Taxes. Ideally progressive taxes. The tax burden of a wealthy person in Seattle is currently incredibly low. (Speaking as a wealthy person in Seattle who is shocked at how little I have to pay every year to support my local community.)
I'd encourage you to make a voluntary donation to the State of Washington Treasury's General Fund or one of about 750 account appropriations[2]. I'm sure there would be some that would help support your local community.
I give a significant portion of my income to local community organizations to support education, housing, and social equity.
However, I believe philanthropy is not a scalable solution to systemic issues. People tend to pay for causes that make them feel good, which doesn't line up with what actually needs to be solved. I strongly believe that we need to get everyone contributing to societal maintenance, rather than relying on people opting in.
Big question. Fundamentally, having capital allows one to acquire more capital, generationally. The history here is long and complex. Over hundreds of years, we've seen a striation of incomes, wealth, and capital across the country.
The lower ends of that income spectrum are dealing with difficult choices about whether to cut food, heating, housing, medicine, sanitation, childcare, etc. Low level crime is a symptom of people being squeezed too hard.
So, let's dive a layer deeper: what causes inequal access to healthcare, housing, education, sanitation, etc.? Part of it is cultural -- people framing the question as, "Why should I give up some of my income so someone else doesn't have raw sewage pumped into their yard?" rather than, "What's the baseline experience we should all have, no matter what, and how much do I have to give up to ensure that?"
Fundamentally, I think culturally, in the US, we prioritize "mine" too much over "ours", which leads to tight fists on improving conditions and addressing economic inequality, which leads to systemic problems in housing/food/education/etc., which leads to crime, drug abuse, mental health problems, etc.
As for the second question, I think you are asking whether companies are obligated to grow their profits/income and how is that tied to these issues? I want to make sure I understand what you are asking before I try to answer.
Thanks for asking good questions. We might not agree on the root causes here, or what to do about it, but at least this set of questions is a reasonable dive into things.
Ok, my brief reading suggests the thesis is that everyone wants to be at the top, but to grow the number of people at the top you must grow the number of people below that by some larger number.
For example, a manager earns more, people want to be managers. Only way to get more managers is to grow and get more workers. Now you have even more people who want to be managers.
It's an interesting idea, and sort of a novel (to me, at least) framing of the ideas behind a ponzi scheme or keeping up with the Joneses or the American dream (that we could all be millionaires). It also seems to be the natural order for the capitalist economy, if I understand the thesis correctly. ( Capital must beget capital, else no one would invest. As more people invest, we must grow to sustain the growth in capital.)
I need to think about it a bit more, but it seems to me that the theory assumes the actor is a solipsist or predominantly interested in their own self. I'm not sure that's necessarily axiomatic in American culture.
Thanks for sharing the concept, and feel free to offer suggestions or corrections where I misunderstood it.
Do you have data to suggest that will happen? People like to live and work in Seattle, just like they like to live and work in California and New York. Or Europe.
Will some folks get grumpy about taxes and leave? Maybe, but I don't have any data to suggest that it will materially matter.
Let's suppose that in a couple of years, data emerges that demonstrates that this happens. What do you recommend should be done about it, assuming it were to happen?
Generally I don't believe that hypothetical is likely. It's one thing to see a revenue shortfall due to covid, it's another thing to suggest that wealthy people will just leave.
If you can find a case where the wealthy folks have left to avoid taxes and it made a material difference, I'm happy to engage.
Historically, the only thing I can think of is White Flight, but in that case one of the driving forces was the spending of tax money on building housing and infrastructure for the wealthy outside of cities. (And there were many other explicitly segregationist policies in place at the time to prevent the less wealthy from going along with them.)
What do you think it should be done about the chilling effect of those taxes? Talented graduates who select to join a different city instead of Seattle, a city perhaps less hungry for their hard worked money. Enthusiastic founders who never decide to start that startup anymore and rather get a job because why bother when others get to enjoy most of the fruits of your labor?
Business never started, money never made, growth stunted. Is it worth to sacrifice the future so that politicians can add another checklist to their re-election campaign?
> Talented employees who select to move to a different city instead, less hungry for their hard worked money.
That's one framing. Another framing is that the taxes I pay were never "my" money to begin with.
To answer your broader question, I'm not going to argue against a hypothetical. If you've seen places where the local area is a highly desirable place but whose economy is flagging because of high taxes, I'm happy to dive in more. But in general, people want to live in Seattle even if it means chipping in a little more. Founders want to start here because there's talent here.
> places where the local area is a highly desirable place but whose economy is flagging because of high taxes
The whole of Europe, pretty much. Only desirable to refugees and migrants dreaming of that sweet sweet social security, while bleeding talent, entrepreneurs and startups to USA in droves. Europe chose a while ago stagnation over innovation and evolution and today is paying the price.
> taxes I pay were never "my" money
That simply cannot be true, considering that if I move to a different place that money end up in my bank account, mine!
> if I move to a different place that money end up in my bank account, mine!
Reversing this argument -- moving to a place with higher taxes means that money isn't in your bank, not yours!
> The whole of Europe, pretty much.
Germany seems to be doing alright. Most of Europe rates highly on the IHDI. GDPs are growing in places like Sweden and France, despite a high tax rate.
You'd think so but no. Most refugees enter UE through a poorer border country but do everything to migrate to the richer, north-western countries where Social Security level is higher.
