Should We Cap The Wealthy?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984




Social services are a benefit to everyone, they are supported freely by tax contributions made by all citizens willingly.

A fire department benefits everyone, so do police, so does a hospital. Taking my legally earned dollars away and giving it to a bunch of welfare recipients is not a social service, it doesnt benefit me in any way, therefore it is not the same thing.

Im not wealthy by any means, but I have worked extremely hard for what I do have. You ask "what about the brilliant minds who start with nothing?".

I have known many successful and extremely wealthy individuals who started out in the negative. People who found a plan and risked everything and sacrificed and stuck with it until they achieved something of value. Nobody just walked in and handed these people their fortunes, they , made what they have through hard work and determintation.

This is the American way, to have a dream and then have the ability to go after it and become something from nothing. If you steal money from those that have earned it and give it to those who havent what does that accomplish?

Does that not stifle a society and take away all incentive to work and try harder? Why would a business man continue to work hard to grow his company when his profits are stripped away and given to some slob who has done nothing?

Originally posted by BlackOps719


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.

Aren't they doing this now with the bailout? I can see the point with not capping the wealthy but in all honesty life should be about the betterment of humanity and greed as far as my opinion goes does not fit in with that. I don't see problem with capping Personal wealth maybe not corporations that would use corporate wealth to promote jobs and new technologies as long as the excess was going for the betterment of humanity and i am not saying give it to the poor. Pour it into education and new jobs like achieving or presence in space and such. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
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?

This is absolutely a power and a duty of the government. Your question reads to me like the following:

"Since when does any government have the RIGHT to put someone on trial for crimes? And put them in prison, against their will? Who are they to judge anyone? All people should be free."

Of course, that is what governments are for. And if the government doesn't do that, then the people will do it without the government. Which is not a good thing.

Check out the French Revolution. That is what happens when a government fails to address economic disparity. Not pretty. So it is much better to have the government address this than the people at large.

Edit: Please don't misinterpret. This power, like the power to jail people, is quite easily abused by a government. But at some level, it is appropriate. Like in the case of Paris Hilton -- for example.


[edit on 29-10-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by Aleksander

Originally posted by BlackOps719


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.

Aren't they doing this now with the bailout? I can see the point with not capping the wealthy but in all honesty life should be about the betterment of humanity and greed as far as my opinion goes does not fit in with that. I don't see problem with capping Personal wealth maybe not corporations that would use corporate wealth to promote jobs and new technologies as long as the excess was going for the betterment of humanity and i am not saying give it to the poor. Pour it into education and new jobs like achieving or presence in space and such. Just my opinion.

Who do you think donates all of this money to education and to charitable organizations? Philanthropy cannot be an option when you have nothing to give. It is wealthy men and women and business owners who donate to help make these things that you speak of a reality.

How many hospital wings are named after poor people? How many libraries are funded by poor people? Ever see a scientific research and development fund or a scholarship or anything of that nature created by a poor person?

No, it comes from those who make more and are able to afford to contribute in such ways. You take away people hard earned money and cap them at some unreasonable and illegal way and you see all of this good will and philanthropy gone in a flash.

A person should be able to earn as much money as they can. Someone mentioned Bill Gates. Gates and some friends built a computer and designed an operating system for it. Gates went on to build microsoft, and I think at last count, he was worth about 25 Billion. He has since retired from acdtive participation in Microsoft, but he and his wife have started many charitable foundations. These foundations employ people, therefore creating jobs. And who knows? One of them might actually produce other Billionaires.
Wealth creates wealth when it is used properly. To tell someone there is a cap on a net worth is to limit the creation of wealth, not only for the one who has the cap on, but for those who would benefit from that one persons wealth.

reply to post by Buck Division


U.S Constitution, Article 1, section 8. Read it sometime. No where does it say take from the ones who work for it and give it to the ones who don't. It says General Welfare of the States, not individuals. The Congress has no mandate for doing what you described. Taxes are for Debt of the government not individuals. The bail out is technicaly unconstitutional. Its for a single sector not the general good. And neither is individual welfare. Only those who cannot fend for themselves should be considered. The sick and infirmed and those with complete inability to fend or earn for themselves. The states are imbued with the right to tax for general welfare of individuals and debt of the states.

Zindo

I have a better idea.
How about we make it mandatory to earn a minimum $45k a year. If you don't make at least that much you will be forced to go to school until you earn an education that will let you make at least $45k a year.
I fyou keep screwing up and flunking out you will be deported to Mexico.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Who do you think donates all of this money to education and to charitable organizations? Philanthropy cannot be an option when you have nothing to give. It is wealthy men and women and business owners who donate to help make these things that you speak of a reality.

Absolutely correct. Many wealthy people are extremely socially responsible. And Philanthropy (all charity, regardless) should remain be tax deductable 100%.

#

What about the people that do not give? Who hoard, and hurt people with their money? Who destroy people's lives? Nothing illegal about that, of course.

