The Distribution of Wealth; Should personal and corporate wealth be capped?

Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by TheRemedial
Look...if a rich person, or Company, has money sitting in the bank...it is actually still moving. Why? Because Banks can lend certain multiples of their deposits to other citizens or companies...in mortgages, business loans, car loans, credit card balances, etc. So, if Mr. Soros puts $5 billion into a bank account somewhere he is actually enabling movement of cash of as much as $15 billion to other people.

You forgot to say 'in theory'. Because, you see, they have worked on politicians to reverse legislation that restricted banks' ability to gamble deposits on Wall Street. After the Depression numerous regulations and oversight was put in place to prevent them from doing exactly what they ended-up doing. They see gambling on Wall Street as a much shorter, somewhat less risky way to make money on deposits. Much more so than lending Joe and Sally Blo money to buy a hous or a car. One of the biggest functional problems with the economy right now is the 'lac of available credit' to individuals and small businesses. Banks aren't lending. QAs a matter of fact they are caneclling credit cards and lines-of-credit at unprecendented rates. Meanwhile, the money pours into Wall Street.

So no, that's not what happens and not what 'would' happen. That's what would theoretically happen if the banks were constrained on what they could do with their money. But since they have the money to buy politciicans and influence policy they can --- as has been abundenatly proved --- do anything they want with no repercussions, no accountability and the taxpayer on speed-dial in case they screw-up.

reply to post by TheRemedial


I'd be all for it.

Lets give $1M to every person under the poverty line and eliminate all of the programs who support them. Then in 5 years when 90+% of them are totally broke we can fire up those same programs again.

Enabling the creation of wealth leads to more wealth. You would be far better giving the super wealthy a tax holiday for investing in job creating enterprises in the inner cities, allowing them to get even richer, but employing folks and improving neighborhoods along the way than taking their money from them.

reply to post by mobiusmale


But is not cash at the bank level nothing more than a data entry? There are fundamental flaws with the system and in my opinion it needs complete overhaul because, lets face it. The topic I posted is an elephant and a whale which will not get resolved in a thread of this nature but in the end with the educated opinions and discussion everyone should leave knowing more than they did.

Commercial banks and investment banks make up the foundation of the OTC derivatives market. Their derivatives desk makes markets to customers, develops new products, trade with one another in order to lay off risks and form the apparatus for much of the industry's self-regulation. There are, of course, external regulators including the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the US Federal Reserve Board and the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. However, the derivatives markets are so complex and their evolution is so lightning-quick that regulators often have a difficult time keeping pace. More often than not, large losses that might incur the curiosity of the regulator are attributable to new cutting-edge products, the behavioural characteristics of which are different in actual practice than they may have been thought to be beforehand.

These institutions engage in operations in up to five main asset classes:

* Foreign Exchange
* Interest Rates
* Equities
* Commodities
* Credit

www.finpipe.com...


Remember one key point, Soros deposits money which the banks can gamble with print more at the fed level (bailout). Nobody will bail you out, they can only do things in ways to make your life more comfortable at that level (which means moving money into the street, developing, employing not hoarding.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by TheRemedial

 

I'd be all for it.

Lets give $1M to every person under the poverty line and eliminate all of the programs who support them. Then in 5 years when 90+% of them are totally broke we can fire up those same programs again.

Enabling the creation of wealth leads to more wealth. You would be far better giving the super wealthy a tax holiday for investing in job creating enterprises in the inner cities, allowing them to get even richer, but employing folks and improving neighborhoods along the way than taking their money from them.

I would sooner put money into education, real education. I am not at all for giving money to people for nothing, am for making it so that the excessively rich are urged politically and financially to take care of the fellow men woman and children of the country. In that I mean by way of ensuring that there are reasonable paying jobs available and hope for the future for all Americans, not be a corporation of life sucking vampires that re-distribute the wealth of America to China so they can line their mattress with the blood / sweat and suffering of it's citizens.

-Regards

reply to post by TheRemedial


Why invest in education when were you to give the folks the money directly they could either choose to pursue an education and the education of their choosing or do something else with it and live with the consequences of their decisions? A quality educational establishment would be a profit generating enterprise, so there would be a number of those popping up to attract dollars.

