Amazon.com Widgets

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.

  • Wealth Inequality Destroys Democracy

    In my world the wealth cap on liquid assets wold be five million US. Tax structures to guarantee this would be the best approach. Instead of cuts to the wealthy there should be steep increases. Large corporations should be taxes accordingly. They just got a 40% cut, The biggest in history. There should have been an increase instead. This won't change until people take a risk and demand some real justice. Being complacent never got anything to happen, Ever.

  • Of COURSE there should be.

    A simple analogy. . . A kindergarten class is presented with a tray of cookies. One for each child. The first kid takes one, The next takes one, And Greedy McGreedy decides to take five. He figures that since he is bigger, He should get more. This leaves less for everyone else. Since he took five, A free for all commences, And the next 5 kids grab the rest leaving nothing for everyone else who did nothing wrong other than be late to the table.

  • Of course yes

    This is a limit on personal wealth meaning only the very richest would be negatively affected. Businesses can have a different cap that would be used for maintaining the company. CEOs never use they pwn money to take care of large businesses. Even if the wealthy left a country it could be made that the country gains the majority of there cash. Or be free to give away they businesses. A huge number pf highend jobs would open up if people wanted to leave. Other economies would be over run by once rich immigrates. The amount is high enough it would only lower innovation amoung the greedy who think being given a new car is a punishment.

  • Enjoy the fruits of your hard work and help others too

    You worked hard (maybe) and you should enjoy your wealth. But you also had opportunities that many others don't. You had education. You had mentors. You had a culture that allowed you the freedom to pursue your ambitions. But many people in the world (though no fault of their own) did not get these advantages through the luck of being born in a certain family or a certain country. Fairness and justice says that you don't need unlimited wealth. A just society demands that we share with those less fortunate. Limit your wealth to 100 million and allow the surplus to go toward feeding and educating the hungry. We'd have a far better world if you did.

  • If you can believe these statements are true, then you should click yes.

    1. Don't assume that the economically disadvantaged have the ability to escape poverty and close the wealth gap. Wealth attracts more wealth. Poverty cripples one's ability to generate wealth. More often than not, people are dealt a bad hand and wealth of any kind is unattainable.
    2. A wealth cap wouldn't disable the opportunity that exists in this country to become very wealthy. Therefore, they wouldn't leave, taking their capital with them. Innovation wouldn't be discouraged.
    3. The wealthy commonly keep much their capital outside the US for tax purposes. Keeping it here, taxing it, and redistributing it to those stuck in poverty would arguably stimulate the economy and give economic opportunity to those who otherwise wouldn't have any.
    4. The wealthy would still remain unbelievably wealthy with virtually limitless spending power. Bezos nor any other human being should be 50-100 times richer than Trump for example. That level of wealth is wholly unnecessary and needs to be redistributed.
    5. Don't assume that people are where they should be, economically speaking. There are intelligent, hard working, good poor people and horrible, stupid rich people. The economically disadvantaged need a chance to contribute in a meaningful way to society. Redistributing exorbitant wealth so the poor have a shot is morally the right thing to do.

  • Absolutely Should Be

    Rich people are cocky and proud and they show themselves off. Rich people do too much bribes, and they are very sinful.

    Let us destroy the media/fashion industry, and incinerate all the celebrities, models, singers, corrupt people etc. as a solution to overpopulation.

    Let us have a limit of a net worth of no more than $2 million per person. If anyone ever exceeds that amount, he or she shall be killed at the stake immediately.

    That's good.

  • Yes to limit wealth

    Something that I love. Having Billion and knowing that there are millions starving people is awful... I guess 100 Million$ as maximum Wealth limit per person is more than enough!
    I believe in reincarnation and believe that the ultra rich can be punished by being reincarnated as poor people.
    The super rich are destroying the society and their must be a limit to their wealth.
    This must be done soon.
    Hossam Shaltout
    Toronto, Canada

  • Yes - There is no logical reason for anyone to personally horde over 1 billion dollars.

    There is no logical reason for anyone to personally horde over 1 billion dollars. These wealth hoarders pass this wealth on to their lazy brats, and they create very little net innovation. A rich brat has no incentive to work hard or innovate. Real innovation and real human progress come from an educated middle class, not royals. As technology increases and the value of human labor decreases, the disparity in wealth between classes will continue to widen. Responsible steps like a wealth cap must be taken now to address these issues before it is too late.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • All for One

    People who have used the system to accumulate billions of dollars no longer live in the same reality. Whereas a middle class person might worry their family has to double up in shared rooms, a billionaire worries that they only have 20 rooms to themselves. A middle class family thinks about putting a new coat of paint on a room, a billionaire thinks there should be more gold on the wall, and none of that paint either - the real stuff. Owning 1 jet would be a dream come true for billions, owning 5 jets is not good enough for a billionaire. The problem is that once you've made billions of dollars and can have anything you want, you have to keep thinking up new and bigger things to want. It is an arms-race style escalation of lavish spending, that leaves 99% of people behind. Do we think it is fair for a few people to have the right to keep billions, effectively keeping it FROM everyone else? If the CEO takes home 500,000 instead of 50,000,000 then there is 49,500,000 left to pay the rest of the workers in a corporation who work just as hard. People have made the point that loans and capital would not be available for innovation if billionaires didn't accumulate it to invest - I say the money would still exist. When deciding what projects or interests to funnel money to for advancement would you rather 300 people have a say or 300,000,000? When going for higher education would you rather borrow money from a bank or have a federal grant? Do we need more houses that can fit 10 houses within them, all for 1 person? Do we need more pieces of clothing worth a million dollars?


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