Here is what I believe, and I will listen to facts otherwise:

WHAT I DESCRIBE ABOVE IS MOST OF THE EXTREMELY WEALTHY. It is extremely difficult to accrue incredibly vast wealth (lets say 100's of millions) without hurting innocent people. It is possible, but not typical.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Getting more serious now, I think the long-term solution is a cultural change, whereby selfishly amassing unconscionable material wealth becomes a despicable act, worthy of social ostracism and shame. Almost all ancient races fully understood the immorality of plundering the world's riches without returning a fair portion of it to safeguard the world's healthy future. I won't go into finer detail on this, as I'm sure everyone here knows exactly what I refer to.

All these obscenely bloated billionaires still crave the respect of their own peer groups, be they immediate family or the other knobs at the country club (much the same as us common, lowly insects) and in that respect they are as vulnerable to cultural pressure as anyone else. Hell, organized religion has been manipulating populations to hand over sizeable chunks of their income by way of social shame and spiritual blackmail for hundreds of years. I can see no reason why the same principal of civic pride/communitarianism couldn't be applied to the Insanely Greedy, too.

Prohibition clearly never works as a proscription, and I believe capping the wealthy is an honourable-but-weak notion doomed to failure, but peer-pressure might just work... unless your billionaire is also a corrupt sociopath, of coure...

Originally posted by BlackOps719


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.

Legally huh?
Define legally?
Insider trading, market manipulation, fraud, imbeselment?
Substituting poison for food and selling it to the public, hiding trial information for medicines that kill people, massive tax evasion.
Should I even go on?
Hint hint Enron, Refco....
All these activities are illegal, and the super wealthy engage in them daily.
And get away with it because, they own the government who is supposed to prosecute them.
When someone has so much money they have even more than the government who is supposed to regulate them.
Then we have a problem.

reply to post by Buck Division




As long as the means in which they use to earn their money is within the rule of law then there should be no justification for taking money away from them.

If you want to argue moral dynamics and question if the way a person makes their living is "morally" right then you will open up a whole can of worms that is subject to personal opinion and thus irrelevant.

If they make the money within the parameters of the written law then they owe nobody anything. There is also no law on the books which states that one must contribute X amount to charity or any philanthropic cause.

That is the beauty of personal freedom and free will, as long as you obey the laws set forth then you do not have to answer to nor be responsible for anyone else or their quality of life.

reply to post by Interestinggg


Thats what cops, the Feebees and the ATF ,EPA and CDC are for. Unfortunatly they do nothing to remedy the situation you describe. That however, does not negate the fact that citizens who actualy do earn that money legaly (and there are many ) should pay for those that do nothing!

Zindo

Originally posted by jupiter1uk
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Getting more serious now, I think the long-term solution is a cultural change, whereby selfishly amassing unconscionable material wealth becomes a despicable act, worthy of social ostracism and shame. Almost all ancient races fully understood the immorality of plundering the world's riches without returning a fair portion of it to safeguard the world's healthy future. I won't go into finer detail on this, as I'm sure everyone here knows exactly what I refer to.

That was my point to begin with. People would still be able to live a life of luxury on 2 billion (inflation adjusted) and the surplus would provide lifestyles that would be adaquate to most people. This would of course have to be a worldwide change and not a countrywide one.

I should also point out that communism requires everyont o get an equal share and that isn't what i am requesting here.

Wow, OP, have you ever read the Bill of Rights and the constitution? What you suggest tramples several parts of each. Ifnact what you suggest is just as retarded as "Shooting the poor". Thats why we live(americans at least) in a constitutional republic NOT a democracy! Democracy allows the majority to enslave/rule the minority. That is not freedom. If you feel that the rich are so privlaged go invent something and become one yourself.

I like the correlation between 'the rich' and 'philanthropy.'

How about, when 'the rich' cash is above 2bn (I'll never get there), they have a choice of the government taking the money, or them spending it on their own charities. This proves the point that 'the rich' are truly philanthopatic and stops the socialist drain on success. Both sides win, the rich are capped, and their wisdom will be spent on causes government committees would not consider.

In conclusion, all capped money should be spent on charities decided by the one 'capped.'

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Buck Division

 

U.S Constitution, Article 1, section 8. Read it sometime. No where does it say take from the ones who work for it and give it to the ones who don't. It says General Welfare of the States, not individuals. The Congress has no mandate for doing what you described.

That power is granted in the sixteenth amendment:

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

It is good to know the constitution.

reply to post by Interestinggg




What you are speaking of says more about corrupt and lazy politicians not doing their jobs and enforcing the laws that are already in place.


There is no law against being successful, at least not that I know of. When the day comes that a person is ostracized for being more successful than someone else then that is the day this country truly has lost its mind collectively.

And if your issue is with laws or lack thereof, be the change that you wish to see by working to have existing laws changed and new laws implemented.

Socialism isnt the answer. When the haves become morally or financially responsible for the survival of the have nots it becomes a push, because eventually those who have become the have nots and a vicious cycle begins.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Social services are a benefit to everyone, they are supported freely by tax contributions made by all citizens willingly.

err hangon, so you support some social systems and not others? Well done on that one. I should point out that if the 2 billion system were impleneted that fewer people would commit crime as they would have their basic needs supported at least. In the end a 2 billino cap would be socially very beneficial. You could introduce social healthcare like we have in the UK at least.

Oh and before you criticise the NHS in the UK i should point out it's extremely succesful here. You may hear the occasional sob story but they are few and far between.