Individual Wealth Cap

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
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?

Exactly, so why would anyone bother innovating and creating new technologies or medicine or whatever if they will be working for nothing?

And it is kind of hard to build new innovations or create new technology and corporations that would require you to hire and employ others without money.

Capping earnings doesn't do anything but halt growth and innovation. Therefore, not creating jobs.

It's not a well thought out plan.

Going back to the gold standard is another argument altogether. This earnings cap will not brings us magically back to the gold standard you know.

a reply to: toolgal462

the issue is they don't bother to spend their assets, not be good people. multiple studies have shown if you take away the necessity of money, most people do that type of work for free, innovation especially.

they need to spend their billion so that it doesn't hurt others, and then they can have more, or they can work for free, because they literally don't need money at that level of wealth realistically anymore.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

the issue is they don't bother to spend their assets, not be good people. multiple studies have shown if you take away the necessity of money, most people do that type of work for free, innovation especially.

they need to spend their billion so that it doesn't hurt others, and then they can have more, or they can work for free, because they literally don't need money at that level of wealth realistically anymore.

Get outta here. If you cap my earnings, I am NOT going to "work for free" to create jobs for others. Not only that, but I will not want to risk the money I already have on starting a new business. Because you capped what money I have earned, I will hold onto what I have because I will not risk losing it.

We are getting into silliness again. Your cap on earnings is not going to work.

If what you want is to go back to the gold standard then you should try talking about how to do that and how.

a reply to: toolgal462

this isn't some lowly 30k Communism analogy at all, with ethos to commoners.

the world literally cannot afford to pay you? the world literally shouldn't have to.

Well OP. At least we were able to get along. But I give up. I don't understand your plan.

Have a good day.

a reply to: toolgal462

I'd agree more that we misunderstood each other than disagreed. Maybe.

good day.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
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?

Exactly, so why would anyone bother innovating and creating new technologies or medicine or whatever if they will be working for nothing?

And it is kind of hard to build new innovations or create new technology and corporations that would require you to hire and employ others without money.

Capping earnings doesn't do anything but halt growth and innovation. Therefore, not creating jobs.

It's not a well thought out plan.

Going back to the gold standard is another argument altogether. This earnings cap will not brings us magically back to the gold standard you know.

Meh. Some of the worlds greatest innovations were created without the mega profit motive. Insulin’s patent was given away for free. And to say that profit is the primary factor in innovation is superfluous. What identifies profit? Profit is just making more than you had before. No one is saying that there should be no profit for innovation. But you’re statements advocate that people only innovate or work hard for limitless profit. Back in the day, $20 may have been enough profit for someone to work and create. But now it’s not quantifiable. How much profit produces innovation and growth? Is there a level beyond which profit doesn’t produce any more innovation or motivation to work?

By making money, and limitless money, the prime motivator of social innovation you predispose innovation to only be in what creates profit. What about all the things we need that don’t create profit? Like the next round of antibiotics to replace the current generation which will be useless in another decade? It’s disincentivized, and likely millions will be dying when that time comes around. Further, with that paradigm you get a society much like ours, where greed is considered the height of virtue, and the situations we create for the impoverished, like the whole global south for instance, are ignored as “the price of our prosperity”.

a reply to: pexx421

The subject was an earnings cap. Not a cap on profit.

It takes A LOT of $$ to build things. New ideas...New Corporations. Takes a lot of money.

When you put a cap on what a person is able to earn in actual dollars, you in essence put a cap on growth and innovation.

PERIOD

This is not hypothetical, it's fact.

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: pexx421

The subject was an earnings cap. Not a cap on profit.

It takes A LOT of $$ to build things. New ideas...New Corporations. Takes a lot of money.

When you put a cap on what a person is able to earn in actual dollars, you in essence put a cap on growth and innovation.

PERIOD

This is not hypothetical, it's fact.

Ah. So then corporations can make as much as they want, but personal income can only reach a certain amount then?

At any rate, let’s look what our current system creates. Bezos is the richest guy in the world. He’s a delivery guy. All he did was streamline distribution. Was distribution the most important thing our world needed at the time? Not even close. It hasn’t solved any global issues, or measurably helped humanity in a way it desperately needed. But it’s gotten the largest allocation of wealth during this period. That’s not terribly reasonable, productive, or efficient.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
What you didn't read between the lines is not my fault.

There's nothing to read between the lines, which is an inference, nor is there anything anecdotal about that sentence. You used it as a qualifier for your invented percentage.

When did I say that?

I didn't.

Bezos is the "wealthiest" person in the world. Wealth is not the same as earnings.

OP was talking about putting caps on how much money a person is allowed to have.

Bezos (Amazon) has a monopoly and frankly should probably be broken up under our current anti trust laws. Same with Facebook. Same with google.

