Lase fair economics tends to concentrate extraordinary wealth wealth in the hands a few. Redistribution tends to confiscate from those who produce and reward those who don't.
What are some way to address wealth/income inequality with out using taxes?
Some thoughts: -Only allow a certain amount of money to be left to any one individual. -For people pulling in great amounts of wealth mandate a portion used for personal consumption be used for the common good according to their discretion. -incentivise learning to include entrepreneurial pursuits that enable people to leverage new technology instead of being displaced by it.
Unless you live alone on an island or are in some other way isolated everything you do effects someone else. If you want to drive yourself crazy you can try and defend the position that you can have no right that infringes on someone else's rights. That is why in the U.S. we have enumerated rights that are protected regardless of the will of the majority. Rights that are not enumerated is income equity or fair distribution nor protection from taxation. The only time the concept of fairness is applied is that your property cannot be taken away without fair compensation. Unfortunately that language comes from the 5th amendment which is focused on people accused of a crime. Since unfair taxation was central to the war of independence how could this be an oversight.
The constitution originally allow for the power to tax imports (or, tariffs) and to tax excises (the most significant of which was alcohol). Were Congress to levy a direct tax, it would have to be in proportion to population. In the twentieth century progressives pushed through the 16th amendment that allowed income taxes. It reads as follows "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The 16th amendment gives the Congress almost unlimited control over every aspect of out lives because taxes are not just a way to pay for government but are also a way to manipulate the population. This ability to manipulate can be illustrated by the Courts ruling on "Obama Care". The Court in 2012 ruled that the Congress exceeded it's power to regulate commerce under the individual mandate in that a person cannot be forced to participate in a market. The Court then ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional as a tax. Other taxes such as those on tobacco products and alcohol being originally allowed as excise taxes. Here is where it get confusing because excise taxes punish for participation in a market while in theory not forcing a person to do so. In essence the Court ignored that all taxes can be thought of as coercive or a fine and fines can be paid the same as taxes. You could argue that excise taxes could be levied on every product having the same coercive effect as as fines and be as unlimited. In any case the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed with Texas and 17 other states that the key individual mandate is unconstitutional in 2019. We can assume that the Supreme Court will hear this case.
All of the above is so illogical that the framers must have assumed that the states would manage taxation limiting the power of the central government to use coercive taxation. Most states at the time the Constitution was written had property requirements for voting which addresses the issue of irresponsible redistribution but doesn't address coercive taxation for other purposes.
Don't address wealth inequality. The idea that wealth inequality is wrong implies that there is only a finite amount of wealth and therefore, it should be equalized. In a free market economy, people accumulate wealth from people who volunteer to give some of their wealth in exchange for something they see as a better value. Everyone is better off.
The problem is, we don't have a free market economy. Government policies pick winners and losers. Every policy designed to help, fill in the blank -----, has an unforeseen side effect. In Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell, claims this is because people fail to think beyond stage one. I'm a farmer, when a politician says he will help the farmers, I ask, which ones? Make grain more profitable and livestock farmers suffer, for example. That is why the Federal government was never granted authority to have an agriculture department by the Constitution.
UBI-FIT with a progressive wealth tax.
The difficulty is deciding what level of UBI will keep people from extreme hardship while still motivating employment..
Then what level of FIT to level that will still motivate hard and effective labour.
Then at what level should wealth tax start and how progressive it needs to be to still motivate wealth creation.
It's actually quite simple, first enforce anti-trust/monopoly laws, set limitations on size of and life span of Corporations, write and enforce laws against "vulture capitalism", Those who work hard and sacrifice much of they're life to achieve great wealth, will always accumulate greater wealth than those who punch a clock, pass laws (and again enforce them) that keep those with wealth from "rigging" the game, thus guarding the "equality of opportunity" not outcome. Of course that would also mean you need an uncorrupted Government, might as well search for unicorns.
Because the US federal government is a monetary sovereign it can theoretically spend as much money it wants on public goods without taxation. But it needs to have some taxation in order for its money to have any credibility and to help control inflation. And it should tax enough from the wealthy to avoid extreme concentration.