One person should only be so rich.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

That isn't proof they could get it back if divested of it.

It also is no proof that they obtained their wealth legally.

The drug cartels have loads of money, but the mere possession of it doesn't mean they could repeat it or that they got it ethically.

They were divested prior to gaining, so yes it is proof of the ability to gain it...

There was no discussion of legal or illegal methods mentioned, and if you have proof it was gained illegally, I suggest you bring it forward in the appropriate forum (i.e., the courts)

As far as drug cartels, they gained it before and they would gain it again, all factors remaining the same...

The philosophical basis of the OP is descriptive of an outsider looking in, petty jealousy, and a desire to remove with force that which was gained through hard work, thought, and playing cards in an appropriate manner...

Rule one: Life is unfair.

Rule two: Fairness is subjective.

Rule three: The grass just appears greener...

Originally posted by Adamanteus
Not really sure how this is supposed to work.

I start company and after 10 years have saved 100 million lbs. so what am I to do with my company now? I am certainly not going to keep running it for FREE and I cannot sell it because I would be going over the 100 million lbs I am allowed to own.

So please inform me what is to happen to this company? (Shut it down and lay off all my employees?)

edit on 24-12-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)

Exactly. You have made all you can make, so you give it to your son, daughter, wife nephew etc.....

Originally posted by nawki
reply to post by Adamanteus

 

Why can you not run it for free. You don't need any more money you have your 100mil ... ??

your still allowed to pay your employees...

You could do a lot with those spare profits.....

I Personally Can not see your point?

edit on 24-12-2011 by nawki because: Add more

If you can't see his point, you are being willfully blind. If he can no longer make anything off of his labor, why labor at all? He won't destroy the business though, his children will take over. Nothing else would change.

Originally posted by nawki


You make 100mil running your company.. Your always got 100mil because the company continues in your absence, your workers keep working... you do what ever the hell you want. holidays.. parties whatever you like.....you pay your employees great wages... give em great benefits......

That is not what would happen. The business would move to the next generation. The 99% might become 98%, that is the best you could hope for.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by cuervo

 

So you are telling me every person that got their billions were ill-gotten? Granted there are people that lie, cheat and steal to creat their empire but that goes on no matter how much money a person makes. That's not a billionaire problem, that's a human problem.

Virtually, yes, I'm telling you that there are no billionaires who have gained their money through hard work and did not victimize others. It is impossible to amass those amounts of resources in any one spot without hurting others. Do I think the solution is state-ran communism? Nope. But I definitely know better than to think that capitalism is doing any better.

There are alternatives out there we have yet to explore. When you say "people problem", I agree. And I also agree that it can be solved by people once we stop coddling these ultra-rich welfare cases.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Adamanteus

 

No, you distribute the excess profits to your employees.

They would only do that if the "employees" were relatives, friends, co-conspirators etc.... The poor would still be poor. The best way to accomplish what you want would be to end corporations and to allow small businesses a much easier/cheaper start up process.

Originally posted by s12345
I believe that there should be a limit on how much wealth one person could have: this would solve some of the worlds problems, it would mean too much power could not be in the hands of one person, help to solve inequality, and increase social mobility, less wealth at the very top would only be a good thing. Although this would be difficult to enforce I think it would be a good thing for the world. How about a maximum wealth of 100 million pounds worldwide for any individual?

Oh, and I guess you think I should only eat an 8oz steak, instead of a 20oz steak? Or drive a Volkswagon instead of a Rolls Royce, or only live in a 3 room house? You would NOT enforce it, because my wealth would keep you from doing such. That's why we ran you redcoats out of this country! This is America, not Britain!

reply to post by s12345


I've thought of this before, I liked to call it rational capitalism. Where no one individual can be a higher ratio worth of another.

No matter how well you design a system people will find ways to exploit it. A system is only as good as its vigils. Like our system now had or has rules to keep things in line. Years of apathy and corruption have allowed it to become what it is now. Plenty of great systems have been laid down, the only problem is the Great great grand children of its founders fall asleep at the wheel and give it all away.


