Rich people having too much wealth is not necessarily that bad a thing because most of the investment is in productive companies.
It’s not like they are using their wealth on frivolous consumption. Which means redistribution would only change who controls the investment and not the actual consumption patterns of people. Implication is that poor people will consume the same as before after redistribution with perhaps some extra assets. So nothing materially changes other than some security. Poor people will continue to consume the same as before.
Bigger problem is it’s not so clear that redistribution is necessarily a good thing because I feel the people who made money are more likely to make better decisions on their own companies. I don’t know how companies would fare if for example Amazon were redistributed and run like some public company.
Who paid you to make this comment? This is so unbelievably out of touch I have a hard time believing it is anything other than Astro turf.
Recently I asked Claude if I should convert my LLC to an S Corp for tax savings, and it sang the praises of how much I’d save if I did this.
When asked my accoutant, he pointed out that since I live in NYC, the S corp would be taxed in such a way that would completely wipe out the tax advantage I’d get elsewhere, and I’d likely end up paying more if I did this.