It is not. Ownership, wealth, money is an outcome of processes of the government -- like the existence of police and military, and that the majority of the population (in a democracy) agrees to only the state having a monopoly on violence, and agreeing on who owns what.
In a democracy, one asks everyone to agree a) that violence is monopolized, b) to protect ownership.
If wealth is then superconcentrated -- why would that work? Why would or should most people participate in that specific social arrangement?
A problem with capitalism without any form of wealth tax is that it is fundamentally unstable mathematically -- those with a lot already have more opportunities to get even more, making wealth more and more concentrated.
Without wealth tax, there is no stabilizing force.
This is about mathematics more than right or wrong. There just isn't a way a system that only concentrates wealth can keep working without mechanisms to redistribute wealth.
At some point, majority of people are slaves or starve and there isn't a way for that economy to progress further.
This is not hyperbole... it is human history. Historically, devastating wars and/or revolutions have been the mechanism to reset wealth distribution and happen all the time.
Tax on wealth isn't about "fair vs unfair", it is about whether one wants to construct a system that can be stable over more than a few hundred years.
It is not. Ownership, wealth, money is an outcome of processes of the government -- like the existence of police and military, and that the majority of the population (in a democracy) agrees to only the state having a monopoly on violence, and agreeing on who owns what.
In a democracy, one asks everyone to agree a) that violence is monopolized, b) to protect ownership.
If wealth is then superconcentrated -- why would that work? Why would or should most people participate in that specific social arrangement?
A problem with capitalism without any form of wealth tax is that it is fundamentally unstable mathematically -- those with a lot already have more opportunities to get even more, making wealth more and more concentrated.
Without wealth tax, there is no stabilizing force.
This is about mathematics more than right or wrong. There just isn't a way a system that only concentrates wealth can keep working without mechanisms to redistribute wealth.
At some point, majority of people are slaves or starve and there isn't a way for that economy to progress further.
This is not hyperbole... it is human history. Historically, devastating wars and/or revolutions have been the mechanism to reset wealth distribution and happen all the time.
Tax on wealth isn't about "fair vs unfair", it is about whether one wants to construct a system that can be stable over more than a few hundred years.