# Wealth Cap? - (Polls closed; thanks to all!)



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Either in income, or in net worth?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Ummmmm, no.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

lol

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Let's try and discuss it with some intelligence.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Too hard to regulate, and a horrible temptation to rapacious governments once it gets accepted.

I think the best solution to this is actually something like what we have in the US-- a progressive but not punitive income tax, plus a decent-sized estate tax on estates over a certain size. Remove the estate tax and it gets too easy to leave amazingly huge sums of money behind. As things stand, it is certainly possible to maintain family wealth but it requires some combination of enterprising investments, actual wealth generation, modest living, or willingness to marry for yet more money. 

I don't object to people coming into enough of an inheritance to go to grad school, buy the first apartment, or join the country club. I don't like the idea, however, of inherited fortunes being so large that they can influence public opinion or the lives of others beyond the family circle. It's the difference between "**** you money" and "**** everyone money."

Just my $.02.


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

JLPWCXIII, what do you feel is the best argument *for* a weath cap?


__________

Fair and softly goes far.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

If you read the posts I made in that other thread I am sure you know my opinion on the matter. All taxation is essentially theft.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I disagree with a total ban on taxation.

However, communism tried to place a wealth cap on society and has failed miserably.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> If you read the posts I made in that other thread I am sure you know my opinion on the matter. All taxation is essentially theft.


 Well no, taxation is taxation, and theft is theft. Taxation is the legal requisition by a government of a portion of money it has already printed - and theft is what citizens do when they refuse to pay their tax.


----------



## JohnnyVegas (Nov 17, 2005)

No, nor should their be a progressive tax system, nor should the government have any control over it (nevermind the structure and size of the government).

Restricting the limit on people's earnings is a ludicrous idea. The highest earners and those with the most wealth in the world are entrepreneurs. Why would you want to penalize the people who fuel the economy and create jobs? In the end, it would moderately affect them, since they would still be extremely wealthy, while it would seriously affect everyone else since there would be less economic growth, fewer businesses, and fewer jobs available. The rich stay rich and everyone else would fight over a weaker economy.


----------



## LPinFla (Jan 7, 2005)

If there was a wealth cap I'd wear it proudly. One size fits all.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Yes. And I believe there should be a "happiness cap" and a "Too good-looking cap" and a "really nice head of hair" cap. There should also be a "cleaverness cap" and a "too well-loved cap."

Everyone shoudld be equally miserable in every way.

Regards,


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JohnnyVegas_
> 
> No, nor should their be a progressive tax system, nor should the government have any control over it (nevermind the structure and size of the government).
> 
> Restricting the limit on people's earnings is a ludicrous idea. The highest earners and those with the most wealth in the world are entrepreneurs. Why would you want to penalize the people who fuel the economy and create jobs? In the end, it would moderately affect them, since they would still be extremely wealthy, while it would seriously affect everyone else since there would be less economic growth, fewer businesses, and fewer jobs available. The rich stay rich and everyone else would fight over a weaker economy.


 Many of the richest people in the world have inherited it. Would Mr Gates stop being productive if he was permitted to only keep twenty billion USD?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by In Mufti_
> 
> Yes. And I believe there should be a "happiness cap" and a "Too good-looking cap" and a "really nice head of hair" cap. There should also be a "cleaverness cap" and a "too well-loved cap."
> 
> ...


 We are talking about financial richness, and how wealth is distributed. Your straw-man fallacy evades the issue.

There are many people who have more money than they would be able to spend even if they spent a hundred-thousand USD per day for the rest of their lives, and many other people who cannot even afford enough food to have the energy to walk.

It amazes me that some of the same people who see nothing wrong with this disparity will also speak eloquently about the equality of human beings - with no trace of irony.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> I disagree with a total ban on taxation.
> 
> However, communism tried to place a wealth cap on society and has failed miserably.


And Sweden tried it and is doing rather well.

But I guess communism is nazis when you're discussing economics. As soon as someone drags them out, discussion's over. It's dogma time!

Capitalism is the one true way. Trust not the heretic. An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> There are many people who have more money than they would be able to spend even if they spent a hundred-thousand USD per day for the rest of their lives, and many other people who cannot even afford enough food to have the energy to walk.


That's true, but it's also true that high taxation tends to prompt the rich to leave places where it appears.

Wealth isn't a zero-sum proposition - just because one person has more doesn't mean that there is less for everyone else. It might be true if the rich person lives in an isolated castle somewhere rolling around in a pool full of cash, but the rich tend to build, spend, employ others, etc.

I do object to CEOs making off with fat golden parachutes after screwing up companies, however.


----------



## dah328 (Sep 27, 2003)

I think there should be a cap on the intelligence level of the smartest nation.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

I think there should be a cap on how many times you get to strawman an argument. Reaching the cap incurs a hilarious amount of beatings.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Many of the richest people in the world have inherited it. Would Mr Gates stop being productive if he was permitted to only keep twenty billion USD?


Practically speaking, inherited wealth isn't a big economic concern. In a free economy money has an uncanny ability to flow towards the productive and away from the non-productive. In short, people who inherit economic resources either put it to good use or lose it.

Ironically the reason why families like the Rockefellers are wealthy today is primarily because their wealth was built up before high government taxation. Income and commercial taxes don't worry people who have big trust funds built up by their great-grandparents. They only worry productive people starting out with nothing who are trying to build a fortune.

As to Bill Gates, it is hard to say what an individual will do. But generally it is a simple economic reality that people don't like working for free. People work because they want a reward for their labors. If Bill Gates hits the wealth cap and working more nets him $0 of additional reward, what incentive does he have to work? When you extrapolate the actions of millions of individuals acting in rational reaction to a wealth cap, you end up with people refusing to work any more than is required to reach the cap.

And the sad thing is that the people penalized by the cap aren't the unproductive losers, they are the most productive, most able members of society.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. That is exactly my point: Who is to be the judge of when someone has too much of something? It's much more basic and important than the details of tax structures. I have a very modest income by western standards, yet to someone in India or China, I probably have "too much." The possibiliteis for abuse are legion.

Regards,


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

A wealth tax? Only in conjunction with a tax on the stupid. Lets have a simple flat tax - first 20 K deductible and than no deductions whatsoever. I bet the truly wealthy would wind up paying more. The only negative I could see is that it might reduce charitble contributions - and private charity in the US has created what I believe is the strongest civil society in the world.

Karl


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

No.

Call it taxation, stealing, fairness, progressive whatsitwhoisits, you are taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to other people. It's morally repugnant.

Poverty is also morally repugnant, which is why the ineffectual welfare system is such an awful idea. The best remedy for poverty is creating more jobs, and you don't create more jobs by taking money away from those who create jobs.

CEO's making huge paychecks for underperformance is morally repugnant as well, and is why I don't invest in those companies, as the ability of their governing bodies is very much in question.


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


 Explain more how CEOs deduct their own salaries in order to create jobs please.


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> And the sad thing is that the people penalized by the cap aren't the unproductive losers, they are the most productive, most able members of society.


I can't say it any better myself. While the intentions of a wealth cap are noble the implications of such a cap are disgusting.

Sure there are billionaires who greedily hoard money but I would be willing to bet that the total amount of wealth hoarded by billionaires is significantly less than the amount that they will give back to society. Ridiculous you say? Well the top two billionaires alone put the amount to be donated way ahead of the amount to be hoarded. Warren Buffett plans to donate *all* of his 40 billion to charity and Bill Gates plans to give his children somewhere on the order of 10 million each which is less than 99.9% of what he currently has.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

[/quote] We are talking about financial richness, and how wealth is distributed. Your straw-man fallacy evades the issue.