Back to your idea, I agree that no individual should wield tremendous amount more of resources than any other. I agree that some work harder and are more productive than others and should be rewarded as such but I think that there is a rational limit to this.

All of this would require for you every day joes and jills to wake up and take responsibility of their lives. Right now the masses are content to sleep walk and so they get it. The most brilliant ideals will only go so far, you must have the community to embrace and propagate ideals into reality. So long as the cattle are well fed and warm at night, they aren't going to look for greener pastures. If they begin to starve and freeze, some may come to think that breaking through a fence or two might be worth looking into.

Capitalism has the pro of being unrestricted. This means any restriction of wealth is based on personal choice, ability and luck. How do you decide how much is enough and how much is too much? With our current system the answer is a man is worth as much as he can get. Natural selection is the governor now. To limit wealth would put governance of wealth in the hands of bureaucrats. I think the current option is better given the affinity for any body of power to fall into corruption.

There is always going to be greed and rape, this is just reality. Laws will not change this significantly, it will just add more restrictions on everyone, even those that are not greedy.

I think there should be a limit to how much wealth one individual holds. However, I do not believe it is anyone other than that individuals right to dictate the amount. I am not rich. Nowhere close.
Rich people, once they have established their "nest egg" so to speak, should find others to invest in; charities, homeless, or simply a needy family. Lift them up. Pay off someone's debt. Help them to not make financial mistakes so that they can, perhaps, one day be rich and do the same.
This is one of those "common sense" things that I have known since I was young. As long as we allow those in power now to hold on to that control over us, this remains nothing but a pipe dream.
Using your scenario of 100 million is nice but, even that would seem excessive once a person has purchased all their toys and paid bills for a lifetime. That money would just be for fun stuff like vacations, etc... That is unless you mean 100 million in lifetime assets then, maybe.
All in all it should remain a choice for the rich. Once I am rich, I will lead by example.

I think what would help even more than putting a cap or limit on a persons wealth would be to shred the beauraucracy in DC, reform the tax system (i.e. progressive tax system like Norway and Australia), cut outlays especially on the irrelevant and redundant aspects of welfare and defence, take serious steps to fight corruption, get the money out of politics, engage in a realistics, peacefull, reasonable, well-thought-out, multi-lateral and non-agressive yet pro-active foreign policy and most of all restore the peoples liberty.

If there was a cap on wealth, would it just be cash or assets? If it doesn't apply to assets then i'd just buy a ton of gold and keep buying it so i always have less then £100million cash but have far more in assets.

Also all this does essentially is revalue currency at far higher rates. So £100m will become then new £100b as everything will have to be devalued proportionately according to what has been devalued from above the cap. For example if you devalue a £300m yacht to £10m a currently priced £10m house will have to be devalued at the same rate to £300,000. so all in all you'll end up with the same situation where the super rich are just as rich as they were only with less zeros as the currency is worth more.

I will work day and night for the rest of my life knowing full well that I am most likely to fail.
I would be so fortunate if I achieved true failure.
A good failure is all I ask for, so that I may learn, dust myself off, and start again.

That's "start again".
Cap my income?
But have you started?

I am 41.
All my life I wanted to do XYZ, so I focused on nothing but that for mostly my entire life, sold everything I had when it was time to go to college so I could go, studied like mad, stayed home working when my pals went out, missed movies when the gang went to go see the latest greatest, saved every penny, left every video game shrink wrapped on the shelf…the works.
Like most of us do.
After my 9 to 5 which was over at 6:30 I would race home on the bus and
work from 8pm to 1am on my goal, and 10 years ago
decided to go for it and open the business.

After 10 years of pretty much 24-7 work ( I am on at 5am and sleep at 11pm ),
hundreds of trade shows, many a missed meal, failure upon failure and a lot less hair,
my business plan has worked out and now I run a multi million dollar business.
One which could go belly up if I make too many errors or if the good people of this
world simply no longer love my product.
I do well. I have saved almost every penny for retirement and now, finally, after 10 years,
will go on my first ever vacation.
I am no billionaire but I do well and I have money.
For now.

