Individual Wealth Cap

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

Of course the entire idea is lunacy.

Slippery slope my friend. Im not sure why championing restrictions on our rights is so celebrated as the solution these days.

After your billion dollar cap the next person will argue 500 million, and a few steps later it’s 500,000. Still sounds like a lot of money but say goodbye to any non corporate business in America.



a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Out of curiosity how do you think that helps anyone?

Our country keeps 1 trillion dollars in active currency every single day. It prints more and destroys bills that are damaged. There is the ability to become a billionaire every single day if you have an idea that generates that much interest.

What you are really saying is you trust the government with more power. I don't see why anyone would ever trust a government with more power.

The folly in this is assuming people would remain productive

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.

a reply to: Rob808

I think it was the '70s when they are arguing that no one really needed to make more than $100,000/year.

I just can't get over how people love to argue that others they don't know really do or don't *need* this or that. If you believe in actual freedom, then you know it's not about what you *need*; freedom is about having the opportunity to try to get the things you *want*.

You know what?

I don't *need* an LED backlit mechanical keyboard with cherry blue switches and the ability to program my LEDs to operate in different patterns at my whim, but it's something I *want* for different reasons, some practical, some purely cosmetic.

So I spent the money to have it, and I'm well satisfied. Where I work, I only have the kind of keyboard I *need* - functional, drab, and sluggish.

you don't need 30 kinds of deodorant

Harmful to the environment ? Really ? What does having wealth have to do with the environment? Unless of course we are talking about Hollywood celebrities who fly their own planes around the world or politicians who own several large homes.
Really your entire argument is based on relative numbers. Human relativity.

originally posted by: toolgal462
you don't need 30 kinds of deodorant

What if its the 30th one you like?

Maybe if you just threaten authoritarian regulations than the billionaire class will self regulate in order avoid the authoritarian regulations?

a reply to: DanDanDat

What do you threaten people with who can essentially buy politics or simply purchase justice?

Short of at the end of a sword or a gun pointed to their nut, there not going to be apt to listen to any demands.

Has anyone mebtioned that there are only like 300 billionaires in the world so from the lot of them you get like 800 billion dollars together. Then consoder that in one year alone 21 TRILLION DOLLARS disappeared thru the hands of congress with nothing to show for it and tell yourself does 800 billion really mean #e?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: DanDanDat

What do you threaten people with who can essentially buy politics or simply purchase justice?

Short of at the end of a sword or a gun pointed to their nut, there not going to be apt to listen to any demands.

So point a gun at their nuts

But seriously I think you just hit the nail on the head; the common man has become to complacent. Yes it is authoritarian to strip billionaires of their money through government regulation. Such an action is antithetical to the freedom we all agree is most important, even above life itself. But a real threat of tear and feathers is not antithetical to our freedoms. Unrest of the masses has always been the counter balance to unfettered wealth.... French Revolution Time?

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

It's not communism.

I'll give you another example.

If you have $100,000 US, you don't actually have anything; you have a note that says you are owed $100,000 of products.

If you have $100,000 in England, or somewhere gold backed, you have $100,000 of value in Gold.

The issue is the first example causes stratification when you start talking about someone with a 60k income verses multi-billionaires. Their 60k is worth less, because more expensive people exist, but the spending dollar for billionaires is pretty much identical to millionaires.

If money wasn't tender, a cap would be pointless(like england)

If you have a note for $100,000 then you have the capability of purchasing power for that much (whatever the dollar is worth) and if you have a car you paid $24,000 for then you have a material object which was worth that much but we all know that blue book values of a car changes, or if you have $100,000 worth of gold bullion then you have gold. In none of those instances do you have “ nothing”.
You are playing the relativity game. An ounce of gold is always still worth an ounce of gold but not necessarily worth the same amount of dollars.
The fractional system is elites playing with numbers, as they know that the banks will only have 10% of real value but can loan out 10x an amount since at any given time no one is actually taking all their money out.
It is not that We the American People prefer fractional Banking and fiat money, it’s that the Bankers have created the system and forced us to go along with while taking on the govt debt of spending. This is why we need to stop the communist Bernies of the country from stealing our wealth. Because that is really what is happening and the poor millennials have no clue about it.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Well, one Mans revolutionary is another Mans terrorist, perfectly illustrated in this day of age.

The main trouble with revolution is that one side is always apt to win, and once they are in power, its the same fecking side.

The majority of our respective populations like the taste of the cake they are forced to chow down on.

Canny just stop the merry-go-round or end the dog and pony show without some very serious repercussions.

Not that i would not like to see it done but it might well amount to cutting off one's nose to spite there own face.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

And the debt can only ever accumulate and increases because the money is backed by nothing more than a promise.

Don't matter how much new monies "They" decide to create out of thin air, that's just prolonging the inevitable collapse.

Nothing more than a Ponzi scheme of enormous proportions if "they" were honest.

a reply to: andy06shake

I don't think its possible; to stop the merry-go-round without some very serious repercussions; you'd have to convince those on top to take a haircut out of the goodness of their heart.

