Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: toolgal462

a cap doesn't mean you have to give money to the government, confiscation would be appropriate if someone broke the rules, but the money would be destroyed in addition to that, that's only logical correct?

a better scenario, is they literally work for free. some have done this already to avoid tax on income.


if the money is destroyed, the mathematical result of this is deflation.
everyone wins.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

a cap doesn't mean you have to give money to the government, confiscation would be appropriate if someone broke the rules, but the money would be destroyed in addition to that, that's only logical correct?

a better scenario, is they literally work for free. some have done this already to avoid tax on income.


if the money is destroyed, the mathematical result of this is deflation.
everyone wins.

Okay, then I did understand you a few pages back. What Pexx is saying isn't the same.

However I still fail to appreciate how destroying money and capping earnings would help anyone anywhere.

a reply to: toolgal462

it doesn't realistically take a lot of money,

it only now takes a lot of money.

if things cost different, it could potentially take a lot less money, cost is subjective

a reply to: toolgal462

because it directly confronts inflation with a limit. ethical? idk. mathematical? true.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

It's still confiscation of wealth you know. Even if the money doesn't go to govt to use or spend or redistribute.

That is still Communism, you know.

This is a bad plan

a reply to: toolgal462

destroying money, is directly redistributing it. It's literally the single fairest way to redistribute. If you burn a dollar, you have improved the economy by exactly $1.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere
and confiscating wealth of others in what commies do

a reply to: toolgal462

ok, and what if this solution made taxes unnecessary, instead of veiling the argument as an additional tax, whos the commie then?

the last thing the government wants is people to work for free, then they wouldn't get a cut. this isn't 1900's impoverished russia, our citizens have real valuable skills.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

how do you pay for the military and schools and infrastructure, etc...without taxes?

a reply to: toolgal462

I speaking to specific taxes, like income tax. Income tax partly exists because of there not being a limit, and is actually an inconsequential amount of money most people have to give to the government out of 'fairness'.

In other words, the government doesn't actually need your 30% of 60k, they only take that much because they take 50% from the millionaire. It's only fair in the amount of pain you receive for that. Pretty stupid way to collect taxes.

Infact, the majority of income tax(something stupid like 75%) only goes back into the system as payment of interest for new loans, to continue to inflate the economy. We're not even making headway on the debt we owe, and the actual amount of money it costs for all that 'tax stuff' is significantly less than what the system is in taking in to cover it's ass.

A limit in general gives large credibility to the argument of lower taxes. It kind of makes everything potentially lower, the contrast being infinity.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

It can't be done. So this aint going anywhere unless there were a total crash and reboot of our entire economy going back to gold standard.

Forget about whether or not it would work or make anything better, which I also don't think it would.

But if you want to reign in wealth disparity and unfairness of the system, this isn't the way to do it.

a reply to: toolgal462

what you were saying earlier, about wealth not effecting others spending power, is true, in a gold standardized system,

so a cap wouldn't do anything because 100 trillionaire wouldn't have an impact on your spending power.

If we decide money has value, there is no reason for a cap. But if we decide money is a "you owe me this much stuff" tool, the reason a cap is useful is because that can quickly subvert the concept of value.

A lot of people are for going back to a gold standard, I think it wouldn't be a terrible idea, but I'm impartial, mostly, it's that if we stick with a fractional system(you owe me x), then a cap to me seems reasonable.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

the cap would have a big impact on new growth and job creation , as it is the wealthy that do the majority of that.

a reply to: toolgal462

This would cause chaos.

What the OP is saying is that dollars are the government's toys they politely allow us to have, but if someone were to accrue too many toys, the extra would be arbitrarily taken and burned.

Since dollars are only worth what they are and used because of "the full faith and credit" of the US government, such arbitrary actions would undermine that faith. No one would feel secure in possession of dollars, so no one would want to use them.

Either we would barter, or we would trade in a different world currency.

Communism is far more than confiscating wealth. Our govt confiscates wealth all the time. We confiscated 30 billion from Venezuela. And the same from Iran a decade ago.

a reply to: pexx421
And that's a good thing? so you want the govt. to do it to it's citizens? makes zero sense at all.

a reply to: pexx421

Oh, Obama paid Iran back.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Oh, Obama paid Iran back.

Haha, right? And everyone’s all “oh, Obama Gave Iran billions of dollars!!!’” I’m like nah, he didn’t GIVE them anything.

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: pexx421
And that's a good thing? so you want the govt. to do it to it's citizens? makes zero sense at all.

My point is, you can’t just say “confiscating money is communism!!!!” Or “free healthcare is socialism!!’ It’s ludicrous. There’s numerous varying degrees of confiscating money, or social programs, etc and they’re not all communism or socialism. Plenty of it is just good ole, homegrown, capitalist (or other) corruption.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: pexx421
And that's a good thing? so you want the govt. to do it to it's citizens? makes zero sense at all.

My point is, you can’t just say “confiscating money is communism!!!!” Or “free healthcare is socialism!!’ It’s ludicrous. There’s numerous varying degrees of confiscating money, or social programs, etc and they’re not all communism or socialism. Plenty of it is just good ole, homegrown, capitalist (or other) corruption.

But the subject is confiscating a person's earning beyond a certain point. It wasn't about any of those other things. Why is when you cannot defend one idea, you revert to tossing in a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the idea you are advocating for?

Confiscating a person's earnings is absolutely 100% Communism.