The Distribution of Wealth; Should personal and corporate wealth be capped?

I have decided to make my first thread on this topic because I feel it should at least be touched on and explored.

Many people live below the poverty line and when this happens people in our society are able to collect assistance to aid them through their hardship. When I look at the distribution of wealth in the world it is all to obvious that it is disproportionate and extremely so. I feel that the hoarding and greed has run so far out of control that it is hurting the bottom 90% to an extent that it will destabilize the entire system thereby spoiling all of our ways of life.

So, I ask; Is it JUST for a person or corporate entity to be able to essentially hold hostage billions of DOLLARS from the system? The corporate world is sitting upon 2 trillion in cash (combined) and have done little to nothing with said cash to improve the lives of the bottom 90%.

Should personal and corporate wealth be capped?

*Feel free to discuss. I understand that with regards to corporations there would need be some exceptions but my goal here is to get the collective thoughts of ATS members; to toss around ideas that could be implemented which would get money moving again and be fair.

What sort of question is this? No there shouldn't be a cap on wealth, are you serious. What will they think of next, a cap on your lifetime, breathing, anything else?

This what taxation is (supposed to be) all about. You tax higher income earners (individual and corporate), and use it for purposes that generate good things for the general public (roads, schools, hospitals, etc.). In a properly functioning system, the higher your income, the higher percentage of tax you pay...the higher your disposable income, the more you are likely to pay in sales taxes of one kind or another.

And, with entitlement programs, wealth is actually redistributed from the richer to the poorer.

But to "cap" income, would be impossible...as you would take away people's incentive to earn. They would simply stop growing their businesses (which would mean hiring more workers), or otherwise making money (meaning they would not pay any higher taxes either), etc.

There will always be a disparity in incomes because...quite frankly...some people are smarter than other people, some people work harder, or take advantage of opportunities as they are presented. Others do little or nothing with their lives - except show up when the freebies are being handed out.

reply to post by mobiusmale



*Important declaration*

I am speaking of income aside. It is not something to cap how much people make, it is to cap how much can be accumulated. So for arguments sake say, 1billion dollars of net worth is max and the rest must be reinvested or moved in some fashion. No idle accounts or holdings (which is what the corporations have right now and is holding the market hostage).

When money does not move, society grinds to a halt. And much of that 2 trillion I spoke of is bailout money (in a round about way). Clearly I believe we have a problem.

When there is no incintive for working because you won't make any more money, you quit working , rich or poor.

"But them having more money has never led to an increase in jobs!"

So? Them not having money means they won't keep me on the job I already have.

"Who said the rich would employ you?"

Who said the poor could ever afford to?

As much as some of the rich can be jerks, having no rich people ensures that nobody ever has money. You cap the rich they'll leave, or they'll shut down...or they'll find a loophole or two since they have enough money to buy the best lawyers, meaning that only the slightly less rich will ever taste the wrath of the people.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
What sort of question is this? No there shouldn't be a cap on wealth, are you serious. What will they think of next, a cap on your lifetime, breathing, anything else?

hmmmmm, me thinks hes one of the 10% lol

yes, a thousand times yes, wealth should be capped, it doesnt even have to be a low amount either. if everyone was capped at just one million in earnings a year than the distribution of wealth would start to even out.
but saddly this will never happen as we live in a world were the rich and powerful either make or seriously influance the rules we live by and they use these rules to keep the rich rich and the poor poor

reply to post by DaveNorris

Well, then. Cap yourself. Government shouldn't have to hold your had to do it.

Originally posted by mobiusmale

There will always be a disparity in incomes because...quite frankly...some people are smarter than other people, some people work harder, or take advantage of opportunities as they are presented. Others do little or nothing with their lives - except show up when the freebies are being handed out.

i agree, but most of the smarter, harder working people are earning a lot less than the people that are born into money. and if your family has money you can afford a better higher education, not that you need it as 'daddy' will employ you for a rediculous wage anyway

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


i dont need to cap myself, my income was capped when i was born into a working class family

reply to post by DaveNorris


I again am not so much speaking about people making over a million but just to chime in on that I think that earning over 5million a year without being taxed to the hilt above and beyond that point makes little to no sense. Billionaires sit on so much money that they could not spend it in their lifetime...The argument is they have to start spending and stop hoarding or else the system fails.

If I hoard "stuff" on my my land, I will get a visit from the man and he will tell me "you gotta move that stuff or we are taking it or fining you" See what I mean?

I think it should.

If there is only $x in the system and a few have most of it, that means there is less for the rest. And then the rich have the power to take more.

You only need a certain amount for your needs. Any more is greed, and that's what is killing the financial system.

They always try and trick you into believing that the more money the rich have, the better off you will be. But it's just not true.

reply to post by TheRemedial




Well I'll say yes, but only after a bigger onus is placed upon businesses to do something positive themselves.
I don't think forcing or bullying anyone is the right way to go, but persuasion and education could certainly go a long way.

