One person should only be so rich.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


How do you get to a dictatorship from a wealth cap? I don't recall any of apacheman's posts stating that he would have the last say, or any say for that matter, on how a wealth cap would be implemented.

Do any of the regulations in place, individually or together, make the US a dictatorship? How would this one make a difference? I think your clutching at straws.

No wealth cap provides the possibility of a worldwide dictator who owns everything. To not approve a cap on wealth is therefore to approve of dictatorship, as a wealth capless world with enough time would result in a dictator.

I don't see how this is even remotely close to communism, most of the people here are trying to sound like they know what their talking about when they obviously don't. A program similar to the OP's idea was proposed by Huey Long during the Great Depression and it was called "Share Our Wealth", it gained a lot of movement and supporters but Long was assassinated and the program fell apart soon after. I don't see how most people could disagree with what the program proposed, just read it on Wikipedia or a history book (but who reads books anymore?) before you criticize it please. And I'll never understand why most people obsess with having the need for billions of dollars with mansions to live in anyway, I find it rather sad. Why not give back to your country, helping thousands of people instead of yourself. This isn't some program about hands outs and welfare checks, but to lower taxes. OP simply wants a balance of wealth and equal distribution of wealth within a nation, just like Huey Long did. As you can see now, there is none of that today. Instead the rich have been prospering for the past decade while everyone else has been slowly struggling. Does that seem right to anyone of you? I would like to hear why anyone thinks a person who has 300 times (number probably would be changed to something higher) the average family fortune shouldn't have a money cap. (as proposed by the Share Our Wealth) and have his/her money being put to help fund education, highways, public works programs, etc. This only creates more jobs and gives more money for people to spend and help local businesses prosper again, and local business do in fact make up most of the nations jobs. There are only a very few billionaires such as Bill Gates who have given already given away their money for good causes (about 28 Billion to charity I believe). Of course such a program could not be put into place until our own government starts spending more wisely and the corruption ends, but apparently 7 trillion spent on simply war and homeland security isn't enough for our government yet. The wonders we could do with 7 trillion dollars are endless...but I'm getting off topic now

I don't see how this is even remotely close to communism, most of the people here are trying to sound like they know what their talking about when they obviously don't. A program similar to the OP's idea was proposed by Huey Long during the Great Depression and it was called "Share Our Wealth", it gained a lot of movement and supporters but Long was assassinated and the program fell apart soon after. I don't see how most people could disagree with what the program proposed, just read it on Wikipedia or a history book (but who reads books anymore?) before you criticize it please. And I'll never understand why most people obsess with having the need for billions of dollars with mansions to live in anyway, I find it rather sad. Why not give back to your country, helping thousands of people instead of yourself. This isn't some program about hands outs and welfare checks, but to lower taxes. OP simply wants a balance of wealth and equal distribution of wealth within a nation, just like Huey Long did. As you can see now, there is none of that today. Instead the rich have been prospering for the past decade while everyone else has been slowly struggling. Does that seem right to anyone of you? I would like to hear why anyone thinks a person who has 300 times (number probably would be changed to something higher) the average family fortune shouldn't have a money cap. (as proposed by the Share Our Wealth) and have his/her money being put to help fund education, highways, public works programs, etc. This only creates more jobs and gives more money for people to spend and help local businesses prosper again, and local business do in fact make up most of the nations jobs. There are only a very few billionaires such as Bill Gates who have given already given away their money for good causes (about 28 Billion to charity I believe). Of course such a program could not be put into place until our own government starts spending more wisely and the corruption ends, but apparently 7 trillion spent on simply war and homeland security isn't enough for our government yet. The wonders we could do with 7 trillion dollars are endless...but I'm getting off topic now

Originally posted by Unrealised
To me, Communism is the way of the future.

According to this site, Ignorance is frowned upon, but it is the prehistoric-like fear of Communism that, to me, is a blatant red-flag that people do not understand the true miracle that Communism could be for the World.

The biggest secret of economics is that Communism is a very powerful system.

Of course, in a sick and perverted system such as Imperialism, it is called, basically, The Devil.

Get educated and elect people who aren't in it for the money.

To add to this, Communism is a perfectly workable system, only that it has been tarnished when power hungry freaks decided they can take advantage of it and become dictators.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Unrealised
To me, Communism is the way of the future.

According to this site, Ignorance is frowned upon, but it is the prehistoric-like fear of Communism that, to me, is a blatant red-flag that people do not understand the true miracle that Communism could be for the World.

The biggest secret of economics is that Communism is a very powerful system.

Of course, in a sick and perverted system such as Imperialism, it is called, basically, The Devil.

Get educated and elect people who aren't in it for the money.

To add to this, Communism is a perfectly workable system, only that it has been tarnished when power hungry freaks decided they can take advantage of it and become dictators.

Communism as in "a classless and stateless society" or communism as in the ex-ussr and china?

Big difference between the two. FYI I disagree with karl marx definitions of socialism and communism!

The real problem with the ex-ussr was that it was functioning as a dictatorship at the union level, allowing elections only at the local level. Can you imagine if you could elect not only parties but people as well within that system?

Yes communism has been tarred and feathered with republicanism rather than democracy.

reply to post by The Old American


I'm with you on the whole Communism issue.

BUT....