There are many people who have more money than they would be able to spend even if they spent a hundred-thousand USD per day for the rest of their lives, and many other people who cannot even afford enough food to have the energy to walk.

It amazes me that some of the same people who see nothing wrong with this disparity will also speak eloquently about the equality of human beings - with no trace of irony.

[/quote]

Have you considered living a spartan lifestyle so that you can contribute a maximum amount of your extra money to help the starving of the world?

I would suggest that this might be an appropriate measure before you propose that another has more than he needs, and that it should forcibly be taken from him. By standards of the poorest of the poor, you have much, so much more than you need. How many lives could you personally save by donating the money could easily save if you adopted an austere lifestlye? Can you justify living in such comparative luxury while others are starving?

My guess is that you will buy yourself a nice meal tomorrow or the next day. Probably some very nice article of clothing, or two or three before the end of the month. A good pair of shoes in the near future. Mabye that new car this year. Vacation will be coming up this summer. Are you enjoying that computer and hi-speed internet connection? Nice, isn't it?

Can you imagine that to that person who cannot afford enough food to have the energy to walk, you look an awful lot like Bill Gates.

Impose a wealth cap on yourself immediately if you truly think this is the way things should be. Is there any reason to wait for the government?

(I guess at this point I need not say that I am against the cap idea)


----------



## visionology (Sep 28, 2005)

I don't believe in a wealth cap for the reason that if you work hard for your money who is anyone to take it away from you? The same with inheriting money, if your parents or relatives worked hard and wish for you to have their money then why should anyone dispute their wishes? 

The biggest problem for me with the super wealthy is that wealth builds wealth while those who are middle income are often stuck in middle income. The interest on their dividends are more than most people make in a year, they can plunk down cash on million dollar homes for the sole purpose of them doubling in a few years, they have more opportunities to make even more money than anyone from any lower class. I suppose it really isn't a problem, I just find it somewhat disturbing how much easier it is to make lots of money once you have money.

Also what disgusts me is making money at the expense of others. I realize this happens every day and is a part of business but it disturbs me nonetheless. My example is a company that I consult for.. They were recently bought by another company, upon approval of course by the board. The CEO has the audacity to send out emails saying everyone's service was appreciated while taking his 6figure bonus from the deal while 60% of the workforce will be laid off. Basically they where working to put a huge bonus in his pocket while sending themselves to an ultimate doom.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

Well if by wealth cap you mean a harshly punitive taxation or other means of gov't "redistribution" of wealth, then I would say yes.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Irony is for decadent Eurotrash; earnest stupidity rules the life of the mind here in The Greatest Country in the History of the World. I mean, really: what would happen at a dinner party in, say, Stockholm if several pugnacious men began shouting that "taxation is theft!" or "childless couples are parasites!" In my experience, if such fellows persisted in voicing their "opinions" the other guests would bundle them into a closet and summon the medical men straightaway, as even severe drunkeness would not explain such deranged ravings. Here in God's Country, one can scarcely escape such outbursts; and with the advent of the Internet . . . well, you know.

But such earnest stupidity has it uses: it allows the owners of the our country to do all kinds of interesting things. For instance the richest one percent (1%) of American families holds thirty-three percent (33%)of the net worth, and forty percent (40%) of the financial wealth in the country. The top twenty percent of households holds eighty-four percent (84% percent) of net worth, and ninety-one percent percent (91%) of financial wealth. (Those outside the this top quintile are the the "unproductive losers" much disdained by friend Vladimir.) In an ostensibly free and democratic society, such grotesque - and growing - disparities in wealth are only possible where the population has been rendered docile and impotent by a colossal propaganda program. So it is here. It was not always thus; or it was not always _so_ thus. In 1959 more than twenty-two percent (22.4% actually) of Americans lived below the established poverty line. When this fairly shocking fact became widely known, public outcry prompted the state to take action. As part of the massive propaganda program, these efforts are now almost universally derided, which conveniently ignores the fact that they were, by and large, successful: by 1973 the number of Americans living below the poverty line fell to 11.1%. Real wages rose, and corporate profit rates declined during most of this time, as well. There are many reasons for this; however, the upshot was that more of the wealth created by the American people was being distributed to the people. This couldn't last, of course, and it didn't. The rollback began in the early 1970s with the collapse of Bretton Woods and crested with Volcker's "shock therapy" in 1979. The Reaganites rode the coattails of this development and pumped up the volume. Real wages for working people stagnated and corporate profits began to climb: happy days were here again. Trouble loomed in 1989 and 2000, but successive financial bubbles, and extremely loose credit, have kept the illusion of widespread wealth going. We shall see how long it lasts.

Clearly, if the US were a sane and just society, it would adopt policies that redistribute to its citizens more of the wealth those citizens create. These would not include a "cap" on personal wealth, but they would include measures to reduce the growing disparities between rich and poor; and they certainly would _not_ include such things as substanial tax breaks for its wealthiest citizens or abolishing the estate tax. But sanity and justice have little purchase in this City on a Hill. World-wide peonage is the ideal, and those holding the keys to the iron cage do not intend to rest from their labors until that ideal is achieved. If I were betting, my money would be on the cagers, not the caged.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Why is a disparity in wealth such a bad thing exactly? People seem to speak of a growing disparity in wealth, or a large disparity in wealth as an inherently evil thing, which I don't understand.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

I know! I can't understand why poor people don't like being poor! What's so bad about it!?!

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> I know! I can't understand why poor people don't like being poor! What's so bad about it!?!


 Trying to put your sarcasm aside for a moment. Your response implies that this condition can only be resolved by taking wealth from the producers and giving it to "the poor". Is that what you intended?


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's no point trying to reason with LWD. Perhaps he'll change his ways, but thus far all he's done is mock other people's posts while adding nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

No, my response implies that only an unrelenting and determined idiot would believe that an enourmous and wideneing wealth disparity couldn't possibly be bad. Unreasonable, really, I know.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> No, my response implies that only an unrelenting and determined idiot would believe that an enourmous and wideneing wealth disparity couldn't possibly be bad. Unreasonable, really, I know.


Seriously. Your sarcasm is so thick that I can't even determine what it is that you are proposing. Can we just talk about this rationally? What do YOU believe?


----------



## mgnov (Jan 11, 2006)

I'm hoping more for a poverty floor. [xx(]


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by In Mufti_
> 
> Yes. And I believe there should be a "happiness cap" and a "Too good-looking cap" and a "*really nice head of hair*" cap.


I have sworn off all threads political but I must comment on the idea of limiting good hair... there's me and then there is Sam Malone so...
Damn that!

www.carlofranco.com
Seven Fold Ties
Handmade in Italy


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

I support any and all government regulation that prevents Bill Gates' company from ever producing anything again.

Thank you, that is all.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your response assumes that those who have wealth are "producers". Even if they are producers, I alway like to reckon the backs upon which they produce.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> I support any and all government regulation that prevents Bill Gates' company from ever producing anything again.
> 
> Thank you, that is all.


Of the trillionaires, Gates seems to be one of the more reasonable ones, I think.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, no doubt, and his charity is impressive.

