Should We Cap The Wealthy?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
In our current capitalist system the wealthy can earn whatever they want. Some billionaires have realised that they cannot use all of their money and have started charities and other organisations.

My question if simply, should we cap the weathly? I mean if we capped the personal wealth at 2 billion, would this help the world as a whole? Imagine capping personal wealth at 2 billion and forcing any more money to be given to the poor, or at worst the government.

I know many will scream communism or socialism at me here. However i should point out that 2 billion in current terms is enough to live a very luxorious lifestyle. You wouldn't be missing anything with this amount of personal wealth.

So should we force this through on a global scale? Imagine the amount of good that could be done with such a system. Anyone with a good idea would still achiece a wonderful standard of living. The leftover could seriously support the poor, the needy and the third world.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Personaly, no. The old addage that" You don't get a job from a poor person" tend to sway my opinion. Also, where would the drive to succeed come from if you only can go so far in your endeavour? Limiting the reward, limits the reason. You'd also have to controll pricing and wages. Another limiting factor and unworkable! Just my dos centavos!!
Zindo



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
"You can only earn this much money"

Yeah, can't see any way that could come back to bite us on the tail...

Besides, that's what Swiss banks are for, right?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Hell no...

Then I will have to pay more taxes to make up for the taxes they will no longer be paying....



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


You think 2 billion isn't enough? Are you kidding? Most billionaires say that the reason they continue is the game not the money, the money is just a yard stick. 2 billion (which i would happily adjust for inflation) is more than enough to live a life of luxury.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
There are many billion dollar companys, Many we could not do without, not to mention that it is these people who earned it. Would you give half of your income to a poor person?, It is a good thing to do, but how would you live....In other words we give what we can to help others.

To ask someone not to make so much money borders on communism. Now don't get me wrong, what the heck is someone going to need five billion for, Well just like another post said, Who do we think gives us jobs, some rich dude. So to answer the thred "no".



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

My question is simply: Should we cap the wealthy?


What... d'you mean SHOOT them? I'll have to weigh up the pros and cons, but the idea IS tempting...



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jupiter1uk
 


Erm no i don't agree with shooting anyone unless they're attacking me lol, so violence = no thanks.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Yes because when they become to wealthy.
They are able to break the law and steal from people and get away with it.
With wealth comes power and one person with all that power it will more than likely always be abused.
Look at Bill Gates for example, hes more than likely abusing you right now.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Yes, cap the wealthy at 2 billion (5 million sounds better). Anything more is inexcusably evil greed.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I'd be for a cap on individual wealth as well as a cap on how much profit companies are allowed to take in.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Since when does any government have the RIGHT to take money away from a person who has legally earned it and give it to someone else who has done nothing to deserve it?

The true good of the capitalist ideology is that there is no glass ceiling, that you are allowed to be as successful as you choose to be and thus enjoy the spoils of your hard work.


What you are describing is communism and it has no place in American society.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by k-string
 


I think 2 billion is better but i suppose that's a subjective figure. Two billion however is hard to spend, would set someone and their kids,a nd even their grandkids for life. The rest of the profits could be used for poorer people in that country. The people in that country would massively increase in living standards and would be the envy of the world.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Put the shoe on the other foot. Should we cap the poor?

If you make too little, you are forced into some sort of menial labor?

Some people make a lot of money. Big deal.

If you want to do something for the poor, distribute birth control so they stop having children.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
If you were to equalize the world's wealth, each of us would have about $10,000. So actually, a cap of 10,000 is more appropriate.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
You do realise that most of the money rich folks have is reinvested in this country which pays for your retirement and other benefits. Sure 2 bil sounds like alot of money but the fact remains that investment by those that have the intelligence to gain this money is what drives this economy. Are you going to say, 'OK, you've reached your max, now go about your business and forget trying to do better'? Do you force them to sell their business to someone else. Do you penalise them for the price they might get for the business because they earned the max and now have to give it away. To put limits on wealth is to also put limits on why you would want to. Do you understand that principle? Being worth 2 bil is not like you have 2 bil in the bank in cash. Most of the time this money is lent out to others who have the dream of gettting their 2 bil. One hand helps the other.

Zindo



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
What you are describing is communism and it has no place in American society.


Not quite. Communism would tae it all, i'm supporting a system that would allow yo you to live a very good life if you earnt the money. I'm full on against communism, just look up my post history on that matter.

Maybe it's time we accept that a combination of governments is needed.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
You do realise that most of the money rich folks have is reinvested in this country which pays for your retirement and other benefits. Sure 2 bil sounds like alot of money but the fact remains that investment by those that have the intelligence to gain this money is what drives this economy.


Without being arrogant i'm smarter than the average person and i still support what i'm saying. Actually the money paid by the poor and middle calss greatly out numbers the amount oaid by the rich, at least in the UK.



Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Are you going to say, 'OK, you've reached your max, now go about your business and forget trying to do better'? Do you force them to sell their business to someone else. Do you penalise them for the price they might get for the business because they earned the max and now have to give it away. To put limits on wealth is to also put limits on why you would want to. Do you understand that principle? Being worth 2 bil is not like you have 2 bil in the bank in cash. Most of the time this money is lent out to others who have the dream of gettting their 2 bil. One hand helps the other.

Zindo


Again i point out that the rich often say that money is the yardstick of achievment after they are rich. Therefore they could stil achieve, earning moneya nd that money given out to the country. To say they are being penalised is rediculous when they would stil be rich enoug hto afford many homes, the best wines, the best food and servants.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77

If you want to do something for the poor, distribute birth control so they stop having children.


Actually i support birth control for everyone to reduce the population to 500 million, that includes the rich, poor and middle classes. However that's an entirely different arguement.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 




You still havent addressed the fact that taking money away from one person who has legally earned it and giving it to someone who hasnt is illegal and unconstitutional.


It is called "stealing".


Be jealous and hate wealthy people all you wish, but if they legally earned their money then it belongs to them. When you have a government making bogus laws and reaching into peoples pockets to take what doesnt belong to them, that is theft.


Why should I be forced to give up a huge sum of money that I have earned simply because Bob Dumbass down the street is broke? He didnt sacrfifice, he didnt take the risks involved to earn it, he provided no hard work to earn it, why should I be responsible for his sorry situation?





 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join