Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

I have a probably idiotic idea

McMick
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 7:24:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
...but I'd like to know *why* it's idiotic, if it is in fact idiotic. I'd also like to hear in some measure of detail what you think the outcomes or consequences would be and why (if you think this is even worth replying to).

I'm not a regular poster on here. I had another thread a year or two ago and that's it. Anyhow, bearing all of this in mind, let me lay it on ya:

What would happen if we passed a law that basically stated, once your personal wealth becomes X amount of dollars, you are no longer able to earn any more? You can't invest it. You can gift it, but you can't profit off of it. If you give ALL of it away, you can start earning again. There would be penalties for real estate and other tangible assets, however, so that you can't just spend it all on a few big ticket items and then do it all over again your whole life. The point is to limit the total amount of wealth an individual can have, and I understand there are pitfalls like someone paying $50 million dollars for Elvis's last turd or something that would have to be ironed out.

The amount of money earned is the trickiest thing to me at the moment. I suppose some group or panel of experts from economists to social workers to you name it could write a report and come up with a recommendation for congress. But for argument's sake, I'll pick a number, say, $100,000,000. I chose $100 million for an example because in my (perhaps limited) imagination, if you don't think you're rich with $100 million dollars, there is something wrong with you mentally and you should be admitted immediately. This whole idea originated because I'm absolutely sick of the rich and powerful manipulating our government (and you and I, of course), a government which is supposed to be for everyone and not just them.

Say you're a diligent worker and investor and after awhile you have amassed $100 million in wealth. Now you must sell your stocks, and either work for free or quit your job and go find something else to occupy your time. To my mind, most people would choose the latter, thus creating more and better paying jobs and opportunities for other people. Those who would choose the former are now doing so not for reward, but out of dedication to their jobs and a passion for their work. Free labor could only help out the company's bottom line, making them better able to pay their workers, so it could be a win-win in either case.

This would create a lot more hundred-millionaires and would help spread the money and power out more fairly and evenly, wouldn't it? Which would probably help take some of the corruption out of politics, since now major companies won't be able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth for a few lucky stockholders and exclude everyone else, then buy off politicians and commit other crimes and misdemeanors.

Once you're at the $100 million limit, you don't pay income taxes anymore. As long as you aren't earning money you are free to keep what you have.

So is this idea (or a modified version of it) plausible? Or am I missing out on some fundamental economic truth that prevents this from being more than just a pipe dream? It just seems to me that there's something fundamentally unfair about people being billionaires. I like capitalism to a point, but when it starts to intrude on my rights I think it's time to do something to improve it. This is just something I've never heard anyone talk about before. Sorry if I'm out of my depth. I can barely do my own taxes.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 5,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 2:24:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/13/2017 7:24:58 AM, McMick wrote:
...but I'd like to know *why* it's idiotic, if it is in fact idiotic. I'd also like to hear in some measure of detail what you think the outcomes or consequences would be and why (if you think this is even worth replying to).

I'm not a regular poster on here. I had another thread a year or two ago and that's it. Anyhow, bearing all of this in mind, let me lay it on ya:

What would happen if we passed a law that basically stated, once your personal wealth becomes X amount of dollars, you are no longer able to earn any more? You can't invest it. You can gift it, but you can't profit off of it. If you give ALL of it away, you can start earning again. There would be penalties for real estate and other tangible assets, however, so that you can't just spend it all on a few big ticket items and then do it all over again your whole life. The point is to limit the total amount of wealth an individual can have, and I understand there are pitfalls like someone paying $50 million dollars for Elvis's last turd or something that would have to be ironed out.

The amount of money earned is the trickiest thing to me at the moment. I suppose some group or panel of experts from economists to social workers to you name it could write a report and come up with a recommendation for congress. But for argument's sake, I'll pick a number, say, $100,000,000. I chose $100 million for an example because in my (perhaps limited) imagination, if you don't think you're rich with $100 million dollars, there is something wrong with you mentally and you should be admitted immediately. This whole idea originated because I'm absolutely sick of the rich and powerful manipulating our government (and you and I, of course), a government which is supposed to be for everyone and not just them.