But his products are pure evil.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> Clearly, if the US were a sane and just society, it would adopt policies that redistribute to its citizens more of the wealth those citizens create. These would not include a "cap" on personal wealth, but they would include measures to reduce the growing disparities between rich and poor; and they certainly would _not_ include such things substanial tax breaks for its wealthiest citizens or abolishing the estate tax. But sanity and justice have little purchase in this City on a Hill. World-wide peonage is the ideal, and those holding the keys to the iron cage do not intend to stop until that ideal is achieved. If I were betting, my money would be on the cagers, not the caged.
> 
> "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


Clearly, this is the only argument that can be made for a wealth cap, and for progressive taxation as a whole. The problem is that it is a plea and not an argument. It is simply based on the belief that there is a morally right way and a morally wrong way.

I do not believe that there should be a wealth cap. If a government is going to function for all of its citizens, the only economic goal can be maximizing the total wealth of a nation. Redistribution takes money from those with the highest returns on capital and gives it to those with the lowest. On top of that, there is an administrative tarrif paid to the government which has virtually no return on capital. Together, these destroy the total worth of the nation. Wealth distribution cannot be managed by a central power. First of all, it does not work. The further up the chain that economic decisions are made, the less efficient they tend to be. Second of all, such a system puts the government in the position of choosing who is worthy and who is not. I am sure that those on the left would say that capitalism does the same thing, but it does not. It simply sets up a framework in which the various consumers individually decide whose product is worthy, and who will benefit.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> Explain more how CEOs deduct their own salaries in order to create jobs please.


Macroeconomics 101 - Those with disposable income do not stuff it under their mattress. Income that they don't spend, they either put in a bank or investments. Either way, it makes money cheaper, or increases the amount of venture capital available, which is important to those who are starting new business, or expanding an existing business. New business creates jobs, and expands the economy (it's not a zero sum equation, regardless of what Marx would like you to belive 

This is why capital gains taxes are particularly nasty, they make it more expensive to invest in business, and particularly increases the risk of investing in new business (the risk being a net loss in profit from investing in a potentially low profit startup stock, in comparison to a higher profit estabilshed stock.)

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

I don't have a problem with anyone's wealth but, $ seems to have the most influence on the government. I am not so sure that is the best motivater of any policy.

Not to hijack this thread but, what about a limit on how much wealth a company can have (as opposed to a person)? It seems that once companies get so large they become destructive. (I am speaking in generalities to keep this post short)

For example; Verizon. I pick them because I just went through hours on the phone with customer service, several trips to multiple verizon stores, hours on the internet trying to email them, just to buy a new phone and update my long standing contract. It was a mess. 

They made it almost impossible to buy a phone and contract from them. 

Maybe a company like that can get so big financially and then they have to split themselves. In other words, there could be as many verizons as needed but when they get so big financially they must split into another one of themselves. 

Maybe WalMart would be a better example?

If a company like that were smaller, I imagine every aspect of the company would be more manageable, accessible, knoweledgeable, and the working environment would be better. The company would be easier to moniter, easier to deal with, have less corruption(?), be easier to police, have more accountability? 

Or am I just dreaming...


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

Originally posted by JLPWCXIII



> quote: Many of the richest people in the world have inherited it. Would Mr Gates stop being productive if he was permitted to only keep twenty billion USD?


If you examine the Forbes 400 list, you can read about the sources of wealth for these wealthiest people. You will learn that the vast majority of them created their own wealth, mostly by founding businesses. Even some of those few who inherited their wealth have contributed to its expansion and contributed to the growth of the enterprises they inherited.

Why would you want to limit the income of Bill Gates? Envy? Do you think he obtained it illegally?


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_



> quote:There are many people who have more money than they would be able to spend even if they spent a hundred-thousand USD per day for the rest of their lives, and many other people who cannot even afford enough food to have the energy to walk.


Okay. So, do you support the notion of Robin Hood government? Communism? What?



> quote:It amazes me that some of the same people who see nothing wrong with this disparity will also speak eloquently about the equality of human beings - with no trace of irony.


Do you think that humans are equal? In what ways? In the US, we assert that all citizens are treated equally under the law. While this is not true (consider OJ), it is at least the intent of our legal system. Meanwhile, humans are very unequal in whatever you want to measure.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Getting back to the CEO thing, I have no problem with people who own the company getting a huge salary.

Overpaid CEO's who do not own a share of the company are for the most part ripping off the system and the stockholders. Who is to say that someone could not do a comparable job for just 1 or 2 million a year?

Maybe the profits really are there just because of this one person. In most cases, there is probably more to the profit than one person.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> Getting back to the CEO thing, I have no problem with people who own the company getting a huge salary.
> 
> Overpaid CEO's who do not own a share of the company are for the most part ripping off the system and the stockholders.


Can you give us 2-3 examples of overpaid CEOs who do not own a share of the companies they manage? As you know, CEO stock holdings must be published, per SEC regulations. I have never seen an example that matches your comment. Who are these people?



> quote:Who is to say that someone could not do a comparable job for just 1 or 2 million a year?


The issue is one for the individual corporations to decide. If their shareholders have a problem with the way the company is being run, they can vote the board of directors out. Do you think that the federal government should set executive salaries?


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> It amazes me that some of the same people who see nothing wrong with this disparity will also speak eloquently about the equality of human beings - with no trace of irony.[/size=2]


I see no irony. I can't speak for other nations but in the United States we strive for equality among people. How? By treating everyone equally. It doesn't always happen but each year we get a little closer. We are not, however, in any position to start making people equal. People are born different and there's nothing you can do about that. The fairest, most just thing to do is to treat people equally.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

The Federal government has been trying to set a wealth cap ever since the 16th Amendment was passed (perhaps illegally). The ludicrous tax system we currently have is a unfair attempt for the government to decide who is worthy of money and who is not. The only safe bet is to dismantle income taxation and institute a sales tax. Thus, a person could regulate their taxation by changing their consumption habits and would not be punished for accumulating wealth. Further, the feds should get out of the business entirely and leave it to the states. Finally, any increase in net rate of taxation should be subject to popular vote.

It is not my point to say that taxation is bad per se. But taxation should be held at the minimal amount required to fund the necessary functions of the government (read: nix the IRS, most of HHS, the Dept of Ed, HUD, and many, many more).

CT


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> I do not believe that there should be a wealth cap. If a government is going to function for all of its citizens, the only economic goal can be maximizing the total wealth of a nation. Redistribution takes money from those with the highest returns on capital and gives it to those with the lowest. On top of that, there is an administrative tarrif paid to the government which has virtually no return on capital. Together, these destroy the total worth of the nation. Wealth distribution cannot be managed by a central power. First of all, it does not work. The further up the chain that economic decisions are made, the less efficient they tend to be. Second of all, such a system puts the government in the position of choosing who is worthy and who is not. I am sure that those on the left would say that capitalism does the same thing, but it does not. It simply sets up a framework in which the various consumers individually decide whose product is worthy, and who will benefit.


_Only_ economic goal? Surely this can't be the whole story. Hypothetically: a nation with 10 families who are worth 1,000 trillion dollars and a populace who are paupers has I suppose more "total wealth" than one of an equal population-size in which only 500 trillion dollars are more evenly distributed. But which would you choose to live in?

I have no doubt that a society in which no "redistribution" is attempted by government taxation would have a more "efficient" economy than one with a progressive income tax. But that doesn't alter my desire to live in a society with a progressive income tax in the least. Call this a moral position if you must.

Stap my vitals!


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

_Originally posted by iammatt_



> quote:Clearly, this is the only argument that can be made for a wealth cap, and for progressive taxation as a whole. The problem is that it is a plea and not an argument. It is simply based on the belief that there is a morally right way and a morally wrong way.


