Individual Wealth Cap

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
Focus Augustus, you can do this, read only the last sentence.

Your last sentence does nothing to clarify your claimed percentage. Which was wrong.

a reply to: pexx421

love ya pexx. Since you corrupted my reality a bit, I have put a lot of thought into this. I also really appreciate threads like these because you get everyday people's input, not just the the supposed expert's opinions. I get a good feel of what it would be like to have this discussion with a lot of people out there. What their main fears are and how well our 'educational' system has been in teaching things.

They give you the main obstructions that your are going to run-up against time and time again. Things like hurling insults around being selfish, being lazy, being envious of others and not being a supporter of 'freedom'. Even on the losing side of an echo chamber, there is so much to be discovered. Who cares if you never ventured down the path of envy or laziness or expressing desires of coveting an other's goods, through your arguments. It is the instant reactions that can be used to judge the current state of life. When people are willing to discuss this issue honestly, then we will be getting close.

But they do have valid concerns. Slippery slope and all. These concerns can always be used in a positive manner to refine and think of new paths to isolate and solve.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

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

If the extra wealth was taxed it would certainly give the government a lot more money, but that's not equivalent to a better economy. It's basically a transfer of spending power, with the assumption that the government will invest and spend the money more effectively and efficiently than the private sector, which is often a faulty assumption to make. That's why so many communist and heavily socialist nations fail, free market economies are more productive and more efficient. Those failed ideologies are based on equality and morality, it's hard to see how such noble causes could fail, and that's why they're so dangerous.

Even if the wealth was directly redistributed and handed out to lower income people, it wouldn't necessarily have a positive effect. It would de-incentivize the most productive people if a large chunk of their wealth is just taken away, and again there's no guarantee the inheritors of that wealth will spend it wisely. Studies show that the least wealthy people tend to be those who are the most reckless with their money, even if they win the lottery they are highly likely to be back at square one several years later because they don't invest or save. Moreover, a healthy society doesn't operate via the wealthy providing welfare for everyone else.

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.

Yet no one owns that much money, because if they did the economy would break as you say. There is a natural balancing mechanism that occurs in free market economies, companies must ensure that consumers have enough money to spend it on their products, otherwise they will simply go bust and stop making their owners wealthy. With a limited money supply there is an intrinsic limit to how much wealth they can hoard. The truly evil thing about the debt based economy we live in is that this natural balancing mechanism gets undermined, they continually inject new money into circulation which can be hoarded by the most wealthy, allowing the gap between the rich and poor to grow essentially forever. There is still some point at which the economy will break but it allows wealth inequality to get much higher than it otherwise would be under a sound money system.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
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.

That brings up the question, does tons of money corrupt a soul?

That have been proven to be untrue.

Will a ton of money corrupt you...that is for everyone to as themselves.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Its extremely harmful, there needs to be something in place or we will revisit the French revolution.

People that defend private enterprise and think corporations should be given free reign are simply too stupid to bother talking to about it.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Its extremely harmful, there needs to be something in place or we will revisit the French revolution.

People that defend private enterprise and think corporations should be given free reign are simply too stupid to bother talking to about it.

Does it take a French Revolution to progress?

a reply to: InTheLight

The way it's heading quite possibly, wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, as the monopolies grow that wealth concentration increases, t h e government is bought and sold by the corporations so there's literally nothing in place to stop this from spiralling out of control.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

That is the quandry with central planning which is what this approach of confiscating everything over a certain amount sets up.

Individuals are best equipped to know their needs and wants. Sure that doesn't mean they always need and want wisely which is why so many end up poor. But they do best know their individual needs and wants.

And individuals with the means to meet those needs and wants are best left to find ways to fulfill the needs and wants of individuals.

A centrally planned government economy, no matter how much money it takes from it's people, cannot effectively plan for and provide all the endless permutations of goods and services all its individuals citizens are likely to need and want in all their endless variety.

Let's just talk about milk. When you go to your grocery store, how many different kinds of milk do you have on offer? I know we have three different kinds of big market brands, one small local dairy brand, some boutique offerings from the big markets, then you get into all the non-milk milks and lactose free products, and then you have cream, half and half, buttermilk, flavored milks ... Oh, and you have skim, 2%, whole, etc. Every single one of those products in those sizes exists because there is a consumer market for them. There are enough people who make the choice to purchase that produce often enough that it's worth producing it and worth it to the grocery store to stock it.

And you have that kind of variety in products all throughout the grocery for most products.