I too believe that there should be limits on the amount 1 person makes, with 1 caveat, and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with being "Jealous::

As recently as the '80s, the AVERAGE CEO made about 40 times what the average rank-and-file worker did, So, for instance, if the AVERAGE worker made $45k a year, then the CEO would have made $1.8 Million. I see nothing wrong with this. However, over the last two decades or so, the CEO wage has risen to as high as 1500 - 2000 times that of the average worker. I find this morally reprehensible. At the same time, the average corporation has been downsizing and outsourcing the domestic labor pool in an effort to continually increase the bottom line. I find this too to be an amoral decision.

Henry Ford, who by all accounts was NOT the most charitable of employers, STILL paid his factory employees a greater wage than any of his competitors, because he knew that 1) there would be incentive for high productivity, and 2) By paying them well, they would soon be able to purchase one of his cars.

My thought would be that rather than prohibiting anyone with a set dollar amount, either annually or over a lifetime, that it should instead be based on a percentage of the wages paid to the workers under him or her. This would not only be good for the individual, but rather for the greater economy in general. I'd say a salary cap, (including "incentives and Golden Parachutes), of perhaps 25-30 times average wages.

When I said that there's no personal jealousy on my part, it's the truth. I'm an engineer on a factory trawler in Alaska. Our "rank-and-file" employees are processors, who average around $80k annually for working a little over half of the year. As a Chief Engineer, I'm closer to $250k a year. Our company has three boats, with a total number of employees of around 400+, an annual revenue in excess of $125 Million+, and our owner & CEO makes roughly 15 times the processors wages. As a former fisherman, he realizes that if he pays his people well, they stay around, and they're motivated towards high productivity and high quality products. I'd know too, as I've worked here for over 20 years now.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by s12345

 

Hmm let's put your theory into another perspective, a hypothetical if you will...

You are an Olympic runner and are in the top 1%, you got to that 1% by training non stop every day since you can remember, you've sacrificed a lot to get where you are, to be the best you can be.

Now, someone decides that things need to be "fairer" for everyone, so a cap is put in place and you are not allowed to run faster than this cap.

You've sacrificed many things and spent a lifetime to be the best and now you're being told you can't go out there and be the best you can be because it's not "fair"

Does that sound right?

Would it be right to tell Usain Bolt that he can't go out and run under 10 seconds?

This is exactly what you are proposing by capping peoples wealth.

Very bad metaphor when discussing economic systems.
Usain Bolt can run in under 10 seconds all by himself.

But a millionaire/billionaire cannot amass wealth without:

1. Legal Infrastructure (business licenses, patent system etc)
2. Education for himself
3. An educated labor force
4. Security and fire protection
5. Roads and other shipping capabilities
6. Scientific and industrial testing services (usually via a University)
7. A legal system that prevents graft, etc.

And I could go on.

Main point being that we, our grandparents and great grandparents paid taxes into the system that created the structure that allowed some (usually by virtue of birth and inheritance) to take advantage of it in order to make their money.

I am utterly sick of hearing people say: "HE MADE HIS MONEY ALL BY HIMSELF AND SHOULD KEEP ALL OF IT." Bull#.

Obviously those people have never tried to start a company in a third world country that does not have a supportive infrastructure.
And to those who are yelling "COMMUNISM!"
Our forefathers knew there was much greater danger to the common man via Oligarchies or Monarchies. This is why they fled here to start a new system. They were very friendly to the concept of 'Commonwealth' after having lived under Monarchies.

Worst thread I have seen on ATS ever.

In comparison, many of you claiming that there should be a wealth limit have just as wide an income gap compared to the poor of many third world countries as the rich do here. How would you like it if I told you that from now on you can't make a single dime more. Everything has to be confiscated which you earn from here on out. Should you not be doing this now as you are super wealthy compared to many of the third world poor? What is stopping you from redistributing your own wealth? Oh, you just want to give away other people's property?

Most of the technology and advances you use now are made possible by business owners worth millions and billions....which probably wouldn't exist now if there were caps and business at high levels was discouraged.

Oh and you just can't turn over companies to the workers. Often companies require venture capital ...most often in the form of stock. If a successful CEO left, the stock would fall and they would lack investors and the average employee would lose their job. you just don't sign over companies to employees in the form of a commune...it just doesn't work that way.

Keep daydreaming though kiddies because instead of being successful someday, you are only going to know envy.

reply to post by s12345


WOW really? Just remember...the weath you speak of is a number..I guess your a low number if your mad at someone that has a higher one?
So let me ask you this...it should go for grades to then ..right? So in school you get an A+, little johnny gets a F..should you lower your grade and give Johnny a higher one? That way you both get a D?...

Or how about a little girl goes and says to a bumb on the street, we should give hime some money, the parents say oh, your so thoughtful, and I say, how about I hire him to do yard work and pay him? The bumb says I cannot do yard work, so I say ok how about this little girl does the work for you and I will give you(the bumb) the money...the little girl said NO thats not fair....

Even a little kid knows your idea should be in a septic tank!

Yeah but they both earned their grade: many people do not earn their wealth. In the uk there is a law about the proceeds from crime act: any person who has made money from a criminal offence should have the money AND ANY MONEY MADE FROM THAT MONEY taken off them. If this was expanded to inherited wealth the world would be a very funny place. Remember some of the rich will have inherited money made from crime perhaps though some generations back.