Say you're a diligent worker and investor and after awhile you have amassed $100 million in wealth. Now you must sell your stocks, and either work for free or quit your job and go find something else to occupy your time. To my mind, most people would choose the latter, thus creating more and better paying jobs and opportunities for other people. Those who would choose the former are now doing so not for reward, but out of dedication to their jobs and a passion for their work. Free labor could only help out the company's bottom line, making them better able to pay their workers, so it could be a win-win in either case.

This would create a lot more hundred-millionaires and would help spread the money and power out more fairly and evenly, wouldn't it? Which would probably help take some of the corruption out of politics, since now major companies won't be able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth for a few lucky stockholders and exclude everyone else, then buy off politicians and commit other crimes and misdemeanors.

Once you're at the $100 million limit, you don't pay income taxes anymore. As long as you aren't earning money you are free to keep what you have.

So is this idea (or a modified version of it) plausible? Or am I missing out on some fundamental economic truth that prevents this from being more than just a pipe dream? It just seems to me that there's something fundamentally unfair about people being billionaires. I like capitalism to a point, but when it starts to intrude on my rights I think it's time to do something to improve it. This is just something I've never heard anyone talk about before. Sorry if I'm out of my depth. I can barely do my own taxes.

I like your idea, unfortunately all the rich will say it's bad because it leads to communism or a Mormon lifestyle.

But I think it sounds fair
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 9:55:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/13/2017 7:24:58 AM, McMick wrote:
...but I'd like to know *why* it's idiotic, if it is in fact idiotic. I'd also like to hear in some measure of detail what you think the outcomes or consequences would be and why (if you think this is even worth replying to).

I'm not a regular poster on here. I had another thread a year or two ago and that's it. Anyhow, bearing all of this in mind, let me lay it on ya:

What would happen if we passed a law that basically stated, once your personal wealth becomes X amount of dollars, you are no longer able to earn any more? You can't invest it. You can gift it, but you can't profit off of it. If you give ALL of it away, you can start earning again. There would be penalties for real estate and other tangible assets, however, so that you can't just spend it all on a few big ticket items and then do it all over again your whole life. The point is to limit the total amount of wealth an individual can have, and I understand there are pitfalls like someone paying $50 million dollars for Elvis's last turd or something that would have to be ironed out.

The amount of money earned is the trickiest thing to me at the moment. I suppose some group or panel of experts from economists to social workers to you name it could write a report and come up with a recommendation for congress. But for argument's sake, I'll pick a number, say, $100,000,000. I chose $100 million for an example because in my (perhaps limited) imagination, if you don't think you're rich with $100 million dollars, there is something wrong with you mentally and you should be admitted immediately. This whole idea originated because I'm absolutely sick of the rich and powerful manipulating our government (and you and I, of course), a government which is supposed to be for everyone and not just them.

Say you're a diligent worker and investor and after awhile you have amassed $100 million in wealth. Now you must sell your stocks, and either work for free or quit your job and go find something else to occupy your time. To my mind, most people would choose the latter, thus creating more and better paying jobs and opportunities for other people. Those who would choose the former are now doing so not for reward, but out of dedication to their jobs and a passion for their work. Free labor could only help out the company's bottom line, making them better able to pay their workers, so it could be a win-win in either case.

This would create a lot more hundred-millionaires and would help spread the money and power out more fairly and evenly, wouldn't it? Which would probably help take some of the corruption out of politics, since now major companies won't be able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth for a few lucky stockholders and exclude everyone else, then buy off politicians and commit other crimes and misdemeanors.

Once you're at the $100 million limit, you don't pay income taxes anymore. As long as you aren't earning money you are free to keep what you have.