You can try, but the best your going to get is something like Hollywood ... a bunch of people on top who fool themselves into thinking they are "making a difference" when in actuality they are just an out of touch version of those they think they are fighting against.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: shooterbrody

super relevant post.

do you have a freaking opinion on wealth cap, this is probably the only thread I will ever use this site, I know you don't care, but I do.

where I come from(the internet), normally the OP has the ability to ask for ad homs to stop. is this some cess pool or what?

seriously should have just asked reddit

How cute. You just registered to make one thread pushing communist agenda.

a reply to: DanDanDat

It's the bankers, corporations, and bent political systems that need to go.

Kind of hard to do business or run first-world nations without monies and infostructure all the same.

The world requires a paradigm shift the likes of which we have yet to experience in all of recorded history.

Its a hell of a mess but one that has always been there and the thing is whilst there is one rule for some, and another for the rest, it always will be, and we will choose to play follow the leader, because it's desirable to be at the top rather than the bottom.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

a reply to: andy06shake

Do you think there would be a way to reform our financial system to the point we didn't need to go after the hoarders of wealth? Maybe even something that wouldn't require a wealth cap to institute a system that was fair.

Maybe with our advanced technology, we wouldn't even need to resort to precious metals to back currency. I wonder, would you be in support of a limited amount of digital dollars to fund our system with? Something close to being backed by gold or silver but more like an electrical certificate. You would have a set amount of 'money' in the system for all use. If someone gained a dollar, someone else would need to transfer or lose that dollar. A completely equal system. No more creating fiat or digital 0's & 1's out of thin air. You could either just allow deflation to happen or setup some very very visible, easy for the public to access indicator of any newly added 'fiat' and why it was created out of thin air.

You could tie creation to maybe population increase and if the population decreased or is decreasing, no new issuance.

It would be a small step before we get to the big ones of determining if the phrase 'behind every great fortune is a great swindle'. We could start looking at how certain wealth extractions happen and determine if they are beneficial for a society. Maybe even if they aren't beneficial to still allow personal freedom for the unscrupulous to engage in such practices, but tax the #(*&*# out of their profits. If their profits are simply off of the backs of society without benefiting society, should we examine their methods more closely?

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: andy06shake

Do you think there would be a way to reform our financial system to the point we didn't need to go after the hoarders of wealth? Maybe even something that wouldn't require a wealth cap to institute a system that was fair.

Maybe with our advanced technology, we wouldn't even need to resort to precious metals to back currency. I wonder, would you be in support of a limited amount of digital dollars to fund our system with? Something close to being backed by gold or silver but more like an electrical certificate. You would have a set amount of 'money' in the system for all use. If someone gained a dollar, someone else would need to transfer or lose that dollar. A completely equal system. No more creating fiat or digital 0's & 1's out of thin air. You could either just allow deflation to happen or setup some very very visible, easy for the public to access indicator of any newly added 'fiat' and why it was created out of thin air.

You could tie creation to maybe population increase and if the population decreased or is decreasing, no new issuance.

At least you're thinking further outside the box. Rather than just "redistribute it all!!!"

My take in this is that mineral resources are nobody's creation.

Owning the "product of your labor" is the difference between slavery and freedom.

But owning something that nobody made, or that "god made" is not owning the "product of your labor". It's basically taking credit for something you didn't do, and nobody else did either.

The Saudis are onto something very right. The state owns the oil fields. Private industry pumps/extracts it. And the crazy thing is: it's working out well for BOTH PARTIES. The Saudis are doing well for themselves, as they simply set a price per barrel, and let the extraction firms extract and pay them. The extraction firms are doing well for themselves (they were very nearly the only sector that didn't fall behind during the recession.)

It would be a small step before we get to the big ones of determining if the phrase 'behind every great fortune is a great swindle'. We could start looking at how certain wealth extractions happen and determine if they are beneficial for a society. Maybe even if they aren't beneficial to still allow personal freedom for the unscrupulous to engage in such practices, but tax the #(*&*# out of their profits. If their profits are simply off of the backs of society without benefiting society, should we examine their methods more closely?

I don't think Sergey Brin and Larry Page swindled anybody at all when they started Google. And the value that company has added to the economy is WAY WAY WAY WWAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than what either of them has claimed as their personal fortune.

At most, they're keeping maybe 5% of the value, and giving 95% to the world.

I have no problem with that. I'm happy to let people like that get as rich as they possibly can.

Jeff Bezos, on the other hand, treats his workers worse than dogs. Does he deserve to become a trillionaire in exchange for that?

Of course, if we had better labor laws, and tariffs in place to allow our government to manipulate the market in favor of working class citizens, he would never have made it that far.

(Without tariffs, the government is powerless to manipulate markets, because they have to either manipulate the whole world market all at once, or none of it.) (The 1% are the only ones who made more money on free trade.)