> I find it very selfish to think that we should optimize everything to squeeze out the remaining 1.1% of the wealth, given that Scandinavia wouldn't have such a high living standard had it not been for the welfare system.

1.1% is deceiving. 1.1% is actually over 20% tax on savings (assuming a common drawdown of wealth at 4% per year). Plus savings are usually money that has already been taxed. If you can invest at a higher return then the numbers improve but the risk increases (and governments don't share the risk or otherwise ameliorate it) and the taxes remain if you win.

1.1% sounds small. Any analytical person analysing the rewards versus the risks of founding a company will decide that it isn't worth it. Even if you win, you lose.

Here in New Zealand no founder can plan for a decade timeframe because there's a high chance a new government will screw you if you make any winnings. Currently our taxation system encourages entrepreneurship a little (no CGT).

A taxation system needs to be designed to incentivise individuals to create businesses. The government wins through income taxes and sales taxes - it doesn't need to kill the golden goose by overtaxation.

Most people have a selection bias: they see the winners and think those "greedy bastards" should pay more. Few people weigh up the invisible costs of the people that tried and failed. Very few people consider the benefits accrued to society from businesses (consumer surplus, tax income through other taxes, etcetera).

What is stopping it is the fact that the "wealth" they are being taxed on doesn't actually exist, so by starting a company and getting investment you create tax liability that is impossible to pay.

Early stage companies have a high valuation on paper as an artifact of selling small amounts of equity for relatively large sums of money. This leaves you with purely theoretical wealth in the form of equity which you have not yet sold, and potentially can't sell.

As a concrete example, let's say your tax rate is 15%. If you start a business, and give an investor a 10% stake in that business in exchange for $1M, your remaining 90% stake in the company is now worth $9M. Congratulations, you're wealthy! Now you need to "pay your dues" of 15% of that $9M... good luck with that. You are now bankrupt and deeply in dept to the government.

In what way does inequality break society?

I’ve frequently heard this article of faith bandied about.

But if the rich get 10X richer, and the poor get 2X richer, then everybody is better off.

The stagnant, ultraconservative, ultracentralized economic systems tankies like to propose always end up leaving everyone 100X poorer. But at least they’re equal, right!?

Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Well while celebrating, let's remember that the dream leans massively on the US. 74% of Europe's publicly listed companies depend on US-based technology services like Google and Microsoft for their core operations. And can Europe defend itself? No is the response most analysts give. It's massively under-resourced & dependent on the US. However, if Russia invades (as predicted by some), it invades Europe. So in negotiations such as they are, where are the Europeans leaders dominating (or even putting an appearance at) the discussion to try to call a cease fire to the appalling tragedy of Russia's invasion of the country adjacent to European territory? Isn't it kind of embarrassing?

Overstaying a visa is an offence and if you've gone through the efforts of getting one in the first place, you should read the regulations. Most of us do and act accordingly as I know from own situation this summer.

You might've mixed up your analogy there, Gestapo was a German 3rd Reich thing… NKVD would be the Soviet one.

This article seems to argue that the cause of the inequality is the lack of taxes

Most businesses are not as portable as a tech startup.