These things may be a problem, but they wont be solved by putting a cap on one's earnings.

On the flip side, Bezos just donated how many billions to help with "climate change"? And Amazon brings a LOT of jobs to the world with it.

Simply put, wealth inequality will not be solved by capping earnings. That is what OP was advocating for.

a reply to: toolgal462

but sometimes mathematically, a monopoly is also the single most efficient way to run an industry. not always, not even commonly, but sometimes, the route to the best product for consumers is that method.

the anti-trust laws only end up putting a limit on things that also prosper without limit; in the same way individual caps would, and we still have found ways around it.

the concept is only less airlight because if you just assume the system would be exactly the same with the cap being the only alternation isn't expansive enough.


it's also notable, if there was a cap, supply and demand would lower costs, you cannot sell something for 1 billion and 1 dollars, if no one has that much. so it's slightly naive to assume people just couldn't buy things.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

I know I don't understand what you are advocating for, but it sounds like you want some sort of economic reset and a return to the gold back currency.

I still don't see how earning caps help anyone in any scenario.

a reply to: toolgal462

those aren't what I want, that's a simplification of analogies I've given you for the reasoning this is a good idea, I've literally already stated a cap would be pointless in a gold system, like literally said that(to you), so I don't see how you come to conclusions like this.

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

originally posted by: toolgal462
When did I say that?

I didn't.

Bezos is the "wealthiest" person in the world. Wealth is not the same as earnings.

OP was talking about putting caps on how much money a person is allowed to have.

Bezos (Amazon) has a monopoly and frankly should probably be broken up under our current anti trust laws. Same with Facebook. Same with google.

These things may be a problem, but they wont be solved by putting a cap on one's earnings.

On the flip side, Bezos just donated how many billions to help with "climate change"? And Amazon brings a LOT of jobs to the world with it.

Simply put, wealth inequality will not be solved by capping earnings. That is what OP was advocating for.

Fair response, and I agree with much of it. But our monopolies and oligopolies are the logical constant end result of our capitalism.

I must have mistaken you with the others here asking how accumulation of wealth has ever hurt anyone.
Star for the good response, but I still find the horror stories of how placing an imaginary cap on a ludicrous amount of income will instantly lead to breadlines and mass poverty, and an end to innovation, to be purely speculative hyperbole. This is largely a discussion of likely response to such a policy, not a post board for all the fringe extreme results that might have an infinitesimal possibility.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Because I don't understand why you think earnings caps help anyone. I've already admitted that. I tried though.

a reply to: toolgal462

It doesn't help anyone.

A theoretical number for everyone to work around inflation does.

It clearly doesn't help the person at 1 billion dollars, but the goal isn't their happiness exclusively.

And like pexx mentioned, the idea these people would only be incentivized to help others through more profit isn't properly addressing their characters. They are better people than that, that assumption isn't fair to them.

a reply to: pexx421

k, so like, that's what I'm sayin'.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: toolgal462
When did I say that?

I didn't.

Bezos is the "wealthiest" person in the world. Wealth is not the same as earnings.

OP was talking about putting caps on how much money a person is allowed to have.

Bezos (Amazon) has a monopoly and frankly should probably be broken up under our current anti trust laws. Same with Facebook. Same with google.

These things may be a problem, but they wont be solved by putting a cap on one's earnings.

On the flip side, Bezos just donated how many billions to help with "climate change"? And Amazon brings a LOT of jobs to the world with it.

Simply put, wealth inequality will not be solved by capping earnings. That is what OP was advocating for.

Fair response, and I agree with much of it. But our monopolies and oligopolies are the logical constant end result of our capitalism.

I must have mistaken you with the others here asking how accumulation of wealth has ever hurt anyone.
Star for the good response, but I still find the horror stories of how placing an imaginary cap on a ludicrous amount of income will instantly lead to breadlines and mass poverty, and an end to innovation, to be purely speculative hyperbole. This is largely a discussion of likely response to such a policy, not a post board for all the fringe extreme results that might have an infinitesimal possibility.

So, you are for govt. confiscation (taxation) of wealth beyond a certain amount? Right?

I said that way back in the discussion and OP said that isn't what he wants. He said it had nothing to do with taxing people.

OP is confusing and I have done nothing but try to understand what is the purpose for capping earnings. Who does it benefit if the govt. doesn't even get to take the money?

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

It doesn't help anyone.

A theoretical number for everyone to work around inflation does.

It clearly doesn't help the person at 1 billion dollars, but the goal isn't their happiness exclusively.

And like pexx mentioned, the idea these people would only be incentivized to help others through more profit isn't properly addressing their characters. They are better people than that, that assumption isn't fair to them.

But it takes A LOT OF MONEY TO CREATE STUFF. take away ones ability to have money beyond some arbitrary amount and then there is NO MONEY FOR ANYTHING.