The easy path to a humane capitalism

I have been postponing this blog for a long time. Let's say several voices have expressed that they really do not like the following few lines.
The first argument is that most society accepts de facto that gains of any form (especially money and power) should be based on a meritocratic system (not existing wealth, nor family ties, nor corruption). Additionally, societies should agree on what constitute merit. Wealth, violence, deception should probably not. Creativity, courage, passion, determination, societal responsibility, empathy probably should or Even in such a system gains can exceed what I like to call an obscene level. To address this, each society should consider what is acceptable and what is not. For example, a region will consider that an interval from $1,000 to $10Mi/year is humanly acceptable, another will consider that the interval should be $10,000 to 10,000Mi/month. At the end of the day, if the decision is transparent and a reflection of the people it represents, than it has to be OK, but the absence of limit leads to our societal fabric disintegrating as populism is used as acid.
We already have a way to implement this limit and it is called a tax system.
The problem is that we still have a royal tax system, that is, richness is not taxed proportionally. We do tax proportionally between say 10,000 per year until 50,000 per year, but then something strange happens, the rate of taxes stays the same. additionally, such capital is often finding ways to avoid taxation altogether. We argue here that the right to a nationality should be linked to an obligation to declare one own revenues in a single location. The form of the relationship between income and individual tax can also be a function of a society, but at the end of the day there must not be a refuge for the obscene, neither in another country or within one own country by capping the % over a certain income. I would argue that there is a maximum at which income becomes obscene, therefore personally, b) is what we should strive for, progressively. I would also argue that for the private sector, taxes should be in function of the cost to the environment or to society (people). Finally, and for fear mongers, this is in no shape or form communism. Communism as model did not work and even China and Russia know it. People need acknowledgement for certain merit, we are biologically built that way. The two essential points made here are (i) we have to decide as a society which merit we support, and (ii) in addition to point (i) there is an income level that is socially unacceptable, this income level is at the source of many sufferings and destroys the societal fabric, an income level beyond which any donation/foundation can not repair the damage done.

Example:
a) a society with a log tax function (progressive but making sure that the capping does not occur before the highest income)

b) a society with an exponential tax function (Rapid, which allows for the determination of an unacceptable income beyond which all will be a donation called tax)

c) a society with a sigmoid tax function (rapid in the middle, which is a bit of what we have but without capping at 40K but say at 10Mi)

A post for sapiens sapiens' survival

• What would a New Societal Contract look like? 

There are country specific aspects and there are global aspects. For the global aspects certain powers have to be at a global level to have meaning. A new societal contract would have to be made by world citizens (with the capacity to think, plan and act globally). This means planning and implementing not for a country, not for a religion, not for an elite, etc. but for earth citizens. Does it really take the arrival of aliens for us to feel earthlings and save our home?  A value-based system where the culture of an area has an important role to play but where cronyism, wealth, and violence are not the drivers. The weight put on knowledge, passion, courage, knowledge, empathy, hard work, etc. would be culture specific.
 

• How can we prepare for Digitalisation and the Future of Work? 

(i) Exploring and implementing true transparency, (ii) Creating a level playing field, globally to allow for the best solutions to be used, (iii) Giving the chance for and valuing individuals who can create and implement a human digitalisation, that is individuals with the abilities of a global citizen. This of course will need to be define and redefined and reredefined and that's not only OK but needed.
 

• Why is International co-operation important for our time?

 (i) Several critical issues of our time are at an earth level, although implementation may be local, tackling them at a country level creates an un-level playing field which is the main barrier to sustainability (including attaining the SDGs) and a humane world, (ii) Globalization is more than ever like gravity (Annan), that is, it is a loss of energy to fight it, therefore we ought to prepare ourselves to manage a humane globalization and that asks for cooperation, where the goal is not anymore to achieve a compromise between A and B, but a cooperation where we create C together where all get 100% of what they want as oppose to the crude notion of compromise, (iii) all this needs two things to work a) a better wealth distribution which will lower the chance for a people/country to choose violent/socio-pathological leaders (See the no asshole rule by Sutton), teach in schools the abilities needed to nurture diversity, ethics, empathy,etc., teaching aspects we have eliminated 30 years ago from our school systems, worldwide, thinking that this would give us a focused workforce. How wrong we were is shown by where we are. And a few other aspects that would be beyond the scope of this comment :-)

​

-->