Should the UN create a law limiting how much money a person can have to eliminate the "One percent"?

  • No point in having too much money

    I think they should be required to donate their money however they like once it reaches an amount that no person could spend in their lifetime. You could easily live off a billion dollars while still being filthy rich. Bill Gates has 79.3 billion. Couldn't the 87.3 or so billion be used elsewhere?

  • An absurd question

    Your question is against the basic principles of capitalism, the ideological system which has made the United States so prosperous for the past 239 years. First, the "one percent" which you speak of consists of people with annual incomes greater than $500,000. But your question consists of an attempt to reduce the wealth of those with many billions of dollars. This is inconsistent, and which one you are trying to argue for is ambiguous. Second, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and numerous other "filthy rich" people have pledged to give away nearly ALL of their wealth until and after their deaths. Why should you ask the all-powerful government to do the distribution for them, when they already do it themselves? The only "filthy rich" person I can think of who hasn't given gigantic sums of money to charity is Vladimir Putin. Third, the UN cannot pass or create official and enforced laws. Simply requesting such a thing is absurd. The UN passes resolutions, which generally tend to be in the "should" format rather than the "must" format. What you are suggesting is completely out of the UN's power - the UN simply cannot do this. If it did, then it would be disobeyed by countless nations, as is every other resolution passed by the puppet of the UN. For these three reasons, the answer to this questions rings a clear and resounding no.

  • No, but the...

    The billionaire Nick Hanauer said during a Ted talk that creating jobs is more likely to happen if more money {via tax cuts} goes to middle-income earners instead of the one percent. Spending drives profits and demand which in turn can lead to more job creation. There is more middle-class members than rich members and so more spending across more businesses would occur goes his argument.

    So there is an argument that ensuring the middle-class have more money {and the rich having less without as many tax cuts} would do more good. The rich as Warren Buffett said should pay more in tax. They should also donate a higher portion to charity {as should many in the 99%}.

    I don't think banning rich people for being rich {or beating up on rich people in general} is going to solve any problems for the 99%. There are plenty of other things to go after to end things like poverty than the one percent.

  • Unfeasible for the UN to pass such a law anyway.

    In addition to the points raised above, don't forget about exchange rates, inflation, etc. It's hard to pinpoint what threshold it is for each country. They could theoretically set a treaty and have all countries signing it set up a commission to establish such a law, but a) most countries won't sign that treaty and b) the law still can't be enforced in any way. Plus, it should be pretty easy to get around these laws by setting up a company and using money in the company's name, much like the way people evade taxes nowadays.

  • Injustice towards the successful.

    I think this could be a good idea. However, this viewpoint is also called socialism. This is literally a communist ideology. This would be taking from the successful and giving to the poor. Will you limit how successful someone can be? The UN however, indirectly supports democracy and freedom. So unless the UN wants to look hypocritical, this is a simply a naive idea.

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