Seems immoral to give it to the bottom 10% of people in the US, who are relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the world. Why not give $15,000 each to the 300 million poorest people in the world, or $5000 to the 1 billion poorest?
I see this come up as a gotcha every time redistribution of wealth is ever discussed, but surprisingly the left can be just a nationally minded as anyone else.
I’d be concerned with involving those people in the calculation when we’re under the same political body. As long as we’re in separate nation states that’s kind of an in house issue they need to decide on how they want to deal with it
But the billionaires in USA are international, they "stole" wealth from workers all over the world, your solution to give that to Americans still results in those workers having their labour stolen by Americans. Constantly stealing labour from workers all over the world and giving it to American workers seems just as unethical as giving it to American billionaires, both situations results in a small number of people hording all the wealth.
And then if you distribute it fairly among all the workers who actually did the work to amass that wealth, then there is very little left per worker. And you do it so the poorer gets more since they got less initially, then the American workers wont get a single cent since they are all rich and most of the labour is done in China and India.
Almost any redistribution scheme you come up with is going to look unfair from some perspective. I shy away from "immoral" because that's just a triggering word. What we're really trying to decide are the terms of the social contract, and despite my libertarian past, I am now 100% on board with introducing a personal wealth cap significantly under $1 billion. No person could really spend that much money in day-to-day meatspace activities in a lifetime; it can only be hoarded, squandered, and splurged on flamboyant things, none of which I think we should allow until we get out of climate crisis mode.