I know that we are all writing hurriedly here, but please note that I did not argue in favor of a cap on wealth. There will always be disparities of wealth and income, for many reasons. However, the more pernicious effects of these disparities can, and have, been mitigated by intelligent state action.



> quote:I do not believe that there should be a wealth cap. If a government is going to function for all of its citizens, the only economic goal can be maximizing the total wealth of a nation. Redistribution takes money from those with the highest returns on capital and gives it to those with the lowest. On top of that, there is an administrative tarrif paid to the government which has virtually no return on capital. Together, these destroy the total worth of the nation.


I am presently about half-way through a massive two-volume study of social spending by Peter H. Lindert, Distinguished Professor of Economics at UC Davis. Based upon his research Professor Lindert reaches nine conclusions. For the moment, numbers seven and nine are the most pertinent:



> quote#7) The net national costs of social transfers, and of the taxes that finance them, are essentially zero. They do not bring the GDP costs that much of the Anglo-American literature has imagined. Accordingly, differences in these costs play almost no role in either the rise or the deceleration in social spending's share. No Darwinian mechanism has punished the bigger spenders.
> 
> (#9) Two general principles seem to explain why the welfare state does not net damage to GDP per capita and why welfare states will not collapse. The first is that high budget democracies show more care in choosing the design of taxes and transfers so as to avoid compromising growth. The second is that broad universalism in taxes and entitlements fosters growth better than the low-budget countries' preference for strict means testing and complicated tax compromises. Lindert _Growing Public: Vol. 1 Social Spending and Economic Growth Since The Eighteenth Century_ (Cambridge 2004)p. 21.


Regarding #7 Lindert further explains:



> quote:It might seem as though a central explanation of countries' social-spending trends has been missed. Doesn't a large welfare-state establishment drag down growth and doesn't this loss of income tend to choke off the advance of the social spending itself?
> 
> Such intuition draws on a standard economic imagination that most economists share. We imagine an experiment in which Country A wisely holds down social spending while Country B raises it to a third of GDP, raising marginal tax rates on both the taxpayers and the recipients. Both the taxpayers and the recipients respond by working less and taking less productive risk, thereby lowering GDP.
> 
> The problem with this consensus is that the data refuse to confess that things work out that way . . . Manipulating statistical techniques my yet unlock the puzzle and show large negative effects of taxes and social spending on growth. So far, though, no negative effects look robust in international perspective or even in interstate contrasts within the United States. _Ibid_ at p. 30.


These snippets provide only glimpse of the richness and detail of Professor Lindert's study; but the essential point is that an analysis of the available data refutes the commonplace belief that social-spending as a significant portion of GDP creates steep disincentives; it further indicates that policy decisions regarding the degree of social spending - which reduces the disparities in wealth between rich and poor - are driven by politics, not economics.



> quote:Wealth distribution cannot be managed by a central power. First of all, it does not work.


This disputable, to be sure. Much central planning is successful, and has been successful in the past. But I'm not really an advocate of five-year plans, so we can move on.



> quote:The further up the chain that economic decisions are made, the less efficient they tend to be.


Does this not argue in favor of workplace democracy and the elimination of economic hierarchies? That is something that needs to be explored in _much_ greater depth.



> quote:Second of all, such a system puts the government in the position of choosing who is worthy and who is not.


Agreed. I don't see this as a significant problem.



> quote:I am sure that those on the left would say that capitalism does the same thing, but it does not. It simply sets up a framework in which the various consumers individually decide whose product is worthy, and who will benefit.


In some cases; in some cases not. Take the example of Microsoft, that Tiger02 alluded to above. How have consumers "decided" that Microsoft products are the worthiest in their market niches? Microsoft scarcely eliminated its competition by prevailing in a perfectly frictionless world of consumer choice. It waged economic warfare on its competitors and crushed them one by one, not by building a better digital mousetrap, but by using powers of monopoly and market dominance straight out of the 19th century. Little decisive consumer choice was involved.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

The Democrats have always been smart about trying to be sure the general population has enough money and material goods to be placated.
Most people are not interested in trying to make a fortune but they do get testy when they don't have enough dinero to get medical care or can't find the dollars to send their kids to college, or have a decent car or buy a house,the one avenue to wealth building left to the middle class.

There shouldn't be a cap on wealth but there needs to be an understanding among the populace that taxation does more than care for the poor.I'm surprised how many don't know that federal taxes are returned to states for the imrovement of roads, bridges,etc,etc.
The idea that taxation is theft can weaken a civilised society.

For those that feel everyone should fend for themselves it might be useful to look at the root causes of the wars currently being waged
around the globe. 

The growing disparity of income in the US is going to eventually threaten the stability of the country. 
The idea that anyone can become wealthy without limitation, no matter how improbable that idea is, is the glue presently holding America together.






mk


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

I am rather surprised that nobody yet has really answered my question asking why disparity in wealth is an inherently bad thing. The closest thing to an answer seems to be an assumption that disparity leads to unrest and instability. But of course most of the longest-lasting societies and civilizations are Earth were ones with much greater disparities in wealth than we currently or ever have had in America. 

And with regard to Microsoft. Do you honestly think Microsoft started out as an enormous corporation with the economic power to crush competitors? Where was Microsoft in 1970? Where is IBM today? Microsoft grew large because they acted as producers and traders of goods. People bought Microsoft products of their own free will for their own rational reasons. Microsoft obviously provides some value or else it wouldn't have grown to what it is today, it would merely be just another failed tech start-up. 

If you have a problem with Microsoft, you have the ability to not do business with them. If enough people have problems with Microsoft, the company will either change, reduce in size, or go out of business. That is the essence of the free market. 

The most destructive kind of monopoly is not a private monopoly which simply has a large market share, it is the public-created monopoly which exists due to government restrictions on access to the industry. These monopolies consist of things like trade unions, city utility companies, Federal/State/Local financial institutions, the FCC and many other government or government-sponsored entities. These are the insidious monopolies because they are not responsive to consumer demand and can't be unseated from their position except through the exercise of political pull, bribery or power.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> There shouldn't be a cap on wealth but there needs to be an understanding among the populace that taxation does more than care for the poor.I'm surprised how many don't know that federal taxes are returned to states for the imrovement of roads, bridges,etc,etc.


Right, the fed takes out a chunk of your paycheck, and it's up to your congressional reps to beg for it back. If you're lucky and have a powerful congressional rep, they can trade favors for dollars, and you get more back coming to your state. Can you say pork barrel politics? I can't see how this an efficient distribution of tax monies.



> quote:
> For those that feel everyone should fend for themselves it might be useful to look at the root causes of the wars currently being waged
> around the globe.


Most of these warzones are in developing countries with failed socialist economies.



> quote:
> The growing disparity of income in the US is going to eventually threaten the stability of the country.


I think we are in an industrial revolution-type situation. The US is shifting from a manufacturing economy to an information and services economy. During these changes there has historically been a shift of capital up the food chain, eventually balancing out with everybody better off. Japan saw a similar shift decades ago, and came out better for it (though they are currently seeing an economic slowdown due to other factors.)

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> I am rather surprised that nobody yet has really answered my question asking why disparity in wealth is an inherently bad thing. The closest thing to an answer seems to be an assumption that disparity leads to unrest and instability. But of course most of the longest-lasting societies and civilizations are Earth were ones with much greater disparities in wealth than we currently or ever have had in America.
> 
> ...