So is this idea (or a modified version of it) plausible? Or am I missing out on some fundamental economic truth that prevents this from being more than just a pipe dream? It just seems to me that there's something fundamentally unfair about people being billionaires. I like capitalism to a point, but when it starts to intrude on my rights I think it's time to do something to improve it. This is just something I've never heard anyone talk about before. Sorry if I'm out of my depth. I can barely do my own taxes.

so if I have a company and I reach that mile stone, I should close the company, put everyone out of work because what's the point of me keeping it if I can't earn more? Having no limits is unfair, but putting limits is fair, does that really make sense to you? You understand that being worth 1 billion dollars doesn't mean you have that in the bank or could even easily spend it? If your house is worth 1 million dollars, you'd be worth that plus whatever else you have. If you wanted to use that 1 million you'd have to sell it or take out a loan against it etc. Actually you want people to use money and not let it sit there doing nothing, that stimulates the economy. If you had capped Bill Gates or Steve Jobs what incentive would they have to produce more products, which creates jobs and wealth for other people?
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
McMick
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 10:58:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/13/2017 9:55:52 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

so if I have a company and I reach that mile stone, I should close the company, put everyone out of work because what's the point of me keeping it if I can't earn more? Having no limits is unfair, but putting limits is fair, does that really make sense to you? You understand that being worth 1 billion dollars doesn't mean you have that in the bank or could even easily spend it? If your house is worth 1 million dollars, you'd be worth that plus whatever else you have. If you wanted to use that 1 million you'd have to sell it or take out a loan against it etc. Actually you want people to use money and not let it sit there doing nothing, that stimulates the economy. If you had capped Bill Gates or Steve Jobs what incentive would they have to produce more products, which creates jobs and wealth for other people?

No, your company can remain open and you can continue to make great things happen. You just can't do it for money anymore. What about your work ethic? Is money your only motivator? If you don't want to work for no pay, you have $100 million so I'm not going to feel sorry for you. Your employees (the ones that don't have $100 million) can have a raise since now you're not drawing a salary. You sell any stocks in the company and someone else gets to make some money. If you decide to quit, someone else can take your job. Don't forget there are almost 8 billion people out there, so no shortage of replacements. Some will be better than you and some worse. But more people will have wealth, and the power that comes with it will be spread more evenly.

If you own a house worth a million dollars and you run out of cash, then darn tootin' you'd have to sell it. But once you have the X amount of wealth ($100 million as the example), since you don't invest anymore, it's hard to imagine how you would lose all of it, so I'm pretty sure anyone worth that kind of dough will never have a serious housing problem.

Obviously with a figure like $100 million, we're still talking about a number that the vast majority of people out there will never reach. They'll still continue on like they do now and have to live off retirement pensions and social security when they're old. I'm just of the opinion that it's completely unjustfiable to allow someone to have a personal wealth 10,000 times greater than a 40-hour a week minimum wage worker.

That all said, I also realize that what I say might be stupid and sophomoric, because I don't have enough knowledge about the subject (which is why I'm here in the first place, so people like you can scrutinize and poke holes in my idea). It all hinges on my perception that as a nation of supposed equality, the ultra-rich seem to be controlling everything and are mostly immune to the law (which they also tend to have a big part of actually writing). At any rate, your scenario hasn't yet convinced me that I'm wrong, as I disagree that only the guy who starts the company can run it and/or create jobs. For someone like a Steve Jobs type, I would assume the passion for his work would be enough incentive to keep going, and the money wouldn't be important at all (he even said once, "it's not about the money"). Indeed, I've heard of CEOs and such taking $1 annual salaries for themselves on occasion, when their companies were in trouble.

