Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Why is someone's bank account your business?

Why don't you want the rule of law applied equally?

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Edumakated

What most people don't see though is the hustle and grind that goes into becoming very successful.

I've seen it and for many it is not worth it. You are literally trading your life/family life for $$$$$$$

For some people it isn't worth it. Heck, I thought I was going to be a Wall Street / Business Executive. Got MBA from top school, prestigious job, etc. Once I got into it and really saw the sacrifice necessary to get to a certain level, I didn't think it was worth it. I value family, personal experiences, etc. The money isn't worth the sacrifice to me and I didn't love the job / aspect of business enough to make it worth it.

I decided I rather just be some what successful but have a balanced upper middle class life.

a reply to: schuyler

I don't know if you're talking to me, but I made 100k a year at a quality tech job while also being a drop out simply because I'm rich to start with, and you're wrong.

listen, I believe in the ideal you're pushing also, but it just aint reality. over 99% of successful people owe almost all their success.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Hi IE.
Haven't read the replies yet, but am guessing that this didn't go-over too well.

Your heart is in the right place, but do you really think that the greedy bastids are ever gonna give-up their perceived power ?
Old wealth families, and the 'nouveau-riche', would see that coming, and sequester their fortunes in complicated schemes, leaving cold trails, that the best public forensic accounts would have a hard time to follow.

Seems to me that the way out: should be different from how we got here.
A new paradigm, perhaps ?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm fine with equal, they all equally are capped at 1 billion. Are you jealous and want more than others?

A billion dollar cap would be pretty useless. Any billionaire would simply leave the USA, or use legal tax methods to not earn more than a billion dollars.

The real issue though is who decides how much money you should be allowed to earn? Because at some point in the future they would decide you don't need to earn more than a million. Then it'd be 500k. Then 100k. But by that point it's too late because you already opened the door.

a reply to: Nothin

...and you'd give up all that money?? Out of the goodness of your heart? Wealth that you earned, or your parents/grands earned??

Just give it up, right?

So who decides how much, and where does the money go, and to whom?

a reply to: DBCowboy

All too much of this "redistribution" nonsense is sheer unadulterated jealousy. They don't have it, therefore, no one should.

It's their money, no one should have any say in how they spend it, or don't.

a reply to: jjkenobi

ok so realistically, each year I spend like 200k in just straight cash

and a single account with 80 million on 11% rate returns me 8 million.

there is this very noticeable breaking point where it no longer servers the same purpose anymore because the consumer cannot keep up with the income.

People can do lots of good things with money in this territory of numbers, but people have also done very bad things. A cap would mitigate the risk of power associated. Even if it was place higher than a billion, higher than anyone currently has, if it was set to a trillion, this would prevent an individual from somehow gaining a 100 trillion foothold, something arguably controversial.

a reply to: Edumakated

One of my friends from years ago, got in on the ground floor with microsoft. He was paid, in the early years, in stock options. He retired not all that long ago extraordinarily, by my standards, wealthy. Not far short of a billion, I think. Since it's none of my business, I've never asked.

...and since I know how hard he worked in those days, I don't begrudge him a plugged nickel of it. Though some here, apparently, do.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, that they do. More power to 'em.

But they do that by choice, and decide when, where, and how much goes to which ever place. As it should be.

I donate money to charities, too. I pick and choose which ones, no one else.

This concept of being forced to donate vast sums of money is just wrong.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Here is the real problem, it has nothing to do with "commies" or socialism, it's about the individual.

Pyschopaths have been proven to make good CEO's because they only care about themselves, alo because they don't know how to spend money, they like the idea of having money.

for example; a high school kid gets a ferrari as a graduation gift, now this kid can't drive, so instead he uses it to "buy" friends. So the kid invites his new "friends" to see it and one asks 'can you drive it?' the kid is clueless.

The biggest problem is these tax scams. Apple abused Ireland's tax system, now the billions of billions of dollars they have earned paid under the IRS, hundreds of millions could be put towards building and repairing infrastructure, which would boost jobs, and make jobs.