All this talk of disparity is bewildering, the most recent data suggests more and more people are making the jump from middle class to upper class. I'm confused as to why this is a bad thing, it has not come at the expense of the poor, whose numbers have remained relatively low in comparison to any other developed economy.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I do not think the federal government should set the salaries. However, a salary established by a board full of cronies is not really set by a free market, either.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> 
> The Democrats have always been smart about trying to be sure the general population has enough money and material goods to be placated.
> Most people are not interested in trying to make a fortune but they do get testy when they don't have enough dinero to get medical care or can't find the dollars to send their kids to college, or have a decent car or buy a house,the one avenue to wealth building left to the middle class.
> ...


I don't think most reasonable people believe that taxation is theft... just _excessive_ taxation. Raising taxes makes wealth-building harder for the people in the lower middle who would like to jump into investing for their future and buy houses, not the very rich.

There will always be rich people who have more money than they know what to do with, and there will always be an underclass who are there for reasons beyond their control (and for some reasons which are not beyond their control.) Sometimes finding a better life or a better job mean moving to a state with more opportunity, taking risks, working two jobs, going to school at night, etc. When we start punishing those who make these efforts when they pay off, in favor of those who say it just isn't fair that they can't move up without similar efforts, who is served?

It's not an improbable myth than anybody can build wealth. It takes effort, though. The idea that since wealth exists in the US everyone should just share it without putting in effort is utopian.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> I don't think most reasonable people believe that taxation is theft... just _excessive_ taxation. Raising taxes makes wealth-building harder for the people in the lower middle who would like to jump into investing for their future and buy houses, not the very rich.
> 
> ...


To play devil's advocate...

Theft is illegal, and so is murder. Many of us (especially in Europe) believe that the death penalty is murder. The fact that it is state sanctified does not change what it is. Why does the same logic not apply to taxation?


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> To play devil's advocate...
> 
> Theft is illegal, and so is murder. Many of us (especially in Europe) believe that the death penalty is murder. The fact that it is state sanctified does not change what it is. Why does the same logic not apply to taxation?


Sure. But the death penalty is still there.

Abortion is another example, but if you don't believe in taxes, you can't just not pay taxes, ala just not having an abortion.

My mind is fogged with NyQuil. Hmm.

*"Buy the best, and you will only cry once." - Chinese proverb*


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

OK. I'll bite. 

What should this cap be? And who gets to decide?

What should one do when he reaches this point?

I know what I would do. I would shut down my business. Fire all my employees, sell my houses (thereby terminating the payment of property taxes, utility payments, yardmen, housekeepers, cable, phone, etc) then move to the islands. I would then spend my money there, stimulating the economy of said destination. Then once I got my balance diminished sufficiently that I could once again be allowed to return, I would consider moving back. But I would probably just change my mind and stay on the island to build my businesses where I would be taxed far less (if any at all) and where the workers would appreciate the new commerce and opportunity to work for a living at one of our companies.

But that's just me. What would YOU do?


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> 
> There shouldn't be a cap on wealth but there needs to be an understanding among the populace that taxation does more than care for the poor.I'm surprised how many don't know that federal taxes are returned to states for the imrovement of roads, bridges,etc,etc.
> The idea that taxation is theft can weaken a civilised society.


Ummmm. Why does money go from me to the IRS (where a cut is taken) then back to the states? If the states need the money, would it not make more sense for them to tax me directly? Why does the federal government get the idea that it's OK for it bribe/blackmail the states with my money? States should take care of roads, bridges, etc by themselves. The federal government should stick to things that cannot reasonably be done by the states (printing currency, international trade & treaties, the military, etc). Things should be handled by the lowest level of government possible, not the highest.

CT


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> Many of us (especially in Europe) believe that the death penalty is murder. The fact that it is state sanctified does not change what it is.


Sure it does -- 'Murder' is state-defined. You may personally find the practice morally repugnant, but it's still not 'murder'.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So is theft.

My point is that many on the left would like to legalize one and not the other. That is fine, but I think that it is important to see the inconsistency of the argument.

Personally, I am anti-theft, anti-murder, anti-death penalty and anti-taxes.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Poor people spend more of their income than the rich. So doesn't your argument support the notion of a wealth cap?

Yes, the rich invest the money that they aren't spending - but why allow them to keep the dividends, when some people have no money at all? I'm not referring to millionaires here, or even the average multi-millionaire, but those with a financial value of, say, over a half-billion USD or its equivalent in other currencies.

It's also worth noting that I realise the extreme unliklihood (to put it mildly) of such a cap ever being executed. Also, I'm inviting debate on this proposal with the premiss that it would be implemented globally. For simplicity, we will assume that evading the cap would not be possible.

This is intended to be a philosophical discussion rather than a political one.

Thank you to everyone for your participation!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:If you examine the Forbes 400 list, you can read about the sources of wealth for these wealthiest people. You will learn that the vast majority of them created their own wealth, mostly by founding businesses.


 'Created their own wealth' certainly seems to give them a right to it, doesn't it? I think this is a premiss that we don't share. There are few on that list, to be generous, whom I'd imagine 'created' their wealth without the assistance of other people. Have some of those people been laid-off without benefits they were promised? Have there been incidental costs on, say, the environment that were never paid? I think the issue of wealth-creation (particularly at the level of the Forbes 400 list) is a bit more complex - certainly more morally ambiguous than some may imply.



> quote:Even some of those few who inherited their wealth have contributed to its expansion and contributed to the growth of the enterprises they inherited.


 Does making an improvement on a thing make one unequivocably entitled to all of it? If I were to make an improvement to computer technology, would I therefore be entitled to the benefits of all who have thusly contributed? Certainly, it is good that some of the uber-rich have put portions of their titanic fortunes to philanthropic (and by remarkable coincidence, tax-deductible) uses. However, we must ask ourselves if perhaps we are not better off thinking of new systems of wealth-distribution which do not abandon the poor to such beneficient whims.



> quote:Why would you want to limit the income of Bill Gates? Envy? Do you think he obtained it illegally?


 1) I would certainly think his unprecedented level of affluence less objectionable if there were not so many other human beings living in utter poverty. 2) 'No thanks' to your effort at an _ad hominem_ fallacy. 3) Precisely _how_ he became so rich is subordinate to the moral points we are discussing.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Okay. So, do you support the notion of Robin Hood government? Communism? What?


 Does this mean that you are conceding my points that you ignored?



> quoteo you think that humans are equal? In what ways? In the US, we assert that all citizens are treated equally under the law. While this is not true (consider OJ), it is at least the intent of our legal system. Meanwhile, humans are very unequal in whatever you want to measure.


 No, human beings are certainly not equal in many things - one such thing being wealth. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not one believes this is a problem which justifies thinking and response.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:I see no irony. I can't speak for other nations but in the United States we strive for equality among people. How? By treating everyone equally. It doesn't always happen but each year we get a little closer. We are not, however, in any position to start making people equal. People are born different and there's nothing you can do about that. The fairest, most just thing to do is to treat people equally.


 I agree that it would be foolish to attempt making everyone equal, least of which with money. Is it fair, however, to permit a tiny fraction of the world's population to accumulate more money than they could spend in several lifetimes if they made a full-time mission of it, while billions of other people live with next to nothing?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> Poor people spend more of their income than the rich. So doesn't your argument support the notion of a wealth cap?


Not really. The act of spending a big chunk of their income, that would otherwise be invested or saved, is inflationary (almost the same effect of the government printing more money,) and, in the long run, makes things worse off for those at the poverty line. Lovely, no?



> quote:
> Yes, the rich invest the money that they aren't spending - but why allow them to keep the dividends, when some people have no money at all?


Because taxes have an effect of regulating behavior. It's why there are huge taxes on cigarettes and liquor. You DO NOT want to deincentivize the primary method of generating new jobs, namely investing in new business.