How lavish a lifestyle does one need to live, anyhow? There is a point where it's beyond ridiculous. Didn't we found this country because we were sick of the wealthy and the royalty of England screwing us over? Making laws for us without our input? Taxing us unfairly? Why should we let people do it here at home now? I think my solution could help alleviate much of the power imbalance that our current form of capitalism helped create. Please reply with any criticism. But don't just call me a fool or whatever, please try earnestly to help me understand what you mean. Thanks for replying.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2017 1:04:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/13/2017 10:58:22 PM, McMick wrote:
At 12/13/2017 9:55:52 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

so if I have a company and I reach that mile stone, I should close the company, put everyone out of work because what's the point of me keeping it if I can't earn more? Having no limits is unfair, but putting limits is fair, does that really make sense to you? You understand that being worth 1 billion dollars doesn't mean you have that in the bank or could even easily spend it? If your house is worth 1 million dollars, you'd be worth that plus whatever else you have. If you wanted to use that 1 million you'd have to sell it or take out a loan against it etc. Actually you want people to use money and not let it sit there doing nothing, that stimulates the economy. If you had capped Bill Gates or Steve Jobs what incentive would they have to produce more products, which creates jobs and wealth for other people?

No, your company can remain open and you can continue to make great things happen. You just can't do it for money anymore. What about your work ethic? Is money your only motivator? If you don't want to work for no pay, you have $100 million so I'm not going to feel sorry for you. Your employees (the ones that don't have $100 million) can have a raise since now you're not drawing a salary. You sell any stocks in the company and someone else gets to make some money. If you decide to quit, someone else can take your job. Don't forget there are almost 8 billion people out there, so no shortage of replacements. Some will be better than you and some worse. But more people will have wealth, and the power that comes with it will be spread more evenly.

If you own a house worth a million dollars and you run out of cash, then darn tootin' you'd have to sell it. But once you have the X amount of wealth ($100 million as the example), since you don't invest anymore, it's hard to imagine how you would lose all of it, so I'm pretty sure anyone worth that kind of dough will never have a serious housing problem.

Obviously with a figure like $100 million, we're still talking about a number that the vast majority of people out there will never reach. They'll still continue on like they do now and have to live off retirement pensions and social security when they're old. I'm just of the opinion that it's completely unjustfiable to allow someone to have a personal wealth 10,000 times greater than a 40-hour a week minimum wage worker.

That all said, I also realize that what I say might be stupid and sophomoric, because I don't have enough knowledge about the subject (which is why I'm here in the first place, so people like you can scrutinize and poke holes in my idea). It all hinges on my perception that as a nation of supposed equality, the ultra-rich seem to be controlling everything and are mostly immune to the law (which they also tend to have a big part of actually writing). At any rate, your scenario hasn't yet convinced me that I'm wrong, as I disagree that only the guy who starts the company can run it and/or create jobs. For someone like a Steve Jobs type, I would assume the passion for his work would be enough incentive to keep going, and the money wouldn't be important at all (he even said once, "it's not about the money"). Indeed, I've heard of CEOs and such taking $1 annual salaries for themselves on occasion, when their companies were in trouble.

How lavish a lifestyle does one need to live, anyhow? There is a point where it's beyond ridiculous. Didn't we found this country because we were sick of the wealthy and the royalty of England screwing us over? Making laws for us without our input? Taxing us unfairly? Why should we let people do it here at home now? I think my solution could help alleviate much of the power imbalance that our current form of capitalism helped create. Please reply with any criticism. But don't just call me a fool or whatever, please try earnestly to help me understand what you mean. Thanks for replying.

Warren Buffet lives in the same house he bought way back, it's worth about 150k I think. He doesn't live a lavish life style, I dislike the actors and athletes who make so much for doing so little, live big then try to guilt us into giving to charities etc. Besides the very rich hide their money and pay a much smaller % in taxes than us working stiffs. Instead of a cap how about a different tax structure, or perhaps increasing the tax deduction for donating to charities? Restrictions are rarely good and don't generally accomplish what you think they will, instead enabling and encouraging to "spread the wealth" I think would be far better. I can't even imagine what having money like that is like so it's pretty difficult to discuss. Rarely and I mean extremely is using the government to restrict anything have the intended out come.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2017 8:28:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
;

There are other options to try and curtail government corruption.

Also, some countries have implemented proportional fines in order to be more fair.

