A better framing is to "reduce" inequality rather that "eliminate" inequality. Intuitively it makes sense that more money means more security. Why would anyone put in the effort otherwise? But, at some point, one has to asks how much security does an individual need? If a risk-taking founder with a gazillion dollars, and doing the lord's work (not my words), takes a small tax haircut after they've earned that money, in order to grant more security to some anonymous element of the precariat, how damaging would that be in practical terms? The founder would still have heaps of money, and remain above _some_ security threshold. Yes, it's taking from the rich; but not so much that it kills the the goose that we all want to continue laying the golden eggs.
A better framing is to "reduce" inequality rather that "eliminate" inequality. Intuitively it makes sense that more money means more security. Why would anyone put in the effort otherwise? But, at some point, one has to asks how much security does an individual need? If a risk-taking founder with a gazillion dollars, and doing the lord's work (not my words), takes a small tax haircut after they've earned that money, in order to grant more security to some anonymous element of the precariat, how damaging would that be in practical terms? The founder would still have heaps of money, and remain above _some_ security threshold. Yes, it's taking from the rich; but not so much that it kills the the goose that we all want to continue laying the golden eggs.
You cant make tons of people engineers when outsourcing and h1b dominate the job market