> quote:
> I'm not referring to millionaires here, or even the average multi-millionaire, but those with a financial value of, say, over a half-billion USD or its equivalent in other currencies.


This is where my sense of morality kicks in. I just don't think it's right taking someone else's money, for whatever reason. If they did something wrong or illegal to get it, then yeah, they should loose a good chunk, and probably go to prison. Otherwise, if you earn it, you should be able to keep it.



> quote:
> This is intended to be a philosophical discussion rather than a political one.


Nasty how the two always get mixed up with each other, isn't it? 

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:I am rather surprised that nobody yet has really answered my question asking why disparity in wealth is an inherently bad thing.


 Perhaps we are taking after Thomas Jefferson, and asserting that the problems with immense and growing wealth disparities are 'self-evident'?



> quote:The closest thing to an answer seems to be an assumption that disparity leads to unrest and instability.


 Well, no. If you've read all of the posts, you'll also notice a few variations on the theme that it's not good to have a handful of immensely rich people and a bunch of handfuls of starving people.



> quote:But of course most of the longest-lasting societies and civilizations are Earth were ones with much greater disparities in wealth than we currently or ever have had in America.


 Notice you use the past tense. What? You mean to say that they no longer exist? Pity that.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:All this talk of disparity is bewildering, the most recent data suggests more and more people are making the jump from middle class to upper class. I'm confused as to why this is a bad thing, it has not come at the expense of the poor, whose numbers have remained relatively low in comparison to any other developed economy.


 Firstly, class is not determined merely by how rich one is. Also, we are not only discussing your country, whatever that might be, but the problem of wealth distribution on a global scale.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Not really. The act of spending a big chunk of their income, that would otherwise be invested or saved, is inflationary (almost the same effect of the government printing more money,) and, in the long run, makes things worse off for those at the poverty line. Lovely, no?


 A big chuck of whose income? Please avoid using pronouns to the point of total ambiguity.



> quote:Because taxes have an effect of regulating behavior. It's why there are huge taxes on cigarettes and liquor. You DO NOT want to deincentivize the primary method of generating new jobs, namely investing in new business.


 A government can make loans just as easy as a rich person, and plow more of the interest back into job-creation and human services.



> quote:This is where my sense of morality kicks in. I just don't think it's right taking someone else's money, for whatever reason. If they did something wrong or illegal to get it, then yeah, they should loose a good chunk, and probably go to prison. Otherwise, if you earn it, you should be able to keep it.


 Why stop at supporting immense wealth-accumulation with wrongness or illegality? People starve either way.



> quote:Nasty how the two always get mixed up with each other, isn't it?


 Fortunately, it isn't always. Only sometimes.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Perhaps we are taking after Thomas Jefferson, and asserting that the problems with immense and growing wealth disparities are 'self-evident'?


Well, whether they are "self-evident" or not doesn't preclude saying what they are. Of course, the only truly self-evident statements can be philosophical or logical axioms. I some how doubt that wealth disparity falls into that category of statements. If you are going to make blanket general statements you have to be prepared to back them up with reasoning, facts, logic, something. So as before, I am waiting for you to produce that 'something' or anything, really.



> quote:Notice you use the past tense. What? You mean to say that they no longer exist? Pity that.


Yes, it is a pity but all societies eventually come to an end sooner or later. If America lasts as long as the Roman Empire, or the Egyptian, or the Chinese I think we will have done well indeed. We have a bit of a way to go however.

Honestly, these political threads are going to be rather pointless if you refuse to make substantive answers to anybody's posts.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Well, whether they are "self-evident" or not doesn't preclude saying what they are. Of course, the only truly self-evident statements can be philosophical or logical axioms. I some how doubt that wealth disparity falls into that category of statements. If you are going to make blanket general statements you have to be prepared to back them up with reasoning, facts, logic, something. So as before, I am waiting for you to produce that 'something' or anything, really.


 Let's start with something basic: would you mind starving to death? Please explain why or why not.



> quote:Yes, it is a pity but all societies eventually come to an end sooner or later. If America lasts as long as the Roman Empire, or the Egyptian, or the Chinese I think we will have done well indeed. We have a bit of a way to go however.


 Quality is important along with quantity, don't you think?



> quote:Honestly, these political threads are going to be rather pointless if you refuse to make substantive answers to anybody's posts.


 1) This isn't a political thread; and 2) Pointless is as pointless does.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

While reading this thread I keep thinking of Thomas Sowell's discussions of "cosmic justice."


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:'Created their own wealth' certainly seems to give them a right to it, doesn't it?


 Yes.


> quote:There are few on that list, to be generous, whom I'd imagine 'created' their wealth without the assistance of other people. Have some of those people been laid-off without benefits they were promised?


 Some have. Some haven't. Why does that matter?


> quote:Have there been incidental costs on, say, the environment that were never paid?


 Again, why does this matter? If one was guilty of illegal behavior, then he should be charged and prosecuted. If not, it is irrelevant to this discussion.



> quoteoes making an improvement on a thing make one unequivocably entitled to all of it?


 If he set up his business in such a way that his new product/improvement/service would render him such a profit, then yes. You are proposing punishment of those who are working within the legal parameter of a capitalist market system, when you apparently disagree with the very philosophical premise. Just because you cannot/do not choose to compete there should be no reason to think that the performers and producers should be precluded from doing so.


> quote: Certainly, it is good that some of the uber-rich have put portions of their titanic fortunes to philanthropic (and by remarkable coincidence, tax-deductible) uses.


 Are we a little cynical? Is there anything good you can say about those who have been financially successful?



> quotere: Bill Gate)I would certainly think his unprecedented level of affluence less objectionable if there were not so many other human beings living in utter poverty...


Non sequitur. You are presuming, incorrectly, that wealth is a zero-sum game, as VS mentioned earlier. There is plenty to go around for those who wish to earn. It is not necessary to steal from the producers.

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to my questions on the earlier post. What SHOULD one do when he reached this "cap"?


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


mk


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Pointless is as pointless does.


Good day to you sir.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

m kielty, You have given the logistical reasons for the IRS, but what are the philisophical reasons? That was my point.

1) Why would money need to be pooled at the federal level first? If the feds take $125 (for state related stuff) from me and give $100 back to the states, wouldn't it be easier and more effective for the states to just take $100 and leave the other $25 with me?

2) I know that the Congress has passed laws to this effect, but I am firm in my belief that those laws are both unconstitutional and unethical. The purpose of the federal government is not to redistribure money or set social policy or most other things. Just because the Congress has passed such laws does not mean that they are either good laws, nor does it mean that they are true to the principles on which this country was founded.

3) As for few states having the resources to fix roads, etc, if the federal government got out of the business, hence lowering federal taxes, then the states could tax a more appropriate amount in order to have those resources. If the state found that they didn't have a tax base able to fund such projects, _then those projects should not be done_, and the state can concentrate on how to attract money/investors in order to have the funds in the future. It is not the job of the federal government to play Robin Hood, robbing from the rich state to give to the poor states.

4) States don't really deal with international trade much at all. Foreign trade zones are administered by the feds. All Customs and Immigration work is taken care of by the feds. Tariffs and quotas are set by the feds and trade deals are worked out by the feds. States act only in the most peripheral ways wrt to international trade, such as maintaining ports which are used for both intra- and international trade.

As for the National Guard, it should be a state run militia. I would go so far as to say that the President should not have the authority to call the National Guard to national service over the objections of the governor. They are a state entity and they should be.