For example, someone might get a $100 speeding ticket. This could easily be 5% of their monthly income. However with proportional fines, everyone would be fined 5% of their monthly income. This can end up being $100,000 or more for some people.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias https://www.youtube.com...
Bias blindspot https://www.youtube.com...
What is Alief? https://www.youtube.com...

+proHUMAN
Falkman
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2017 1:57:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/13/2017 7:24:58 AM, McMick wrote:
...but I'd like to know *why* it's idiotic, if it is in fact idiotic. I'd also like to hear in some measure of detail what you think the outcomes or consequences would be and why (if you think this is even worth replying to).

I'm not a regular poster on here. I had another thread a year or two ago and that's it. Anyhow, bearing all of this in mind, let me lay it on ya:

What would happen if we passed a law that basically stated, once your personal wealth becomes X amount of dollars, you are no longer able to earn any more? You can't invest it. You can gift it, but you can't profit off of it. If you give ALL of it away, you can start earning again. There would be penalties for real estate and other tangible assets, however, so that you can't just spend it all on a few big ticket items and then do it all over again your whole life. The point is to limit the total amount of wealth an individual can have, and I understand there are pitfalls like someone paying $50 million dollars for Elvis's last turd or something that would have to be ironed out.

The amount of money earned is the trickiest thing to me at the moment. I suppose some group or panel of experts from economists to social workers to you name it could write a report and come up with a recommendation for congress. But for argument's sake, I'll pick a number, say, $100,000,000. I chose $100 million for an example because in my (perhaps limited) imagination, if you don't think you're rich with $100 million dollars, there is something wrong with you mentally and you should be admitted immediately. This whole idea originated because I'm absolutely sick of the rich and powerful manipulating our government (and you and I, of course), a government which is supposed to be for everyone and not just them.

Say you're a diligent worker and investor and after awhile you have amassed $100 million in wealth. Now you must sell your stocks, and either work for free or quit your job and go find something else to occupy your time. To my mind, most people would choose the latter, thus creating more and better paying jobs and opportunities for other people. Those who would choose the former are now doing so not for reward, but out of dedication to their jobs and a passion for their work. Free labor could only help out the company's bottom line, making them better able to pay their workers, so it could be a win-win in either case.

This would create a lot more hundred-millionaires and would help spread the money and power out more fairly and evenly, wouldn't it? Which would probably help take some of the corruption out of politics, since now major companies won't be able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth for a few lucky stockholders and exclude everyone else, then buy off politicians and commit other crimes and misdemeanors.

Once you're at the $100 million limit, you don't pay income taxes anymore. As long as you aren't earning money you are free to keep what you have.

So is this idea (or a modified version of it) plausible? Or am I missing out on some fundamental economic truth that prevents this from being more than just a pipe dream? It just seems to me that there's something fundamentally unfair about people being billionaires. I like capitalism to a point, but when it starts to intrude on my rights I think it's time to do something to improve it. This is just something I've never heard anyone talk about before. Sorry if I'm out of my depth. I can barely do my own taxes.

There are some warts on your idea that might need tweaking a bit, but basically I'm
OK with it.

My wife and I have saved and invested well (enough so we could semi-retire at age 50 and start to enjoy the rest of our lives), have no debt and a nice nest egg to rely on. We're not rich by any means but can afford to get just about anything we want or need in the future.

There comes a point in life where it makes no sense to keep trying to make more and more money that you will never live long enough to spend. We have started to increase our charitable donations, trying to give back a bit to a society that rewarded our efforts and allowed us to get where we are.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 5,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2017 2:07:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/14/2017 8:28:32 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
;



There are other options to try and curtail government corruption.

Also, some countries have implemented proportional fines in order to be more fair.

For example, someone might get a $100 speeding ticket. This could easily be 5% of their monthly income. However with proportional fines, everyone would be fined 5% of their monthly income. This can end up being $100,000 or more for some people.

