Individual Wealth Cap

Ok, lets talk about this, hypothetically, you make it illegal to own more than- lets say, a Billion Dollars.

Doesn't this just drastically improve our economy while not really directly effecting the spending power of the elite?

Someone will probably say, how it's not ethical to cap wealth like this, but then how do you answer to a dominated economy ethically? Surely if the limit isn't a Billion Dollars, there is -some number- where an individual can just start to # our # up that has been built by millions of people over entire generations of work.

I'm all for capitalism, but I'm not really interested in turn 400 in Civ6 because Nick owns the entire map by himself.

We're a hop and a skip away from some ruthless Zuckerberg making 5 million dollars a day, and just outright buying Wisconsin or something stupid.

What if there was an actual limit to how rich a person could be, before they would be considered harmful to the environment around them?

You literally cannot look me in the face and say some of these Billionaires haven't been harmful to us all.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Sounds authoritarian to me, determining how successful another individual is allowed to become.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Ok, lets talk about this, hypothetically, you make it illegal to own more than- lets say, a Billion Dollars.

no thanks commie
we have freedom here

the actions of one does not merit punishing all
why is that so hard a concept to understand?

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

I'm all for capitalism

If you support wealth caps, you are not 'all for capitalism'.

but I'm not really interested in turn 400 in Civ6 because Nick owns the entire map by himself.

I have no idea what this means.

a reply to: butcherguy

The better example is the classic game, Monopoly.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Sounds authoritarian to me, determining how successful another individual is allowed to become.

It's hard to feel bad about billionaires not being multibillionaires.

Op's plan is unrealistic though. The rich hide their money and convert it to assets.

a reply to: shooterbrody

A wealthcap is a punishment to us all? 5head, my bad I didn't know this was a forum of billionaires. I'm sorry for suggesting to limit your potential.

The better question is do you understand my point, at some point, the number doesn't generally matter anymore to the effect of the power of the person. These people have 'unspendable' amounts of money. Is that at no point ever going to be concerning? How does competition and incentive work with 'infinite' money? You cannot physically spend it faster than the interest it accrueds, without just blatantly giving it away. No work, all power.

You literally cannot look me in the face and say some of the poorest people haven't been harmful to us all.

It goes both ways and I'm never in favor of removing elements that make the world competitive.
Is it realistic that the average person will ever attain that level of wealth, no but that doesn't mean that it's not a target to strive for.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I agree determining the limit is a slippery slope, I'll give you that, if you admit conceptually having no limit has a flaw.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere
limiting opportunity is not a punishment?
you are confusing
what other types of opportunity are you for limiting?

I do get your point
we do not do that here

sell your thinly disguised class warfare elsewhere

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: shooterbrody

A wealthcap is a punishment to us all? 5head, my bad I didn't know this was a forum of billionaires. I'm sorry for suggesting to limit your potential.

The better question is do you understand my point, at some point, the number doesn't generally matter anymore to the effect of the power of the person. These people have 'unspendable' amounts of money. Is that at no point ever going to be concerning?

Don't worry so much.

It's not like rich and powerful people ever do bad things or would ever try to make the world nicer for themselves by getting rid of all the poor and dirty people.

a reply to: opethPA

so you're saying it's healthy for people to aim for levels of wealth to not just accommodate themselves, but also to the degree they have the individual freedom to aim for wealth levels so high they not only would have a comfortable life, but also the financial power to cripple a country if they choose? wow. ok. there is a pretty huge separation between the american dream, and owning america.

originally posted by: blueman12

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Sounds authoritarian to me, determining how successful another individual is allowed to become.

It's hard to feel bad about billionaires not being multibillionaires.

Op's plan is unrealistic though. The rich hide their money and convert it to assets.

I don't feel anything towards them.

Regardless what they have, it doesn't really impact my life.

I do pretty well so I'm good.

If we'd meme this concept I'd enter this. . . . .

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: DBCowboy

I agree determining the limit is a slippery slope, I'll give you that, if you admit conceptually having no limit has a flaw.

No.

Once you limit it, you allow for the very idea that government has the ability to determine what someone can do, can make.

It's authoritarian.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Let's say your plan goes into effect, I make a billion dollars and end up making another billion, where does that extra billion go? If you say 'to the government' I would rather put it in a big pile and burn it since my use would be more productive.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

I think it's funny to believe that just because you cap rich people's money that it's going to trickle down to everyone else....

Not to mention it's more than likely illegal to cap income.

a reply to: Notoneofyou

thinly disguised? there is literal elephant examples of this, if I make 100 trillion dollars, my family just owns earth for the next 100 years financially and the entire economy breaks, obviously.

the blatant real life example of this level of control would be comparable to Rothschild, the family will be the richest people for generations, and this is not on their own merit they are this rich. Unborn children who own more than anyone.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't know, maybe do work for free and then spend your billion dollars on the side?

Normal people have jobs, but you have a Billion Dollars.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Once you limit it, you allow for the very idea that government has the ability to determine what someone can do, can make.

We should let the government limit everything.

Too much money? Government takes it.
Too many TV's? Government takes some.
Too much property? Government takes a few acres.
Some large man in Portland has too many muumuus? Government takes them.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
I don't knows...

When you do figure it out let me know.