Should there be a maximum wealth capacity for each person?

Asked by: Rcmorrisward
  • A good idea to increase equality.

    If everyone had a wealth cap of X amount of money this would stop lots of bankruptcy problems for people. If they did earn extra money it could be distributed to the poor or charity for that matter. A great idea however I could see how it could stop some business' growing. Good idea though would like to see if something like this ever happened.

  • Maybe. Would it work?

    I was thinking. What if everyone was given a maximum amount of wealth they could earn? Say $2-billion each. If someone makes more than the maximum, the extra money is distributed as tax to other services in communities. This way, there may be a stable economic flow and lessen tensions of wealth inequality.

  • Yes, Of course

    Now five men own almost as much wealth as half of the world’s population!! Last year it was eight men, then down to six, and now almost five.
    While Americans fixate on Trump, the super-rich are absconding with our wealth, and the plague of inequality continues to grow. An analysis of 2016 data found that the poorest five deciles of the world population own about $410 billion in total wealth. As of June 8, 2017, the world's richest five men owned over $400 billion in wealth. Thus, on average, each man owns nearly as much as 750 million people.

    100 Million$ Max wealth per person should be more than enough and the rest should be redistribute to the social system. I don't work for being rich but to do something that worth...Something that I love...Money is a secondary effect...Having Billion and knowing that there are million starving people is awful... I guess 100 Million$ as maximum Wealth limit per person ismore than enough!


  • Correcting a market failure, creating equal opportunities for all and incentivising growth.

    The fact that the eight richtest people in the world own as much as the 50% poorest is, from an economic point of view, a massive market failure. Leaving aside questions of equity and morality, it is simply not conducive to economic growth for so few to own so much, while millions of other are deprived of the both the means to consume (and create growth) and to invest in their own human capital through education, and thus increasing their productivity and, which also contributes to growth.
    A cap on wealth has nothing to do with socialism and should not be confounded with a cap on income, which would indeed disincentivise performance and productivity. A cap on wealth could be highly beneficial to the economy provided that (a) it leaves a sufficient margin for people to become rich, even super rich, through their own labour or business decisions and (b) the money is re-invested wisely, namely in education and equal opportunities for all, as simple redistribution for consumptive purposes would disencentivise productivity.
    In turn, the additional state revenue could be used to reduce taxes for the middle class and for certain types of companies in order to further encourage economic growth and job creation.

  • Money makes money

    5% interst on 5 million is 250,000 a year. Now imagine interst on billions. Most wealth is passed down through families, not through new business. Economic demand is create by millions of Americans, not 1,ooo billionaires. Jobs are created through expansion and growth of small businesses, not the corprate monopolies hoarding money personally and professionally. Job killing is a ruse to keep morons subservient to the rich. Saying unconstitutional or socialism is not addressing the idea, its an attack to end the conversation. The rich deserve money because they have money, thats a tautology. And people without money work under the rich to keep the rich rich. Civilization is kept running by workers receiving labor-wages building everything from roads, bridges, schools, being doctors, teachers, police, and working for people who simply inherit money. Depervation, cruelty, and injustice is built into libertarian and conservative philosophy. The poor deserve to suffer because the were born with out, while the rich deserves the best because they were born with money and privledge. Are whole tax system subsidies the rich, the richer you are less you pay in proportion. Its like jesus said of the undeserving poor, "fuk 'em".

  • There was a maximum once.

    The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25% in the UK. This esentially limited the amount of wealth you could make each year and this a) reduced inequality , b) helped pay for the war c) didn't allow one person to take all property or all wealth and d) still left the rich with a small incetive to work and with a enough money. If they lost any income, they would just fall into a lower tax band.

  • How does one accumulate this wealth without the reliance of others in society?

    The United States is largely ran through corporate entities and their private interest. Congress bails out the rich with billions who do not commonly reinvest back into the workforce of America but rather overseas. Overall I say no to how hard it is nearly impossible to achieve this. The American Dream has been killed through the billionaires corning the free market, rich get richer. Only problem, less are becoming rich while more that were in the middle are becoming poor.

  • Panacium economic system

    Panacium is a theoretical economic system where everyone has a potential number of "credits" they can earn, but it resets every cycle (week, month, year). Shares of stock are considered property and do not disappear. If a person wanted to cash in a stock, for example, and it went above the cap, the remainder could be given as a bank bond (also considered property) and could only be given out each cycle to max. Its certainly interesting.

  • Want to kill human innovation? Here's how:

    A major driver of the unlimited advancement potential of mankind is the unlimited potential for personal success. Undertaking a major venture involves MASSIVE risks, and those risks are only worth taking if there is a proportionally massive reward.

    Take Elon Musk and Space X. His company is now responsible for continuing NASA's mission with the space shuttle. Think about the incredible risk to start a company to build spaceships privately at a time when there was no private space industry. Look at how many people told him he was out of his mind. Look at the billions in personal wealth he had to put on the line to make this happen.

    Now imagine a world with an arbitrary cap on wealth. Likely Space X would never have come into existence, because there wouldn't be enough reward to justify the incredible risk of starting it before the success was there. And mankind as a space-faring species would be the worse off for it.

    From a principled standpoint, this is why this is a horrible idea. It's antithetical to the spirit of human achievement.

  • It has the right intentions- but it is the wrong solution.

    Obviously the current level of wealth inequality is far greater the inequalities in ability or work ethic between people. The primary reason is that nowadays it is too easy to earn money by already having it. Too many people are able to exponentially grow their wealth by letting it sit in a bank, which has basically zero risk because of the FDIC! They are doing no work but still earning money! We need to attack this core flaw with our current system- then inequality will come to proper levels.

  • No, we need a motivating factor to help boost our economy

    A wealth capacity almost sound like a form of socialism. In our capitalist society, we need a motivating factor to keep people working. If there would be a wealth cap, the wealth would not be distributed to wider variety of people. Instead, the money would not be made in the first place, because people would not be working once they hit the wealth cap for themselves. As unfortunate as it is, our wealth and poverty have its functions as much as they have their dysfunctions. Even if the cap is relatively high, say a few million a year, that would kill most big businesses and cause a full-on market collapse.

  • Of course not.

    No, there should be a cap. Everyone has the right to pursue what they want in life. If a person wishes to be a billionaire, that's the choice of that person. It is up to that individual then to work hard and reach the goal.

    Having a wealth cap is ridiculous and it is even more ridiculous to distribute the "extra" to others. Those people did not earn the money.

  • Please just No

    This would be a disastrous policy for the United States and an absolute job killer. This would be viewed as bad for business by many corporations and they would move out of the country because they might not be able to pay upkeep costs. I'm also disturbed by he idea we should distribute the rest of the wealth for other people, which is unconstitutional and theft!

  • Please just No

    This would be a disastrous policy for the United States and an absolute job killer. This would be viewed as bad for business by many corporations and they would move out of the country because they might not be able to pay upkeep costs. I'm also disturbed by he idea we should distribute the rest of the wealth for other people, which is unconstitutional and theft!

  • Property Rights are vital

    A fundamental right is to your property. To violate this right in this manner would send the rich to other countries. They can spend their money better than the government because they have a better incentive to see it be used to the fullest. The rich don't just sit on their money, they invest in stock, other companies and have it in the bank. The bank can loan this money so that others can go to college, start their business or make purchases.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.