I have heard of this in Sweden, the fines are set based on your income, I remember hearing a while back that some Swedish celebrity got a speeding ticket and it was going to cost him something like 1 million Kronas in fines

I like that idea, maybe that is why the rich get away with more, they have money for good lawyers and the fines are just pocket change to them
lannan13
Posts: 24,704
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 9:41:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Sounds like one way to ruin a nation's economy.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

"Sometimes it is hell, trying to get to heaven."- Undertaker

Keep a Positive Mental Attitude!

DDO Hall of Famer
John_C_1812
Posts: 1,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2017 6:20:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
So is this idea or a modified version of it plausible?

First; the lotteries have produced very few extremely wealthy people for the amount of money it directs outward into the hands of people.

Second: the economic danger of abuse of wealth is not only political influence on governing, the use of Federal Reserve Note, or other type Notes, are registered receipt with a serial number. Very few extremely wealth can really translate their wealth by serial number, even though the rate it in a dollar value. The value numbers are not fixed and rely greatly on economic outcome. Had larger value note been maintained this most likely would not be an issue at this point.

Third: You are describing that it is the wealthy who blocks the entry into earning wealth by governing. Risk, cunning, even how people preserve you as a person can all play a part in becoming, then holding wealth.

Forth: Having a great deal to do with number two a person with a company does not see money they have been given assurance of value only on dollar. The company does not register and hold any right to dollar serial numbers and that is what you are really suggesting here. Somehow that they magically hold these rights.
Unstobbaple
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2018 7:11:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 12/13/2017 7:24:58 AM, McMick wrote:
...but I'd like to know *why* it's idiotic, if it is in fact idiotic. I'd also like to hear in some measure of detail what you think the outcomes or consequences would be and why (if you think this is even worth replying to).

I'm not a regular poster on here. I had another thread a year or two ago and that's it. Anyhow, bearing all of this in mind, let me lay it on ya:

What would happen if we passed a law that basically stated, once your personal wealth becomes X amount of dollars, you are no longer able to earn any more? You can't invest it. You can gift it, but you can't profit off of it. If you give ALL of it away, you can start earning again. There would be penalties for real estate and other tangible assets, however, so that you can't just spend it all on a few big ticket items and then do it all over again your whole life. The point is to limit the total amount of wealth an individual can have, and I understand there are pitfalls like someone paying $50 million dollars for Elvis's last turd or something that would have to be ironed out.

The amount of money earned is the trickiest thing to me at the moment. I suppose some group or panel of experts from economists to social workers to you name it could write a report and come up with a recommendation for congress. But for argument's sake, I'll pick a number, say, $100,000,000. I chose $100 million for an example because in my (perhaps limited) imagination, if you don't think you're rich with $100 million dollars, there is something wrong with you mentally and you should be admitted immediately. This whole idea originated because I'm absolutely sick of the rich and powerful manipulating our government (and you and I, of course), a government which is supposed to be for everyone and not just them.

Say you're a diligent worker and investor and after awhile you have amassed $100 million in wealth. Now you must sell your stocks, and either work for free or quit your job and go find something else to occupy your time. To my mind, most people would choose the latter, thus creating more and better paying jobs and opportunities for other people. Those who would choose the former are now doing so not for reward, but out of dedication to their jobs and a passion for their work. Free labor could only help out the company's bottom line, making them better able to pay their workers, so it could be a win-win in either case.

This would create a lot more hundred-millionaires and would help spread the money and power out more fairly and evenly, wouldn't it? Which would probably help take some of the corruption out of politics, since now major companies won't be able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth for a few lucky stockholders and exclude everyone else, then buy off politicians and commit other crimes and misdemeanors.

Once you're at the $100 million limit, you don't pay income taxes anymore. As long as you aren't earning money you are free to keep what you have.

So is this idea (or a modified version of it) plausible? Or am I missing out on some fundamental economic truth that prevents this from being more than just a pipe dream? It just seems to me that there's something fundamentally unfair about people being billionaires. I like capitalism to a point, but when it starts to intrude on my rights I think it's time to do something to improve it. This is just something I've never heard anyone talk about before. Sorry if I'm out of my depth. I can barely do my own taxes.

