• w2qw
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Agreed on owning things I was talking about those getting an above market return.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Of what value is that to society? If there’s no value and massive downsides, why should we protect reward them?

      • w2qw
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah the premise of the system is that society is benefiting. In practice I would agree that’s not always and maybe majorly not the case. In Australia there was a Henry tax review report that details a lot of changes to improve this situation unfortunately many have not been implemented. I’m sure the situation is similar worldwide.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is kinda my point - I’m not interested in the empty arguments and spin - I’m interested in what’s best.

          Unfortunately, the Australian government has a habit of commissioning studies rather than taking action (we’ve risen to power under the status quo - why would we change it?) - The Henry review was probably taken less seriously than the Gonski report.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When the market is shaped by austerity politics, corporate welfare, and wage depression, then “getting an above market return” depends on austerity politics, corporate welfare, and wage depression (which still is not the same as the “skill set” of owning shares).

      Your objection sidesteps the broader observations, of how the masses of workers are oppressed by the greed of the very few, who sustain a self-serving narrative.