform levy on them all, then the cost and the benefits are evenly applied, instead of one ‘suffering’ (and I use the term very loosely) and the others slightly benefiting.
My point here isn’t to lionize them, because ultimately most of them are voicing this opinion out of personal interest, not morality. But it is probably a sincerely held personal interest, rather than pantomime.
There are plenty of selfish reasons for everyone to act in solidarity. I don’t care if they do it for moral reasons, just as I don’t give a shit if my neighbor does. They should do it because it’s better for them and it’s better for all of us. Voting for solidarity can be a selfish thing and that needs to be okay too.
Here’s where it feels like pantomime - the comment above you says this
Princeton showed policy decision is basically made by wealthy donors. The wealthy are holding the levers by which they WOULD be taxed additionally and are not currently. Polls are virtue signaling, call me when the tax code changes.