Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

and let me know when it dawns on you 75% of Billionaires were Born that way, so this still just happens anyway. It would make more sense if they were all selfmade to stick up for them, but who are you kidding?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Once you limit it, you allow for the very idea that government has the ability to determine what someone can do, can make.

We should let the government limit everything.

Too much money? Government takes it.
Too many TV's? Government takes some.
Too much property? Government takes a few acres.
Some large man in Portland has too many muumuus? Government takes them.

You can take my muumuu's when you can take it from my cold, dead, greasy from chicken wings. . . hand!

a reply to: Bluntone22

It's also illegal to have a monopoly...

I feel there's some cross over there.

Once you control all the wealth, you effectively have a monopoly on life itself.

Is no different than the government having complete authority, either way, it's a few people controlling the lives of the majority.

End results of unchecked wealth, and full government authority is identical.

But oh well, no one will ever get that. It'll always be two sides arguing over which masters they prefer to serve.

No one wants to find a way to solve government authorization and unchecked wealth at the same time. Too busy picking sides and allowing government to get too big, while being ultimately controlled by the uber rich.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: butcherguy

The better example is the classic game, Monopoly.

How fun would the game be if everyone had the exact same properties and money all through the game?

As it is, Monopoly gives everyone an even chance at the start... equal money, no property. That's socialism.

When the dice start rolling, it is capitalism.

Oh, but we just need to cap what a single person can make!
Then the following year someone decides to lower the threshold because all the rich are still the richest... even though you took most of their money last year.
No socialist is happy if someone else has more of anything than they do.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
Ok, lets talk about this, hypothetically, you make it illegal to own more than- lets say, a Billion Dollars.

Doesn't this just drastically improve our economy while not really directly effecting the spending power of the elite?

Someone will probably say, how it's not ethical to cap wealth like this, but then how do you answer to a dominated economy ethically? Surely if the limit isn't a Billion Dollars, there is -some number- where an individual can just start to # our # up that has been built by millions of people over entire generations of work.

I'm all for capitalism, but I'm not really interested in turn 400 in Civ6 because Nick owns the entire map by himself.

We're a hop and a skip away from some ruthless Zuckerberg making 5 million dollars a day, and just outright buying Wisconsin or something stupid.

What if there was an actual limit to how rich a person could be, before they would be considered harmful to the environment around them?

You literally cannot look me in the face and say some of these Billionaires haven't been harmful to us all.

The problem people like you have is that you don't understand wealth, money, investing, etc.

Many of you think billionaires are literally have billions in cash. They don't.

There is a difference between wealth and income. One can be a billionaire and not have a ton of income. One can have a lot of income and have a negative net worth.

Wealth is the value of your assets. For example, Jeff Bezo's wealth is tied up in his ownership of Amazon. He does not have $100 billion. The only way he could access $100 billion is to sell his shares of Amazon stock. He cannot do this because if he were to do so it would crash the stock price.

Another example, let's say your grandmother who was a public school teacher just happen to buy a house in Palo Alto, CA in the late 70s. That house today is probably worth $2 or $3 million dollars. Yet, your grandmother is living on a $75k/yr pension in retirement. However, SHE IS A MILLIONAIRE!!!!!! The reality is that while she is worth a couple million on paper, until she sells that property, she is just another retired blue hair living on a pension.

The other thing you fail to understand is the capital is invested. Most people who are wealthy are purchasing real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. That money is flowing through the economy. You just can't see it but it is benefitting you because it is being given out as loans, angel investments, charity, etc.

Giving money to the government is the most inefficient means of capital distribution.

a reply to: butcherguy

And would it be fun for you to just take someone else's seat and a already well-established victory for another person? How does a new comer compare to generational billionaires in this game?

a reply to: Bluntone22

And I think it's funny that so many people believe that letting the rich keep more of their money will trickle down to the poor.

Between 1979 and 1989 the average income for a middle class worker didn't change. And I'm not talking about it didn't change when you take inflation into account. It was literally the same.

Since "trickle down economics" was introduced into the mainstream by Reagan middle class wages have stagnated and the number people under the poverty line has grown. Meanwhile the wealthiest have seen their income grow by something like 400%.

You can claim that limiting the wealth of the rich won't trickle down. But I can actually point to facts that when we give more money to the rich it doesn't trickle down.

It just allows the rich to consolidate their wealth while the middle class disappears and the lower class grows.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: opethPA

so you're saying it's healthy for people to aim for levels of wealth to not just accommodate themselves, but also to the degree they have the individual freedom to aim for wealth levels so high they not only would have a comfortable life, but also the financial power to cripple a country if they choose? wow. ok. there is a pretty huge separation between the american dream, and owning america.

I am saying it is healthy for people to aim for whatever level they decree is a success for their life.

I'm not ever going to say cap someone from being driven, competitive and successful as that is how you wind up with much of the current generation expecting the world will get handed to them , stomping their feet and getting participation trophies when they lose at something.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: butcherguy

And would it be fun for you to just take someone else's seat and a already well-established victory for another person?

That is life outside of socialist countries.... and a surprising number of people are happy with it like that.

