Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: toolgal462

not to just continue the chain,

'but now you're doing it too'

and so am i< so as OP, that stops here and now.

a reply to: toolgal462
no but the mentioned threat of smacking someone around in real life when you disagree with them is concerning.
perhaps an inability to express oneself properly?

a reply to: shooterbrody

super relevant post.

do you have a freaking opinion on wealth cap, this is probably the only thread I will ever use this site, I know you don't care, but I do.

where I come from(the internet), normally the OP has the ability to ask for ad homs to stop. is this some cess pool or what?

seriously should have just asked reddit

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

Ok, specifically, the value of the dollar is related to how many are in circulation. There are other factors, but the sudo-defacto way to improve the value of the dollar, would be to reduce it's quantity to 1. This would indeed, raise the value of the dollar to the highest amount in any fractional system. It would obviously also be worthless, because it would lose it's purpose, but the math that identifies the worth of the dollar is this.

They are ignoring it because it sounds like a liberal concept to cap wealth, but this is why Republicans are normally crying about more printed money, and actually super educated on this topic when they want to be. Printing money reduces value, burning money increases it.

With this in mind, the hypothetical consequences of an individual becoming worth 'cthulhu' amounts of money would be inherently and -very obviously- detrimental to the economy it resided in.

Well, thanks I guess for attempting to answer. I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are trying to say but let me just point out a few "flaws" with your answer that I see ( from what I may understand of it ).

First of all, the word is "psuedo" not "sudo" now spelling a word wrong shouldn't be a big deal, but you have proven repeatedly that you also don't' necessarily understand the actual meaning of some of the words that you use. Which leads me to believe that you aren't as educated on the subject matter as you claim to be.

And now, are you advocating for "burning money" or capping earnings? these would be two very different things.

Do you realize that?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: toolgal462
no but the mentioned threat of smacking someone around in real life when you disagree with them is concerning.
perhaps an inability to express oneself properly?

misogyny, this person is straight up a butt kisser to dudes and a real tough guy with me.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere
a more than relevant reply to your link to "bank manual"

your wealth cap is based upon bigoted misguided ideas and is communist

who cares where you come from?

a reply to: toolgal462

Yes I realize that, and sorry im not an English major, i studied business and know that impression matters, but only to the degree of understanding, the perfect example is my misspelling of sudo beacause it's both wrong, and also unmistakable in meaning and understanding. with that out of the way, if you can excuse the formal procedures,

a wealth cap means that burning money is more effective, because burning 100 million right now means nothing, because people have multiple billions.

I understand they are not the same thing, it is how they are related that a wealth cap reduces inflation.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: toolgal462
OP,

I thought there was "0 percent chance" of you responding to Augustus about 5 replies ago?

Again, proving that you don't know what "percent" means.

See, like this. An intentional, obnoxious attempt to ridicule another person, while adding nothing to the convo.

It was the OP's actual words!! How is pointing that out to them that they had said that just a few minutes ago, not valid?

Sorry if it makes them look stupid, but it directly contradicts their claims of having understanding of the subject matter they are claiming to be so knowledgeable about.

Sure. The millionaires of Halliburton, kbr and black water effected the freedom of Iraq. The millionaires of the banking sector effected the freedom of Libyans. The billionaires of Exxon effected the freedoms of Venezuelans. The millionaires of big pharma effect our freedoms to negotiate drug prices, or to choose which meds or procedures we can choose, as well as the costs of vitamins in Europe. And so on.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

Yes I realize that, and sorry im not an English major, i studied business and know that impression matters, but only to the degree of understanding, the perfect example is my misspelling of sudo beacause it's both wrong, and also unmistakable in meaning and understanding. with that out of the way, if you can excuse the formal procedures,

a wealth cap means that burning money is more effective, because burning 100 million right now means nothing, because people have multiple billions.

I understand they are not the same thing, it is how they are related that a wealth cap reduces inflation.