You have that all throughout most stores and every corner of the market.

Contrast that with centrally planned economies. Often you have maybe one or two choices at most. Government doesn't have the time or inclination to care about what all the individuals in its citizenry might want or need. It doesn't have to. It has your consumption no matter what. There is no incentive to earn your patronage by finding out what you want, what you need.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere


1. Mentions inflation. Good point, but this kind of stuff can be accounted for or dealt with, can it not?

I'm saying as the government grows in power they want more and more. Just like that rich dude who wants more and more money the people in power continually want more power. To get more they say that to be rich now is not 1 billion but 1 million...no one can have more than 1 million...then its 100,000...

In Russia/China the most powerful were not rich, but they had everything including the power to say who lives or dies by their whim. Power is power and rich might be, but who wins in Russia/China today the rich or the State if they went head to head?

3. ? I'm suggesting that with X money, you can control things individuals should not have the power to do so. This would be similar to how Governmental Power is delegated, and not end-all.

Once again you are suggesting money can create unlimited power and the most powerful people on the planet are not even rich most of the time, so that proves you wrong.

4. No, I don't like the fact people are born into the game as default winners. That's not a game, that's a lineage.

Boo hoo...real life sucks

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: InTheLight

The way it's heading quite possibly, wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, as the monopolies grow that wealth concentration increases, t h e government is bought and sold by the corporations so there's literally nothing in place to stop this from spiralling out of control.

Yeah, just yeah. Powerless to do anything else. WAIT! Let's do a French Revolution.

a reply to: InTheLight

Yep. Fastest way to an American Emperor. It brought Napoleon in to France. The only really short guy in politics today would be Bloomberg. He probably thinks he's Napoleon.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

Yep. Fastest way to an American Emperor. It brought Napoleon in to France. The only really short guy in politics today would be Bloomberg. He probably thinks he's Napoleon.[/quote

Strangely, I don't think Bloomberg is like all the rest.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: InTheLight

The way it's heading quite possibly, wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, as the monopolies grow that wealth concentration increases, t h e government is bought and sold by the corporations so there's literally nothing in place to stop this from spiralling out of control.

Yeah, just yeah. Powerless to do anything else. WAIT! Let's do a French Revolution.

I never said it was a good idea, it's simply what history tells us happens, when the plebs no longer have anything to lose all hell breaks loose.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: InTheLight

The way it's heading quite possibly, wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, as the monopolies grow that wealth concentration increases, t h e government is bought and sold by the corporations so there's literally nothing in place to stop this from spiralling out of control.

Yeah, just yeah. Powerless to do anything else. WAIT! Let's do a French Revolution.

I never said it was a good idea, it's simply what history tells us happens, when the plebs no longer have anything to lose all hell breaks loose.

What is a pleb? Define please.

a reply to: InTheLight

We the people, the working class, we are already seeing the cracks, think yellow jacket movement in France, riots in Hong Kong.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

What do you think we have the likes of "Dancing on Ice" and "Love Island" for?

That keeps 80% of the plebs happy and the other 19% are engrossed with terrorists on the news.

It might not be an actual plan, or even to agenda, but it works, or at least seems to thus far.

Hell will never be allowed to break loose whilst there are profits and spoils to be had.

And we are only on our knees right now, need to be face-first, down in the ditch, before the majority will ever rase and eyebrow, nevermind take actual notice.

a reply to: andy06shake

It seems were using the same failed model Rome did, we could look back and probably quite accurately predict the tipping point.

You're right though, we are well drugged and well entertained and nothing will change whilst in that slumber.

Do you get that goggle box show in the UK, you know were doomed when people are watching other people watching tv and commenting on what they are watching.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

What do you think we have the likes of "Dancing on Ice" and "Love Island" for?

That keeps 80% of the plebs happy and the other 19% are engrossed with terrorists on the news.

It might not be an actual plan, or even to agenda, but it works, or at least seems to thus far.

Hell will never be allowed to break loose whilst there are profits and spoils to be had.

And we are only on our knees right now, need to be face-first, down in the ditch, before the majority will ever rase and eyebrow, nevermind take actual notice.

You have the makings of a revolution. Wanna hear the words pop style? What do we do with 'minds that hate'?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

They had the lead in the water, we have whatever the feck goes into our water and food.

Bread and games it is then.

Certainly seems to the colour of most days bar all the austerity and abject poverty doing the rounds.

a reply to: InTheLight

Great band.

Love them.

But look what happened to John Lennon?