Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: CynConcepts

arizona, my dad had 45,000 in his truck, to buy another truck, it's not specifically against the law, it's patriot act nonsense where they just smell you and then you're arrested. like did you show your money to the police lol, because in the context of a traffic stop, it was seemingly pretty illegal, they even pulled out guns.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

that's not how inflation is determined...

a reply to: namehere

the purchase power of the dollar is in direct relationship with the quantity unless I'm mistaken, it's not exactly how inflation works, it's a cause.

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: idiotseverywhere

that's not how inflation is determined...

LOL, Please explain it to OP. I can't wait to see OPs response.

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? 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.

Ummm...at some point...

Get off your lazy ass and go get your own slice of pie...

Enough with the sheer covetousness...

Could you be any more blatant in your jealousy...I mean...I get being greedy...but being greedy about someone else's greed...

That's too rich...






YouSir

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: CynConcepts

arizona, my dad had 45,000 in his truck, to buy another truck, it's not specifically against the law, it's patriot act nonsense where they just smell you and then you're arrested. like did you show your money to the police lol, because in the context of a traffic stop, it was seemingly pretty illegal, they even pulled out guns.

Goodness! I have never been asked for more than my ID and proof of insurance in a traffic stop. I certainly would not offer to tell anyone even the Police that I had money in my locked brief concealed under my seat!

a reply to: YouSir

I don't really see how the suggestion is greedy

a reply to: CynConcepts

they asked to search the vehicle, and because it had no weapons or drugs or alcohol, he said sure, and then they arrested him for having money.

he was let go, but like, this actually happened; they had reason to detain him legally for suspicion of selling drugs alone.(because money)

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Sounds exactly like what you are advocating for. Got too much money, go to gulag!

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: namehere

the purchase power of the dollar is in direct relationship with the quantity unless I'm mistaken, it's not exactly how inflation works, it's a cause.

No ...

The purchase power of the dollar has to do with how many there are in relation to how much of real worth backs the dollars.

Do you not understand how currency is backed and what it represents?

And don't tell me that wealth is a finite thing. Wealth is something that has worth to others. If I go out and take a tomato seed and grow a tomato plant, every tomato has worth because it's food. Not a single one of those tomatoes would exist without the time and effort of my labor. The idea that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world basically says I stole those tomatoes from other people by growing them which is BS. They wouldn't exist without my time and effort. Those mythical others were not putting in any time and effort to grow those tomatoes.

Any money I get for those tomatoes if I sell them is a recognition of the value of both those tomatoes in and of themselves and my time and effort in growing them. That's the value of those dollars.

The only time you devalue dollars is when the Fed simply prints money out of thin air without having produced any wealth either in goods or services to back them.

a reply to: ketsuko

maybe if you don't live in america.

where I live, our system is 'legal tender'-
"Legal tender is a medium of payment recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation. Each jurisdiction determines what is legal tender, but essentially it is anything which when offered in payment of a debt extinguishes the debt."

and so basically is effin monopoly money and the value is in direct relationship to the circulation of american dollars, there is no intrinsic value, like how a pound or whatever is worth gold. instead the value is derived from the scarcity of it's production. The dollars in your wallet are presidential pokemon cards.

and this is done on purpose to exploit fractional banking systems(aka why everyone hates USA loans), and while insanely aggressive and destructive to other countries economies, is incredibly effective at spreading capitalism.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

What I wrote is basic economics and works the same everywhere.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

I don't care about the other poster, you need to back up your claim that you made to me.

this is getting funnier and funnier.

This is what weed does to your brain I think

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: namehere

mostly because there is no appreciable difference between 50 billion or 100 billion, essentially, Bill Gates.

he wouldn't donate the money if he needed the spending power. donating the money is the only spending power left.

and you fail to see how him having and then donating those billions of dollars is helping others?

seriously, you gotta be trolling

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yeah I know you don't, the issue is the burden is only relevant in persuasion of evidence. there also is no need for a burden of proof here, it's not only clearly asserted anecdotally because it's an impossibility to prove statistics on such a thing anyway and is also perspective driven, but it also is so clearly correct I just don't have the energy to work any harder for you to find some bias piece of information that matches your fancy, but trust me, it exists. and so I concede to your notion I didn't make a relevant point, but the analogy was superior concept to the facts.

sure, that makes total sense

a reply to: toolgal462
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



www.cnbc.com...

"In 1997, the group calculated that 50 percent of the Forbes list inherited all or part of their fortune."

" It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background."
(Notice, the lowest class is 'lower middle')

"The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. "

"Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up"

"The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base."

"The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. "

" The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background."


they literally just divided middle class into like 4 sections, as if middle class wasn't also rich , these divisions are stupid, the report basically concludes they were ALL RICH to start.

'upper middle class' lol stfu, ur rich, only a rich person would even say that phrase

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: idiotseverywhere

If there was a cap it would need to be a lot more than 1 billion, it would need to be at least 20 billion, and it would need to adjust for inflation.

I don't think you realize there are things that legit cost billions of dollars to buy. For instance, an NFL franchise.

Instead of always trying to use the stick, the carrot is actually usually more effective.

For instance - if billionaires were given dollar for dollar tax deductions for money donated to charity - a lot more money would go to charity, which in most cases is more efficient than it going to the federal government.

Was it just proposing your earnings for 1 year are capped at a billion? I didn't interpret it to mean you can not have more than 1 billion in total wealth stored up.

Ok, well maybe. I don't know, I am of two minds on this.

Part of me just thinks government intervention in capitalism is bad, unless laws are being broken.

On the other hand, income inequality has become a problem.

Here is the other issue I don't think people are getting - if we did pass such a law, how many of these billionaires would choose to move to a country without the same type of restriction - quite a few I would think.

The ultra billionaires such as Bezos and Musk and others are some of our most productive citizens and are moving our country technologically into the future ahead of our rivals. I think it is quite likely losing them to another country would do more harm than any gain we would get on capping their income.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

So your claim, as demonstrated by your source, is wrong as I said it would be. Only 21% were born billionaires.