Again, the “money” is confusing you… it is just stored “deferred consumption”. If everyone consumed everything they made and saved nothing, there would be nothing to share.
If a person produces huge amounts of wealth and no one wants to borrow that wealth, then the wealth produces nothing. Only the desire for people to consume what they cannot afford now creates the ability for someone to earn “interest” on their deferred consumption.
Not everyone who is wealthy… worked hard. Some like the winners of the lottery become millionaires through taking risk. Other take risk starting businesses and those businesses paid off like the lottery. Some win the “lottery of life” and are born to wealthy parents. But somewhere all wealth was create by deferred consumption and that “deferred consumption” belongs to someone. Even the lottery winner received the “savings” of millions of people each contributing a lottery ticket price to a pool of savings that gets distributed based on “luck”. But if the winner did not get to keep the money, no one would play. The same goes for businesses.
If I work hard so my children do not need to, does not mean that work was not done to create wealth. If I start a successful business and leave my wealth to my children, it does not mean they do not deserve it or you have the right to take it.
You take about socializing costs like it is a real thing. Let’s be honest for a second. The top 10% of wage earners pay 90% of the income taxes. So the socialized losses are not born by all Americans but are largely distributed across high earners. But I run a small business, when I earn money, the government takes a substantial share of it. When I lose money the government is no where to be seen. So your assumption that losses are socialized is a pure fantasy driven by politicians to justify taxing the wealthy more.
The funniest line is that the American taxpayers “bailed” out the big banks. The truth is we did bridge the banks through a liquidity crisis by allowing them to borrow from the government… “borrow”… “not keep”. We charged them a good rate of interest and the government made a substantial profit on the deal.
In contrast, while the wealthy pay most of the taxes and the poor benefit the most from entitlement programs. So “taxes” which serve to socialize “success” and distribute it to the poor is a far more common occurrence and constitutes bigger cash flow stream then what you think of as the “people” bearing the cost of business failures.
Personally, I do not have problems with a progressive tax system because the wealthy have more money, but there is no need to fabricate misleading perceptions to justify it. They have it, we want it.
What you are advocating is not some “new economy”, what you are advocating for is new entitlements. As societies become wealthier by accumulating capital and leveraging that capital to make more goods and services, people in those societies begin to take a more expansive view of what they are willing to provide as a social safety net. There is nothing new to this concept… some form of social safety net has existed for thousands of years…
What you are advocating for is an even more expansive social safety net, then we have now. Like taxing the wealthy, there is no need to try to mislead with some perceptions that something new and different is taking place, its not.
If you read my article on “sustainable socialism”, you are simply trying to persuade those producing goods and services to contribute more of their surplus (pay more taxes) to fund an expanded set of entitlements… keep it simple… they may say yes or they may say no. My guess is it is no for now and yes at sometime in the future… When? As I point out in my article, “kinship” is the key… when Americans feel that they collectively want to make universal health care part of the societal safety net and are prepared to pay for it, then it will happen… but for now we are halfway there… health care is part of the private sector but access is subsidized for those whom society feels should get their health care subsidized…