And you can't have a penny of it.

I give a huge chunk of it to the less fortunate live on a major morning show
once per year, and have done so for several years.

But you can't have a penny of it.

No Ferrari for me though, I drive American.
See, when you make a million, you get to live like you make 80k but not worry as much.
If you have a million, and spend a million, well then you no longer have a million.
The billionaires live like millionaires.
Millionaires live like they make $80,000.
At least the smart ones do.
The broke ones don't.
I know several millionaires and a few billionaires.
None of them bankers, all of them hard working as in bleeding out the eyeballs hard working,
all of them passionate, none of the guys and gals I know best have cheated to get there.

I also know a lot of guys making 20k or less, good friends. Good people.
Many of them hard working. Some of them come home, put in a solid one hour with their kids,
then go to the computer and write, create etc for hours until late, late at night, despite being back broken tired from the day job.

Some of my other pals get home after their 20k job and hit the bars, the xbox, and the beach,
and they spend the most. They buy the most for xmas, load up on the most food bought at restaurants as opposed to cooking at home, and they have all the newest xbox and ps3 releases.
The new iPhone. The latest samsung galaxy s2, the whole deal.
They also have the most car problems and rarely fix them right away, mostly because their money has been spent on the above.

I don't have the newest phone, my current model works perfectly.
Two fellows I know who are top 2 executives at a major US corporation still use their old blackberry bolds from ages ago, and refuse to get new ones until their current models die.

Taxes are not going down for me. Our manager, business managers, lawyers….those fees are not going down. Warehouse space, not going down. Office rent. Not going down. My incredible employees certainly not going down. Nothing is going down, but you want to cap my income?

So many of my friends who have tried as hard as me or more have failed.
Think they are going to just lay down and give up?
Nope, all of them have dusted themselves off and are going for it again.
I have failed repeatedly.

What have you done?
Show me the 200 rejection letters from publishers!
Show me the returns from the big box retailer which broke your dreams.
I see a lot of complaints, but I don't see the 200 rejection letters!
Steven King had 201 rejection letters before his first book was published.
Can you imagine if he quit after #200? But where's your 200?
Your first rejection letter even? Are you even finished with that novel yet?

This "redistribution of wealth" is all just a plot and play to get you to pretty much give up.
Your subconscious will say "why bother".
An attempt to get you to never even write your page one.
They want you to get home, exhausted , plop down, turn on the xbox, open a cold one,
and fall asleep.

You can't have my money, and you can't cap it either.
You can try, but then I close up shop and move my operations to Asia where
people kick butt working day and night just for the good fortune of being able to fail
and say they gave it their best, which is what I thought America was all about.

Cap my income and I don't spend extra on supporting others businesses, I no longer invest, and I cut back employees so my daughter can stay in school. Then I move.

99% of the 1% are not evil bankers and 99% of the 1% I know do not play xbox all day.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
I think what would help even more than putting a cap or limit on a persons wealth would be to shred the beauraucracy in DC, reform the tax system (i.e. progressive tax system like Norway and Australia), cut outlays especially on the irrelevant and redundant aspects of welfare and defence, take serious steps to fight corruption, get the money out of politics, engage in a realistics, peacefull, reasonable, well-thought-out, multi-lateral and non-agressive yet pro-active foreign policy and most of all restore the peoples liberty.

I agree with most of this, EXCEPT the "progressive" tax system. Income taxes and property taxes inevitably lead to economic slavery. Tax consumption, like the "Fair Tax"; and institute "user fees" for governmental services. Don't punish work and don't hold people's land hostage. Let us own our land instead of renting it from the government.

reply to post by UfoFaker


You outlined a life of struggle just to rake in a meager living.

Why is struggling to survive ok with you?

Why can't you see the benefit in cooperation versus competition?

In any team, the one who loses is the one who competes against itself.

Mankind is a team. We should be helping the weak rise, not making them climb on each others shoulders to get ahead.

You made it! Great!

You did not do it on your own.