Face it, billionaires are real life scrooge McDucks.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Somebody had to earn it, more likely several someones.

...and that doesn't make a bit of difference. It's their money. Period. No one should be able to decide what they're allowed to have in their portfolio, or bank accounts. It's none of our business.

a reply to: seagull

just do contracts for $0, and start collecting kudos as your new source of wealth, why do you need to keep score if you're on maxed currency?

somehow this concept just translates way better to video game economies than anything else I can think of, because they lack natural balance and their most neutral state is a constant monopoly. In games where there is no theoretical limit to the currency, the markets always crash lol.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: schuyler

I don't know if you're talking to me, but I made 100k a year at a quality tech job while also being a drop out simply because I'm rich to start with, and you're wrong.

listen, I believe in the ideal you're pushing also, but it just aint reality. over 99% of successful people owe almost all their success.

Wrong about what? I don't see how your post even relates at all to what I said.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

To me a wealth cap is a bit of a bad move, that said I do believe the rich should (and they do not) bear there fair share of the tax burden based on what percentage of an economy's wealth they actually control.

But capping personal wealth while a good idea to prevent political control and bought government's will simply not work and the reason is that it will stop the entrepreneurial spirit dead, not every rich person is a scum bag many of them are good folk's that actually care and other's are just out of touch so punishing them unnecessarily is also an unjustified move.

In the past states have mulled this issue for reasons of filling there waning coffers but all - except communism (and the NAZI's though they targeted minority group's such as the Jew's) realized the error of enacting such a policy.

My personal opinion is that a WAGE cap should exist for director's and also a Bonus cap but owners and share holders should not be subject to this, also a minimum LIVING wage system is essential to both allow people to work less hour's and actually LIVE and to boost the economy because if a rich person is holding all that money in bank's and hedge fund's then it is not being invested back into the economy now is it WHILE a working man who work's 39 hours a week, takes home enough to feed his family and keep them in a comfortable state of luxury will spend, so will his kid's and wife and all that spending goes INTO the economy were the money is and was supposed to be all along.

In England we have a FALSE economy, most of the money is sitting in the city of London's financial institution's while the real economic value of the rest of the country is then falsely represented, we have a growing problem of increasing disparity between the wealthy and the elite which is not helped one bit by a generation of school teachers that are lying to kid's and calling OUR moderate socialism of the past a failure when in fact it was not a failure at all.

Come the Tory's, come the sell off's of state asset's, if the state in Britain still ran a national water board drainage ditches would still be in place, water management would still be top spec and the flood's that have crippled so many parts of our country recently would NOT have happened or not to the damaging degree that they have and proper flood defenses, excess water drainage channels and flood prevention weirs as well as pumping stations would still be in place.

The key here is MODERATE, you have to strike a balance between social justice, keeping up your population's living standards, abolishing class divide in a gently manner and free economic's, so a MODERATE social democracy with a regulated but mostly free economic model is essential - but not what the elite want and never will want while they play Nero as there own Rome burn's around them.

a reply to: schuyler

well, you were talking about what would be realistic per person per year, and I commented I cannot come close to 8 million, but our system currently has things like this happening to insane amounts of people, many even just born into these high wealth stages ruining their own chance at accommodating reasonable amounts of wealth instead of insane amounts. if the cap is a billion, there is sort of a mutual goal among people.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Why do you have a problem with someone as you say, "being born into wealth"?

Because they have done nothing to achieve their wealth?

So, govt. should take their wealth and give it to others who have done nothing to earn that money?

Such a stupid conversation. When you cap someone's earnings, they wont try very hard after they reach their cap.

a reply to: LABTECH767

this was the reply I was looking for, ty

figures a britsh person would know

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: LABTECH767

this was the reply I was looking for, ty

Then you should be more clear in what you are posting because you have been talking about capping ones earnings not taxing ones earnings.

And btw, the more you tax the rich, the more they hide their earnings .