Maybe every business whose net profits exceed a certain amount, set up a fund, a charitable organization or some kind of initiative.

In England (and around the world) Football players can earn up to a quarter of a million pounds per week for playing football, and that doesn't include sponsorships and advertising deals and books and a ton of other stuff.

There should be something in place to help these guys spread the wealth a little bit.... there are already plenty of players who do a lot of good with their wealth, much like any other celebs and music stars, but it should be something that people WANT to do.... and not because we tell them.

This is where society has gone badly wrong.... the attitude of not wanting to help or not feeling you should or not feeling it's your responsibility.

This needs to change.

There is enough wealth out there to enable everyone to live a decent and contented life.

reply to post by TheRemedial

Cap wealth when you cap life-spans.

I mean, why not?

Everyone over the age of 80 can't contribute anymore. So off the oldsters. They'l just take the money that people won't have because it is "capped".

We can't even eliminate the loopholes that allow corporations to pay zero taxes and allow the wealthy to pay lower tax rates than the middle class. How in the world would we limit income.

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by TheRemedial

 

There should be something in place to help these guys spread the wealth a little bit.... there are already plenty of players who do a lot of good with their wealth, much like any other celebs and music stars, but it should be something that people WANT to do.... and not because we tell them.

the problem is that these people/ businesses dont want to spread the wealth, they want to hord it.
celebrities try to come across as charitable but they only help to improve their image and get publicity which helps them get more money and they can right off charitable donations as a tax deduction.

reply to post by TheRemedial


If i have to pay 48% tax on my income. Its should be reasonable for corporations to pay up to.
I have asked many times why i have to pay 48% tax on my income. All i get in return from politicians is that i am selfish.
But when i tel them: If i take up a mortgage and buy a large expensive house, car and boat. Why do taxes on income get reduced? Isn't buying a expensive house, car and boat selfish? Why do the people who do this get away with less tax?
Politicians just look at you in a stupid way if you ask them questions that make sense.

reply to post by DaveNorris


With all due respect, this is a cop-out. You are using this as an excuse for your (I am assuming) current lack of financial success. (Also assuming) you live in a free Western country, you can achieve just about anything you want if you are determined enough and work hard enough...and have the basic intellectual tools.

How many "poor" immigrants have come over and become affluent business owners? What is to stop anybody from working two or three jobs...or starting a small business...or investing (in one form or another) to get ahead? Time, energy, effort, a bit of good luck, and you can get on top.

Stop looking at your limiters, and start looking at your opportunities and possibilities. Your parents' financial circumstances do not have to determine your future financial circumstances!

Get out there, and create your own success story...

The foremost problem that I see is with accumulated wealth assets including cash. Look at how slowly but surely corporations consolidate and then merge to form juggernauts of greed. These juggernauts hold majority of the distribution of wealth (they as persons are minority) but as entity they hold the majority of wealth. This becomes a situation of who holds the balance of POWER over the lower 90%.

See how this all works?

eg. George Soros, has accumulated a massive fortune and used it to manipulate the system on a political level.

reply to post by TheRemedial


Of course not. Capping wealth only creates a disinsentive to not create more wealth which would reduce economic growth.

If anyone assumes that, were the government to come in and consficate wealth over X amount that each year it would not be X-Y and so on until wealth was totally redistributed is crazy. It is the same thing that happens with taxes. First they are temporary, then only X amount, yet somehow they always find some critical reason to raise them, despite the original intent of the tax policy. That fact is one of the reasons that folks are opposed to a sales or VAT tax being implemented at a small level in conjunction with the income tax.

As for the really rich folks, they don't really own anything. They don't own their homes, their investment portfolios, none of it. It is all wrapped into endowments and trusts. Someone like John Kerry wants a ranch in Montana? His trust buys it as an investment. He wants a yacht? Same deal. As far as walking around money, he gets paid as an exectutor of his endowment which entitles him to receive tax free dispursals as long as the endowment is giving a percentage of its money away - and that is a small percentage.

You would get far more tax revenue were you to lower the tax rates and create a flat tax and then eliminate loopholes across the board. A lot more.

I don't see how you would implement such an idea. Suppose you set a limit of say, $1 million annual income. What happens when you make $1.5 mil? Does the money go to the Government? After all they're so good at handling the money they have.

Do you have to go out on the street and and start handing out $100 bills? Do you have to give it to the charity of your choice? Would charities have a limit? Could you pay your son $500,000 to cut the grass, since he has no other income? "Gee, honey, I had to take that money to Vegas and blow it on hookers, coke, and blackjack. It's the law!"

Although I would support a law saying that the President and members of Congress should be limited to $1 million annual income for life. That might cut down on some of the corruption in DC.