Our investments in education have been abject failures, mostly because we have eliminated all market forces from the system. That is why an educational voucher system works where folks take their money with them when they move schools. Its why for profit schools work better in many cases than public schools.

Until the government shows itself able to perform even minor functions effectively, and I can't think of a single function it currently performs effectively, we should resist any and all futher investments in the government.

"Hoarding money" has no logic. What happens when I put my money into mattress and sit on it? Everyone elses money will get a little more valuable due to it being less in circulation - deflation. Hoarding money does not harm the economy at all. Mismatches between supply and demand do.

Set up an advanced tax rate for any amount over 10 million that is not directly active in support of the economy across the board. That means no more paper changing, no product money except at a huge tax and huge breaks for all active production based investment in THIS country. And screw the ones who bag it and leave if the smart ones invest now while the labor market is ripe, this country could begin moving again. Hell to me smart money would be making alt energy for small scale. Our grid is ripe to fail and the companies who can stop gap the fail will make billions and employ many thousands.Just one ,to me smart investment that can be made now and see return
Does not matter what just put the money to work or pay for letting it sit.Call it investment incentive or coercion does not matter when the world suffers due to monetary hoarders either it is equalized by design (policy intervention)or by natural social forces(revolution). This is just how people work and how to fix this now without the destruction of the current paradigm.....LOL this merde´ is doomed and it is gonna get ugly
seed

ETA This Perry guy says Jesus will fix the economy. If I remember my seminary lessons the last time he had anything to do with this subject he tossed the MONEY CHANGERS tables. Looks like he is already on it Rick...

reply to post by mobiusmale


sorry, i guess this thread struck anerve or summin

I really don't think that a wealth cap is the answer. I really think that the progressive income tax was created in order to help address the problems created when too much of a nation's wealth is controlled by a very small percentage of it's population.

The problem is that the GOP who lowers taxes when times are good, (Bush tax cuts in response to Clinton surplus) and then refuses to raise taxes when times are bad, (because it might piss off the "Job Creators") which has resulted in a continuously downward spiraling trend, with respect to the top marginal rates.

According to this article, the top marginal rates have been as high as 94% during WWII and were even as high as 70% during the Carter years. During these times the lowest tax rates were 23% and 14% respectively. Check out the chart in the middle of the page;

en.wikipedia.org...

Then, as if operating tax free wasn't enough, (Exxon, GE, etc...) they decided that they would also like to avoid all the worker and environmental protection regulations here in the U.S., so they lobbied to enact free trade deals with emerging economies that were designed to open the door to full blown outsourcing along with turning the american job into this nation's largest export. (I think that, not too long ago, Ross Perot warned us about this loud sucking sound that would be coming.)

This trend of lowering the top tax rates and taking american jobs overseas, combined with the constant addition of tax loopholes designed specifically for the highest income earners and pushed through congress by their lobbyist, has had an extremely negative effect on our nation's ability to collect enough revenue to meet our social responsibilities.

The good thing about the higher marginal tax rates is that they do not put a cap on a person's wealth but they do insure that the bulk of this nation's wealth is not funneled into non-taxable locations. The way I see it is, if someone who's making enough money to be in the highest tax bracket doesn't like paying the tax, then get out of the way and let someone else make some. I mean really, shouldn't they be vacationing in the Bahamas or something anyway?

No but there should be a flat tax so we all pay the same share of whatever we make. That eliminates loop holes shelters and paperwork, Lawyers and storing 7-12 years of paperwork and stress, there could be no cheating.

reply to post by TheRemedial


No it shouldn't!

Maybe I should tax you 50% and then cap your income.

Originally posted by Maslo
"Hoarding money" has no logic. What happens when I put my money into mattress and sit on it? Everyone elses money will get a little more valuable due to it being less in circulation - deflation. Hoarding money does not harm the economy at all. Mismatches between supply and demand do.

What about the practice of wanting larger and larger profits for things necessary to life as we know it by all like what the gas companies are doing to us now. in a sense this is hoarding that does hurt all of us.