You're attempting to reverse traditional thinking in a strange way. I'm not sure you thought this through.
NattyC
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2018 9:57:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 12/13/2017 7:24:58 AM, McMick wrote:
...but I'd like to know *why* it's idiotic, if it is in fact idiotic.

How would you enforce it?
0pini0nated
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2018 2:31:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 12/13/2017 9:55:52 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/13/2017 7:24:58 AM, McMick wrote:
...but I'd like to know *why* it's idiotic, if it is in fact idiotic. I'd also like to hear in some measure of detail what you think the outcomes or consequences would be and why (if you think this is even worth replying to).

I'm not a regular poster on here. I had another thread a year or two ago and that's it. Anyhow, bearing all of this in mind, let me lay it on ya:

What would happen if we passed a law that basically stated, once your personal wealth becomes X amount of dollars, you are no longer able to earn any more? You can't invest it. You can gift it, but you can't profit off of it. If you give ALL of it away, you can start earning again. There would be penalties for real estate and other tangible assets, however, so that you can't just spend it all on a few big ticket items and then do it all over again your whole life. The point is to limit the total amount of wealth an individual can have, and I understand there are pitfalls like someone paying $50 million dollars for Elvis's last turd or something that would have to be ironed out.

The amount of money earned is the trickiest thing to me at the moment. I suppose some group or panel of experts from economists to social workers to you name it could write a report and come up with a recommendation for congress. But for argument's sake, I'll pick a number, say, $100,000,000. I chose $100 million for an example because in my (perhaps limited) imagination, if you don't think you're rich with $100 million dollars, there is something wrong with you mentally and you should be admitted immediately. This whole idea originated because I'm absolutely sick of the rich and powerful manipulating our government (and you and I, of course), a government which is supposed to be for everyone and not just them.

Say you're a diligent worker and investor and after awhile you have amassed $100 million in wealth. Now you must sell your stocks, and either work for free or quit your job and go find something else to occupy your time. To my mind, most people would choose the latter, thus creating more and better paying jobs and opportunities for other people. Those who would choose the former are now doing so not for reward, but out of dedication to their jobs and a passion for their work. Free labor could only help out the company's bottom line, making them better able to pay their workers, so it could be a win-win in either case.

This would create a lot more hundred-millionaires and would help spread the money and power out more fairly and evenly, wouldn't it? Which would probably help take some of the corruption out of politics, since now major companies won't be able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth for a few lucky stockholders and exclude everyone else, then buy off politicians and commit other crimes and misdemeanors.

Once you're at the $100 million limit, you don't pay income taxes anymore. As long as you aren't earning money you are free to keep what you have.

So is this idea (or a modified version of it) plausible? Or am I missing out on some fundamental economic truth that prevents this from being more than just a pipe dream? It just seems to me that there's something fundamentally unfair about people being billionaires. I like capitalism to a point, but when it starts to intrude on my rights I think it's time to do something to improve it. This is just something I've never heard anyone talk about before. Sorry if I'm out of my depth. I can barely do my own taxes.

so if I have a company and I reach that mile stone, I should close the company, put everyone out of work because what's the point of me keeping it if I can't earn more? Having no limits is unfair, but putting limits is fair, does that really make sense to you? You understand that being worth 1 billion dollars doesn't mean you have that in the bank or could even easily spend it? If your house is worth 1 million dollars, you'd be worth that plus whatever else you have. If you wanted to use that 1 million you'd have to sell it or take out a loan against it etc. Actually you want people to use money and not let it sit there doing nothing, that stimulates the economy. If you had capped Bill Gates or Steve Jobs what incentive would they have to produce more products, which creates jobs and wealth for other people?

Wealth is a motivator for innovation, but a cap on it won't necessarily discourage it either. Companies also incur expenditures, so if your wealth increases, it would be a terribly unstable situation beyond X amount as you could possible offset it with expenditure, etc, not to mention manipulating books of accounts.