Here we go...
Originally posted by Ghost375
370k cap? That seems a little low.
10 million would be a pretty fair cap.
There's not a single damn reason why anyone needs multiple porsches, multiple mansions, and much more.
If I had a nickle for every time I've heard this worn out, illogical argument...well you'd probably have to cap my income.
First off, I'll address the issue of the seemingly arbitrary numbers being thrown around here. Why 10 million? Why not 15 million? And why 370k for
that matter? Why don't we have our omniscient Federal government just calculate exactly how much is needed for you to survive, and tax anything above
that - which is actually what they do in North Korea (and I hear it's working out great for them). That's your first problem. You assume that the
central authority (or any singular authority, including the omniscient 'majority' in a pure Democracy) that collects taxes can somehow have all the
knowledge in the world, and determine (objectively) what is 'fair' for someone to keep.
Secondly, on the whole issue of the Porsches/mansions/etc. I love how some people simply assume that every millionaire blows all their money on luxury
goods. Every hear of investing? It's this neat trick where you give your money to someone else, so that they can use it to create/provide goods and
services for a profit, and in return pay you for helping to fund their operations (which, as a side-effect, tends to create the demand for labor -
jobs). You can also store your money in a bank, and provide more assets for that bank, which can in turn loan more money out to - say - someone who
need to buy a home (I won't go in to the monstrosity of a 'big bank' system that we currently have, thanks in no small part to the Federal Reserve -
that's a whole different animal).
Even if they did blow all their money on mansions and cars - a stupid move on their part - so what? Do you think that money just disappears into a
black hole of caviar and cigar smoke? I'll give you a hint: somebody had to build that car - and that mansion - and they probably weren't a
millionaire. But they wouldn't even have a job in the first place if that 'greedy millionaire' didn't have such extravagant tastes.
And there's not a single damn person who did so much work that he actually deserves those things.
And who exactly are you to decide what people 'deserve'? Tell me, oh mighty and all-knowing master, what is it that I deserve
I think one of my favorite quotes from anyone is by Milton Friedman: "Look how people vote with their feet." It describes - very eloquently - how you
can very easily see what kind of society people want to live in by where they go. For example, I attend a private university (no loans, and I didn't
come 'from money'; I got here by my own hard work), and we have a relatively large portion of European/Asian foreign students who came to study here.
Let's take for example some students I know from Denmark - where higher education is free to any citizen. Why would they come here and pay for school
when they could get it for free? Because the private university system in the United States is, by far, the best in the world and provides them the
greatest opportunity for success.
As bad a shape as the US is in now, the immigration/visa waiting list - which is in part due to the incompetency of the Federal Government - is still
on the order of millions. That data speaks volumes as well.
Originally posted by MaryStillToe
While I think that $370,000 is way too low, I agree with the concept that Jean-Luc Mélenchon is proposing.
Healthy and well-balanced communities require a high degree of proudctivity, both collectively and individually. If certain individuals are "sitting
on" excess wealth, then those resources are not being used productively and are simply going to waste.
Pardon my French - no pun intended - but what the heck does "sitting on excess wealth" mean? Is it so bad that people are stuffing money into their
mattresses again? See my above explanation on how banking and investment works.
The cap would force the wealthy to become productive members of the societies they live in and benefit from. They would choose between using their
excess resources constructively or having it taken away.
- All excess wealth would be invested, given to charitable organizations, or used to compensate employees.
- Reduces the incentives and vehicles that enable greed and hoarding of resources.
You don't have to force investors to become productive members of society - just remove the capital gains tax if you want more investment. And nothing
'enables' greed - you can't disable greed with taxes any more than you can create a moral obligation within someone with a law
I do think that an annual cap of $2,000,000 for individuals and up to $3,000,000 for people with children or dependents would be more than fair.
Invest, Employ, or Lose It.
Ugh...again with the arbitrary numbers. Please see my above explanation on that.
edit on 19-4-2012 by CaptainIraq because: forgot the
edit on 19-4-2012 by CaptainIraq because: (no reason given)