5) "Things should be handled by the lowest level of government possible, not the highest." What I mean is that if it is possible for a state government to handle something, it should. The federal government should not be involved with anything that the states can do for themselves. The states have effectively contracted out certain jobs to the feds in order to maintain a unified USA - currency, treaties and international trade, US military, etc. Everything else should be left to the states to deal with. Preferably without the interference of the federal government.

CT


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> A big chuck of whose income? Please avoid using pronouns to the point of total ambiguity.


Those without a bunch of disposable income. Transferring money away form those who would most likely invest this capital to those who would immediately put it back into circulation is inflationary and detrimental to those living on fixed or low incomes.



> quote:A government can make loans just as easy as a rich person, and plow more of the interest back into job-creation and human services.


A government is about the least efficient banker you could imagine. They do have pretty massive loan programs which are regularly abused, and used as handouts for favored companies and industrial sectors. Banks are regulated by the government, so who regulates the government? Itself? Not a good idea.



> quote:Why stop at supporting immense wealth-accumulation with wrongness or illegality? People starve either way.


I'm not sure how I'm advocating illegal wealth accumulation by advocating the imprisonment of those who practice it.

And, as far as people starving goes, in the US at least, last year the fed and states spent enough on welfare programs to give every American (man, woman and child) living below the poverty line $12,000 in cash, about $410 billion for 35 million people. That's more than enough to, at the very least, buy food for one person for a year (my wife and I barely spend $150 a month on groceries, averaged out.)

So, if people aren't getting enough money to eat from the current, apparently super efficient, welfare system, throwing even more money at the problem should make it all better, right?

(Numbers from the federal budget office and wikipedia)

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

You know what really kills me? Under the latest MLB revenue-sharing plan, Seattle has to pay in and Philadelphia gets to take out. That pisses me off, and I'm a Yankees fan.

Tom

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

Taxes should be paid by all and weighted toward those with the most wealth. We should have a graduated tax structure. The super high end (say those over $500k) should pay well over 50% on incremental income.

Excessive stock options should be excessively taxed. It makes me sick when I see a CEO take out $40 or $50 million in stock options. These options only exist because the security laws allow for them. Why should not all employees have access to stock options similar to other benefits like 401ks, healthcare, etc?


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Either in income, or in net worth?


No. and I'm fairly liberal. A progressive tax code is sufficient.

I would implement a hard cap on tax deductions, though. Perhaps at no more than a multiple or two of the median US income.

And income and capital gains should be taxed at closer rate, if not identical rates.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Neither income nor capital gains nor net wealth should be taxed. I would think that the left would _want_ to get behind that idea. The richest Americans pay relatively little in taxes because they can shelter their money in non-income generating portfolios. Consumption should be taxed, so that everyone would get charged based on what they actually bought. The poor buy very little, hence little tax. The rich would have to pony up every time they buy a new house or car and would end up paying much more than they do now. But, and here's the important part, everyone could adjust their tax burden by choosing their lifestyle appropriately.

And it would be easier to implement. A very much reduced IRS (more government efficiency) and every business already collects sales tax, thus there wouldn't be a significant burden placed on them. We could understand the tax system. 15% (or whatever) of everything you buy is easy. There isn't a single person alive who understands the US Tax Code front to back at the moment. Finally, we would pay our taxes as we go, so there wouldn't be any nasty surprizes when Apr 15 rolls around.

CT


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

Wealth limits are a depressing and defeatist notion. I think the fairest thing -- and ultimately and best thing for everyone -- is that each person has access to the basic educational resources that will allow them to maintain a 'reasonable' standard of living for themselves and to create whatever level of wealth they choose. To do so does not require placing limits on individual wealth; in fact wealth caps are probably counterproductive of that end.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by joeyzaza_
> 
> Taxes should be paid by all and weighted toward those with the most wealth. We should have a graduated tax structure. The super high end (say those over $500k) should pay well over 50% on incremental income.


 Why?

I wonder if anyone is going to address my earlier questions?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

A good thread, and a lot of good posts...

Certainly there shouldn't be a cap on wealth, but has anyone considered the fact that a progressive tax system is what has really created the middle class which differentiates America from nearly every other nation on Earth?

-spence


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Those without a bunch of disposable income. Transferring money away form those who would most likely invest this capital to those who would immediately put it back into circulation is inflationary and detrimental to those living on fixed or low incomes.


 You miss the point. The very people spending that money would be the fixed income/low income types. They would be receiving more benefits than would be mitigated by inflation.



> quote:A government is about the least efficient banker you could imagine. They do have pretty massive loan programs which are regularly abused, and used as handouts for favored companies and industrial sectors. Banks are regulated by the government, so who regulates the government? Itself? Not a good idea.


 Some could argue that the extent to which governments are made ineffective at investing in economies is the extent that their private competitors (ie the uber-rich, via bought politicians) sabatoge them from within. Money is not just money, but power, and vast money is vast power - without representation.



> quote:I'm not sure how I'm advocating illegal wealth accumulation by advocating the imprisonment of those who practice it.


 You've mis-read my question. Why do you stop advocating wealth accumulation merely because it is illegal? Illegality is determined by governments, and you don't seem to have much faith in governments.



> quote:And, as far as people starving goes, in the US at least, last year the fed and states spent enough on welfare programs to give every American (man, woman and child) living below the poverty line $12,000 in cash, about $410 billion for 35 million people. That's more than enough to, at the very least, buy food for one person for a year (my wife and I barely spend $150 a month on groceries, averaged out.)


 Again, this topic is meant to address global disparities, not just those in particular countries (though I might also add, that the figures you give seem rather odd. You must be including Medicaid, and other mandatory entitlement outlays in your 'welfare' figure).

Let us examine a few graphs, to put the issue on a larger, global scale:

People living on less than $2 USD per day (top), or less than $1 USD per day (bottom):

Human Population of world, by country:

Since this seems to be a US-dominated discussion, a closer look at distribution of wealth in the US:


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:Again, this topic is meant to address global disparities, not just those in particular countries


 Do you really think something like this is possible? Do you think it would be beneficial? Who would enforce it? Would the hardworking entrepreneur in Kansas be willing to continue working hard from August to December if he knew that the proceeds of his labour would be sent to corrupt 3rd world countries where the leaders are embezzling all the country's wealth? Seriously.

If you are submitting that the inequity in the world's current wealth distribution is unfortunate and perhaps unfair... then most would probably agree with you. But if you think that taking from the producers to subsidize the non-producers is the solution, then I think you're not viewing this very realistically.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:You miss the point. The very people spending that money would be the fixed income/low income types. They would be receiving more benefits than would be mitigated by inflation.


So each welfare check would get larger and larger to defeat the rising cost of everything? Untenable. This is what is happening currently in many European welfare states. Unemployment is rising, and so is inflation, which is a particularly nasty situation.



> quote: Money is not just money, but power, and vast money is vast power - without representation.


It could also be argued that government encourages self-corruption, by squeezing companies that don't "play ball." Witness Microsoft, a company that had some rather shady business practices, though their infractions were pretty minor compared to equally important companies in other sectors, that were, and still are, left alone by federal proscecutors. And yet, Microsoft got the big governmental beatdown. The difference? Microsoft was pretty much apolitical, only interfacing with the government to sell it software. You can bet that's all different now.



> quote:Why do you stop advocating wealth accumulation merely because it is illegal? Illegality is determined by governments, and you don't seem to have much faith in governments.


It's one of the core functions of government to act as a policing body. It's one of the few roles it should be responsible for.