Hell, they are crossing the border illegally to join in on our terrible rigged game that shows promise for only the already rich!

a reply to: butcherguy

So you're saying that wealth isn't actually earned. It all comes down to RNG.

a reply to: Edumakated

I know that with 250 million, I can literally never spend my accruding interest that I was born with if I tried. This is a personal observation, that there is an upper limit to effectiveness of money. I can buy a company, but for my personal self, there isn't an application for so much of it outside of multiple houses, cars, and more houses and cars for my family. I actually personally don't see how I could be wrong about this. Pretty much all my occupational activities is a joke compared to my starting capital. It's just as unfair to the person starting with a Billion Dollars to be honest because all the 'intensive' you claim exists, doesn't. What was once one persons bills, just becomes anothers donation goals.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22

And I think it's funny that so many people believe that letting the rich keep more of their money will trickle down to the poor.

Between 1979 and 1989 the average income for a middle class worker didn't change. And I'm not talking about it didn't change when you take inflation into account. It was literally the same.

Since "trickle down economics" was introduced into the mainstream by Reagan middle class wages have stagnated and the number people under the poverty line has grown. Meanwhile the wealthiest have seen their income grow by something like 400%.

You can claim that limiting the wealth of the rich won't trickle down. But I can actually point to facts that when we give more money to the rich it doesn't trickle down.

It just allows the rich to consolidate their wealth while the middle class disappears and the lower class grows.

Wage stagnation of lower classes is due to many reasons, none of which have anything to do with the rich keeping their money.

The biggest issue of wage stagnation is that globalism pushed a lot of those higher paying manufacturing jobs overseas. US Consumer want cheap sh*t and you can't make cheap sh*t if you have to pay a low skill plant worker $20/hr. It is far cheaper to pay some guy living on $2 / day in a third world arm pit to make your cheap goods.

Secondly, you have increased supply of workers in the US. Many trade / blue collar jobs have seen their supply of workers increased due to legal and illegal immigration. In addition, feminism pushign women to pursue a lot of careers has also put pressure on wages.

When you increase supply of workers, you put down ward pressure on wages. The lower wage fields have seen large increases in supply of workers.

On the other hand, knowledge workers over the same time period became even more scarce as technology advanced at rapid rate.

I like this income capping concept. Just think of all of possibilities. Lock up all fat people in cages and ration their food, water, ration electricity, car size, home size, breeding. Sound like a fvcking utopia.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Nope, after you make your billion, you're supposed to just, out of the goodness of your heart, give it away to some "deserving".

This idea, if one can give it that much credit, is far too authoritarian for me to stomach.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So you agree with me?

Either way the rest of the country will not get any benefit.
The rich are not going to give up their money especially when you consider they will keep it in other countries.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: butcherguy

So you're saying that wealth isn't actually earned. It all comes down to RNG.

Just provide the particular part of my quote that you are referring to and I will respond.
Thank you.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
Ok, lets talk about this, hypothetically, you make it illegal to own more than- lets say, a Billion Dollars.

Opens the door for a moving goal post...what is rich tomorrow? 1 million?

Doesn't this just drastically improve our economy while not really directly effecting the spending power of the elite?

What do you define as drastic? If you taxed everyone in America who makes more than 10 million per year 100% that comes out to 600 billion extra per year...is that drastic?

, there is -some number- where an individual can just start to # our # up that has been built by millions of people over entire generations of work.

Who is Fing our crap up? Are you suggesting world wide cap...good luck... Name that super rich Dr. Evil?

I'm all for capitalism, but I'm not really interested in turn 400 in Civ6 because Nick owns the entire map by himself.

Ah, you don't like the game so you want a reset back to level 1 for everyone...geez lol

What if there was an actual limit to how rich a person could be, before they would be considered harmful to the environment around them?

You literally cannot look me in the face and say some of these Billionaires haven't been harmful to us all.

What is that harm, isn't it like they are living on Mars in comparison to what affect they have on you? What if you worked for Amazon making 300k a year living a pretty good life, would Bezos' wealth bother you then? His 215 million a day scares you? lol He spent 100 billion on space exploration company, Blue Origin. I think Gates and Buffett have about 100 billion in their foundation... If they cure cancer is that bad, or cure world hunger?

You seem to think Government works better than the private sector and is less corrupt. Both are incorrect as in the Government is never efficient and wastes alot while the private sector dies if they are not efficient, plus the greatest mass killings in the world have been Government based and the more total Government control the worst it as been for the people.

The problem is governments have all went corporatocracy on us. How else can one explain 11% of the entire worlds weallth being parked in Panama and other tax havens?

Fix those tax laws and force that money back onshore.

And this is 2018....imagine what the total is now...

www.bostonglobe.com... ml

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

That's right and when it gets to the point where one person has it all and is acting like an ass , that's when we flip the board over and hit him up side the head with it..

a reply to: Xtrozero

1. Mentions inflation. Good point, but this kind of stuff can be accounted for or dealt with, can it not?

2. I'm not talking about Taxes. I'm instead talking about the effect a massive entity has on it's environment and the idea of limiting that.

3. ? I'm suggesting that with X money, you can control things individuals should not have the power to do so. This would be similar to how Governmental Power is delegated, and not end-all.

4. No, I don't like the fact people are born into the game as default winners. That's not a game, that's a lineage.