Since all money is debt, the overall real wealth of the world cannot be increased under the current system. When one or more parties amass most of that wealth, there simply isn't enough left for the rest of the people to build their own wealth. Hence in a debt based money system there should most definitely be a wealth cap. The best way to start redistributing the wealth that exists would be a wealth tax.

If you wanted to let people create as much wealth as they want then you need a currency that expands in line with productivity. Otherwise everyone is fighting over that same limited pool.

the corporations that moved overseas need to be split into small american companies
the monopolies these mega corps have created have destroyed this country and put the working man in an
unrecoverable position
stop allowing politicians to use pac money to campaign
all politicians should have to stop being on the reelection trail the minute they are elected one term and out
campaign for 6 months before election tops
no politician should be allowed to run for office if any corporate connection whatsoever
all lobbies dissolved
put americans back to work and you have no tax problem
the working man got screwed every election when not one candidate was a working man, all career politicians and lawyers creating laws for lawyers and CEOS
just my 2 cents

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
What sort of question is this? No there shouldn't be a cap on wealth, are you serious. What will they think of next, a cap on your lifetime, breathing, anything else?

Absolutely. There really is point where you literally have more money that you can spend.

(Assuming most billionaires are at least 40 and will live to 95 how much could they spend everyday for the rest of their lives?)
365*55=20075 days
$1,000,000,000/20075 =$49,813 per day

No, but a progressive and efficient tax system should be enacted as is in Australia (here no one is taxed on their first $18,000 and it gradually progresses in 4 tiers or tax brackets). This will allow an effective public healthcare system, care for the old, stimulus for the economy once it enters recession and so forth while running a minimal budget deficit in the bad times and maximum budget surplus's in the good times. Fix the tax system. Norway and Australia are rated the two best countries in the world to live in. Neither of us hit recession during the global financial crisis, neither of us have huge debts and both of us have an effective and fair progressive tax system.

No, but a progressive and efficient tax system should be enacted as is in Australia (here no one is taxed on their first $18,000 and it gradually progresses in 4 tiers or tax brackets). This will allow an effective public healthcare system, care for the old, stimulus for the economy once it enters recession and so forth while running a minimal budget deficit in the bad times and maximum budget surplus's in the good times. Fix the tax system. Norway and Australia are rated the two best countries in the world to live in. Neither of us hit recession during the global financial crisis, neither of us have huge debts and both of us have an effective and fair progressive tax system.

Originally posted by Deja`Vu
reply to post by TheRemedial

 

No it shouldn't!

Maybe I should tax you 50% and then cap your income.

"Capping" aside, the 50% remark is a bit out of context. I am on-board with taxing those above certain income levels a higher percentage. U.S. Americans should be willing to "sacrifice" on behalf of their countrymen and women. If a man or woman worth a few million dollars is unwilling to throw an extra ten thousand or so in taxes into the pot they are quite honestly self-important lunatics. It seems many of those staunchly opposed to such tax hikes view their wealth as emblems of their value and importance as human beings.

Young men have given their life for the benefit of their nation in desperate times, asking the insanely privileged and wealthy to throw a few extra dollars towards social programs and the government at-large is not an unreasonable request.

The redistribution of wealth WILL happen at one point or another on a global scale. If the top 5% remains under the illusion that 95% of their peers are going to tolerate our increasingly desperate economic woes indefinitely they are dreaming. It is up to us, as a species, to determine if this process unfolds peacefully through legislation and cooperation or extremely violently. It WILL happen, regardless of the opinions of those who cling to money like it is the sole meaning of life.

They should absolutely be capped. This is the only way to have an equitable social system while still incorporating the benefits of the market.

reply to post by TheRemedial

The poster has a great point, problem is that so many of the dim witted nuts on here don't understand that wealth and income are completely different. Just US elites have 46 TRILLION DOLLARS of wealth. That needs to be working, not on the sidelines. This should be taxed like our homes are taxed or capped or nationalized. I'd like to see a good discussion about how to do this and if there are constitutional means to do so as I want this to remain within the credit system allowed by the constitution.

46 Trillion Wealth