Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: toolgal462

I'm not as certain it can be done, as I am it would work.

It's similar to how I feel about health insurance, it's obvious mathematically a single subsidiary pool would provide the highest efficient healthcare, the issue is converting 1,000's of pools into 1 is impossible, it needs to be that way at the start.

a reply to: pexx421

Yep, sure thing. Say whatever you like to feel good about yourself pal. but I will never forget what you and your "bro" engaged in when "debating" me.

At the same time, while viciously attacking me, kissing butt to any male poster on the thread.

It was comical. But whatever....Say what you want.

I know who and what you are.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
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.

Not controversial because debt is not the same as earnings. You are advocating for either capping a persons ability to earn beyond a specific amount, or burning what money they have beyond a certain amount.

When you spend beyond what you earn, you have debt.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

I'm not as certain it can be done, as I am it would work.

It's similar to how I feel about health insurance, it's obvious mathematically a single subsidiary pool would provide the highest efficient healthcare, the issue is converting 1,000's of pools into 1 is impossible, it needs to be that way at the start.

Same with someone's grades in school? Is it obvious that a single pool of grades would be the best, most efficient way to make sure everyone passes?

It doesn’t have to be a govt collection. It could be capped by limiting exec pay compared to wages. Plenty countries do that to some degree, as do all worker owned co ops. And them the extra money goes to the workers wages, which goes directly back into the economy through purchases and services.

a reply to: pexx421

And where do they rank in terms of their economies on the world stage? How many of the world's biggest economic engines are based there?

a reply to: pexx421

These things are not the same as capping ones earnings.

And anyone has the right to start a company and place limits to what their execs are paid, as well as make the corp an employee owned entity.

It's done by some corporations already.

So how would making a law that would cap everyone's ability to earn money beyond a specific dollar amount help anyone?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.

Exactly. communism. That's what the OP is advocating for but has OP just come out and said it yet?

a reply to: toolgal462

This country did introduce wage caps once.

And in order to try to compete for the best workers which is what higher and lower salary and wage rates are for now, companies starting introducing the idea of benefits which is where the idea of company provided health insurance came from.

After a while, employees started to think of health insurance as something they got when they were hired instead of something they were responsible for and they stopped thinking of health care basics like office visits as something they paid for out of pocket.

And even after the wage cap laws were repealed, health insurance was an evil that stuck and distorts the market and system to this day.

Introducing something like this would create other unintended effects as the market and system moved on to compensate people for their real worth despite the caps.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

IMO, you need to refine your debate and argument style. I agree with a few of the others in their suggestion you are now coming across as a troll. It appeared the thread started out well, but it has since left the tracks. If you don't consider the different view points that are brought up, you will never move forward. This financial monstrosity won't be changed through force. There could be a chance through cooperation. But at this point, you are doing more harm than good.

Can you incorporate personal freedom and personal reward into making the system fair for all?

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, I am aware of this which was the beginning of the "employer provides health insurance" that we have today.

I believe this was during WWII or thereabouts.

Prior to that, people were likely to be able to afford a Dr. visit.

a reply to: toolgal462

in a fractional system, you are earning others debt.
in a non fractional system, you are earning others belongings.

this is conceptually very different when scaled up

in one system, you are owed things, in another you have a level of value.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.

Exactly. communism. That's what the OP is advocating for but has OP just come out and said it yet?

No.

It's an old tactic.

Discuss something at the periphery and as soon as there's a consensus, say, "Ahh- HA!" You DO want communism!

Then there'd be a QED and be the end of it.



But it's pretty transparent.

a reply to: DBCowboy

We already worked around to confiscation of property which the OP swears it's not because government owns money. Of course, most of the people wealthy on the scale he wants to knee cap don't keep much in the way of liquid assets like money. That's on of the reasons why Warren is so keen on her wealth tax -- a lot of their stuff isn't being taxed.

a reply to: toolgal462

It's not communism.

I'll give you another example.

If you have $100,000 US, you don't actually have anything; you have a note that says you are owed $100,000 of products.

If you have $100,000 in England, or somewhere gold backed, you have $100,000 of value in Gold.

The issue is the first example causes stratification when you start talking about someone with a 60k income verses multi-billionaires. Their 60k is worth less, because more expensive people exist, but the spending dollar for billionaires is pretty much identical to millionaires.

If money wasn't tender, a cap would be pointless(like england)

So, what you really are advocating for OP is going back to the gold standard?

Is that it?

a reply to: toolgal462

no, I don't think that's possible, just like how you don't think it's possible to get billionaires to agree to a cap.

I'm just pointing out countries with standardized money don't have the issues a cap prevents.

a reply to: ketsuko

somehow, the good guys win in this thread defending all the billionaires, that definitely aren't helping them. lol

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

no, I don't think that's possible, just like how you don't think it's possible to get billionaires to agree to a cap.

I'm just pointing out countries with standardized money don't have the issues a cap prevents.

Don't confuse what I have said. To be clear, I have said that capping one's earnings will not improve anything for anyone. And I have also gone into detail as to how putting caps on earnings would be detrimental to the overall economy and halt innovation, etc.

You still have not explained to me how a cap on earnings would help the world. You replied by getting into the gold standard vs. fiat money. But what does capping a person's earnings have to do with those things?

Somehow you think capping ones earnings somehow magically fixes a system you believe to be broken. Yet, I cannot see how that would fix the system and not just make things a whole lot worse.

a reply to: toolgal462

fiat money is not an asset in the same way gold is, so the issue is clear, you can be corrupt and accumulating much more absurd amounts of fiat money than real money. The proof in this is the fact they just keep printing it.

A personal earning is not the same as a cap of total money either. If you are at capped money, you don't have the need for an earning, because you will be at the height of the economy, and can work for whatever you wish to. What on earth do you need to be compensated for when you're at the peek of the market? What on earth? You need a plan to spend this money that you already have, or it just hurts everyone, you don't need more.