You did it because of what you were given in life, and nothing more.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


it isn't a struggle, it's called working your butt off.
I love what I do.
The real struggle is when you take away that waitresses shot at writing Harry Potter, which is exactly what you want to do. What they want you to want.

Originally posted by s12345
yachts would decline in price and with them everything else.

Actually they would have to stop building those yachts, which in turn would put many people out of work. That would be great for unemployment.

How much do you think the cost is to build a mega yacht, super car, mega mansion?

A person building a 100 million dollar yacht, isn't making a profit of 100 million. I think you would be shocked to see how low the profit margin is on a mega yacht.

Mega Cars, Look a the bugatii veyron, Over 1 million a car and the company actually loses money on each of those cars after R&D and production. It took well over 100 people from start to finish to develop and build that car.

Mega Mansions? Many constructions companies barely make 10% after the home is completed, but they employ hundreds of people and multiple sub-contractors, not to mention all the materials that are required to build those homes, which come from other small businesses.


Now for the original poster, if you limit the wealth a person could attain, it could also lower the minimum a person could make. Maybe it would lower the minimum wage to $3/hour. I am sure it would be all relative. Lower cost products, mean lower profits, which in turn would translate into lower wages for the poor.

What about those that have accumulated over $100 million in wealth, the Bill Gates,the late Steve Jobs, the entrepreneur who started UPS, Fedex, ATT, etc? What incentive would they have to build a multi-billion dollar company that employs hundreds of thousands of people and work their asses off if there was a cap on the amount of wealth they could accumulate.


Better yet, what happens when they hit the 100 million dollar mark? Do they just quit working, shut their companies down. Do they have to give the rest of the money their company makes to the government, the poor? I highly doubt anyone is going to keep working for free or work so the lazy "occupy wallstreet bums" can sit back and collect a check and a corrupt government can leach of their hard work.

I am sure that would be great for innovation too. How about Charities? Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Warren Buffett, and other billionaires that not only donate billions to charities, but are actually the ones that start charities. Say goodbye to those.

All and all a cap on wealth is the dumbest idea ever. Maybe 99% of people will never attain it, but I guarantee some of those 99% sure dream that one day they might. Those are the people that strive to make the world a better place through innovation.

Cap on wealth..

Originally posted by The Old American

I know!! I can't WAIT to stand in line for toilet paper!

Wave of the future. Yeah.

OP, why do you care how much a person has? Besides jealously, of course.

/TOA

You already stand in line for Toilet Paper, and everything else for that matter.

I love when people spout off about how horrible Communism is and most of their "knowledge" comes from PSA's the US Govt put out in the 50's & 60's.

Communism is NOT flawed. Marx had an amazing idea; everybody is equal, no person is greater than their fellow man. And it is true. You are not better than I, and vice versa.

It is not the system that is flawed. It is the people that run the system that are flawed. Greed and lust for power take over almost everybody when they are put in charge of others. And until that is dealt with somehow Communism will remain as a failed idea.

So for all you people who say that Communism is bad, you guys seriously need to actually read the Manifesto or at least do some of YOUR OWN research on the subject.

Communism is a perfect society. Currently it is only perfect on paper, but someday....


As for OP: I like your idea. But unfortunately I don't see our 1% Govt ever allowing a bill like that to pass. They like their money too much.

Originally posted by s12345
I believe that there should be a limit on how much wealth one person could have: this would solve some of the worlds problems, it would mean too much power could not be in the hands of one person, help to solve inequality, and increase social mobility, less wealth at the very top would only be a good thing. Although this would be difficult to enforce I think it would be a good thing for the world. How about a maximum wealth of 100 million pounds worldwide for any individual?

50 Tons of money is definitely too much for one person to carry around.

How about a cap on wasting time?

Video games are $60.

The video game business is huge.

The average gamer is in his mid 30s to early 40s.

Video games take about 80 hours to finish each and the hours spent on FPS online games is unlimited, as the new version simply replaces the old.

Cap wealth?
If you cap something, put a cap on wasting your money, time and health
and time and go do / make / be what you're really supposed to be doing.