A wealth cap would stop a person from ever having those billions to burn. That stops growth of the economy.

Limits economic growth and limits jobs and innovation.

How is this helpful to the world?

a reply to: toolgal462

And to follow up with my previous post, Congress emulates this with 'debt ceilings' that already apply to the economy as a whole. The issue with them, is that they don't honor them, and just move them.

The example to this would be if the wealthcap was set to 1 billion, but then somehow we decided to make it 2 billion. ultimately this practice is meaningless because it doesn't impact individuals as much as an individual cap would.

originally posted by: pexx421
Sure. The millionaires of Halliburton, kbr and black water effected the freedom of Iraq. The millionaires of the banking sector effected the freedom of Libyans. The billionaires of Exxon effected the freedoms of Venezuelans. The millionaires of big pharma effect our freedoms to negotiate drug prices, or to choose which meds or procedures we can choose, as well as the costs of vitamins in Europe. And so on.

And how exactly does capping ones earnings change any of this from happening?

a reply to: toolgal462

Spending money is not burning money in this analogy. I'm speaking literally, not figuratively like spending. Spending money is circulating it.

Burning money is removing money from circulation. literally burning it.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

And to follow up with my previous post, Congress emulates this with 'debt ceilings' that already apply to the economy as a whole. The issue with them, is that they don't honor them, and just move them.

The example to this would be if the wealthcap was set to 1 billion, but then somehow we decided to make it 2 billion. ultimately this practice is meaningless because it doesn't impact individuals as much as an individual cap would.

Debt is not the same as earnings.

a reply to: toolgal462

That's a controversial statement, because the reality is our wealth is composed of debt because we prefer fractional banking.

The founding fathers would agree with you, that's why they broke from England and created a monetary system based on gold, the "green back". You could argue tha majority of America's emancipation was over this issue.

And then FDR reinstated a Federal bank to be backed by tender currency(what the founders ran from).

So the reality is they are not the same thing, but in a fractional system they are.

a reply to: toolgal462

In order to effectively control the profits and earnings successfully and to avoid "billionaires" government would have to control the means of production.

Massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few allows them to circumvent laws and destabilize democracy. When that happens you get things like the banking industry defrauding millions and destroying the global economy whereupon they lobby themselves trillions in a bailout. Or big oil killing tribes in South America through polluting their lands and waters, being exempt from legal action. Or corporations lobbying to get legislation passed that adversely effects the population in pursuit of profit. It happens all the time, and to act like y’all don’t know is disengenuous at best, and straight up malignant lying at worst.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: toolgal462
no but the mentioned threat of smacking someone around in real life when you disagree with them is concerning.
perhaps an inability to express oneself properly?

misogyny, this person is straight up a butt kisser to dudes and a real tough guy with me.

I don’t know who all are girls or guys on here, other than the fact you personally have gal in your name. It has nothing to do with your sex and everything to do with the fact that you act an ass more than most. I don’t kiss anyone’s ass, but I do treat people who engage in respectful discourse with the same respect they show. The golden rule is to “do unto others as they do unto you” so I can only expect that by your behavior, personally attacks and passive aggressive attacks are the way you prefer to be treated.

Okay, while I am apt to agree that those with enormous wealth have the ability to get away with breaking laws and various other things that are unfair. what I do not agree with is that capping earnings would in any way shape or form make the situation any better. Because any country that attempted to implement what amounts to communist principals have always led to failure and misery.

It can't be done. OP. It can't be done unless you advocate for everyone being poor and starving. And death and famine.

There are laws in place. Some are not enforced. Some were even repealed (glass-steagall).

There are ways to address the corruption that some of the rich and powerful are getting away with. But none of the ways would involve capping earnings.

a reply to: pexx421

And what this thread argues for is the accumulation of that wealth in the hands of the government through confiscation.

I guess you pick your poison: business and private individuals or government.

You just think you like the latter because they would label it communist and you think they make it partially yours, but the practice always ends up like Stalinist Russia or Maoist China.