> quote:Again, this topic is meant to address global disparities, not just those in particular countries (though I might also add, that the figures you give seem rather odd. You must be including Medicaid, and other mandatory entitlement outlays in your 'welfare' figure).


I was counting all social welfare programs in my welfare figure. It's still a whole bunch of money, even with medicaid/medicare removed.

Now, if you want to balance the income across the whole world, good luck. A lot of the nastiest places to live are kept nasty by those who run them, it's how they maintain their power. If you think Iraq is a disaster, imagine trying to clean up all those horrid military juntas and tribal warlords that have been tearing apart most of Africa for the last hundred years.

Nice graphs, by the way, though they seem to slide in quality further down the post. The last bunch look like they were made in MS Paint 

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

It's time for voting to begin!

I will tally the votes in a few days. Please post simply whether or not you support some form of wealth cap.

Thanks to everyone for their participation.


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

Against


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

For.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:So each welfare check would get larger and larger to defeat the rising cost of everything?


 No. A wealth cap does not inherently imply bigger welfare cheques, or inflation.



> quote:Untenable. This is what is happening currently in many European welfare states. Unemployment is rising, and so is inflation, which is a particularly nasty situation.


 Please define your concept of 'welfare state'.



> quote:It could also be argued that government encourages self-corruption, by squeezing companies that don't "play ball." Witness Microsoft, a company that had some rather shady business practices, though their infractions were pretty minor compared to equally important companies in other sectors, that were, and still are, left alone by federal proscecutors. And yet, Microsoft got the big governmental beatdown. The difference? Microsoft was pretty much apolitical, only interfacing with the government to sell it software. You can bet that's all different now.


 If you wish to argue that Microsoft was innocent of any wrongdoing, you're more than welcome to start another thread on that topic.



> quote: It's one of the core functions of government to act as a policing body. It's one of the few roles it should be responsible for.


 Is this to say that you agree with everything that your government polices, such as firearms?



> quote:I was counting all social welfare programs in my welfare figure. It's still a whole bunch of money, even with medicaid/medicare removed.


 Yes, but it shows that you were misleading with your figures.



> quote:Now, if you want to balance the income across the whole world, good luck.


 I certainly don't wish to do that, and I don't know why you would wish good luck to anyone who did.



> quote:A lot of the nastiest places to live are kept nasty by those who run them, it's how they maintain their power.


 Often those same brutes are put into power (and remain propped up) because of international business interests with a sociopathic view of the world.



> quote:Nice graphs, by the way, though they seem to slide in quality further down the post. The last bunch look like they were made in MS Paint


 Thank you - but I myself don't think they are very nice. They demonstrate some truly disgusting things about our world.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:
> Do you really think something like this is possible?


 Possible, certainly. Likely, no.



> quoteo you think it would be beneficial? Who would enforce it?


 It's good that you're asking these questions.



> quote:Would the hardworking entrepreneur in Kansas be willing to continue working hard from August to December if he knew that the proceeds of his labour would be sent to corrupt 3rd world countries where the leaders are embezzling all the country's wealth? Seriously.


 A modest wealth-cap on billionaires is nowhere near the sort of global communism you pretend to think that I am proposing.



> quote:If you are submitting that the inequity in the world's current wealth distribution is unfortunate and perhaps unfair... then most would probably agree with you. But if you think that taking from the producers to subsidize the non-producers is the solution, then I think you're not viewing this very realistically.


 Non-producers? Surely you jest. What percentage of things that you use and consume per annum do you, or anyone you know, 'produce'? How much of it, in contrast, is produced in countries poorer than your own, by people who make less than you do? Points to ponder.

The real non-producers in 3rd world countries are typically that way because they don't have enough food to do basic things like, say, reach age thirty.

,


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

JLPWCXIII, as much as I appreciate your sartorial comments, this idea is simply crude.

If you want to remove poverty, remove the corrupt third-world dictators and install open, fair and transparent systems. This, however, is never going to happen, as in many countries corruption is part of the local culture. The reason why people in Africa are starving is not the thoughtlessness of the West, but the indifference of the local leaders towards human life.

The problem is not the global distribution of wealth, but the _local_ wealth distribution in many of these countries.

I would agree with a domestic wealth cap, though, if you gave the money to the army.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> I would agree with a domestic wealth cap, though, if you gave the money to the army.


Small bills, non-sequential serial numbers please 

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Do we really have to vote? I can barely get through the clothes forum without having to hack through a thicket of threads asking me to "Vote for your favorite Kiton jacket" "Vote for your favorite Vass shoe" and "Vote and decide what I should buy because I can't figure it out myself".

I vote that we quit asking people to vote.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Again, my vote is for no cap on wealth but I'm keeping an eye on the sale of pitchforks and torches and a full tank of gas in the car.

I'm assuming that most don't know that a world tax has been proposed.
A cap on wealth proposal may not be far behind.

Thanks for the interesting thread JLPWCXIII.



mk


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

Wealth Cap:



A man in the habit of wearing one these is unlikely to crack that coveted top quintile.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

Hahaha very nice Yckmwia


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by joeyzaza_
> 
> Taxes should be paid by all and weighted toward those with the most wealth. We should have a graduated tax structure. The super high end (say those over $500k) should pay well over 50% on incremental income.


While I agree with you, the problem seems, to my mind at any rate, what constitutes a "super high end".


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

Yckmwia~

I don't think I've ever agreed with you on much of anything before, but THAT was funny... and true!


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Yckmia...

Now THAT is a wealth cap!

*"Buy the best, and you will only cry once." - Chinese proverb*


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> Yckmia...
> 
> ...


Not bad, but I don't think it has the same prophylactic quality as the double-barreled beer lid. A touch too ironic. I could see a filthy rich scenester sporting the C-note golf hat in some instances, but never the frankly utilitarian beer cap. Once that is donned, the wearer has conceded that there is nowhere to go but down . . .

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Against


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> Wealth Cap:
> 
> A man in the habit of wearing one these is unlikely to crack that coveted top quintile.


But wouldn't a fan of Warren Buffett wear a hat like that? Oh wait...I'm thinking of *Jimmy* Buffett. My mistake.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, but Warren would wear VS's cap - without the slightest self-consciousness.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Neither income nor capital gains nor net wealth should be taxed. I would think that the left would _want_ to get behind that idea. The richest Americans pay relatively little in taxes because they can shelter their money in non-income generating portfolios. Consumption should be taxed, so that everyone would get charged based on what they actually bought. The poor buy very little, hence little tax. The rich would have to pony up every time they buy a new house or car and would end up paying much more than they do now. But, and here's the important part, everyone could adjust their tax burden by choosing their lifestyle appropriately.
> 
> ...


With a 15% national sales tax, the poor would still be carrying the load. The wealthy would simply buy from out of the country and pay nothing at all.

People like myself who order a lot of what they buy online from out of counrty would also avoid paying sales tax as well.

Another view of the same concept is a flat income tax, which in the long run would be even and fair to everyone.

Lets say 15% of all income regardless of source, earn a dollar pay $0.15, earn a million dollars pay $150,000.00.

The IRS would be charged with nothing other then making sure everyone pays, cutting down on the size of that department and making more of the tax money collected available for better use.

But... because we live by the golden rule *those with Gold make the Rule* this will never happen.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Di Liberti_
> Another view of the same concept is a flat income tax, which in the long run would be even and fair to everyone.
> 
> ...
> ...


Do you mean to say the wealthy are _against_ a flat tax? I can't tell if that was very subtle sarcasm or if you genuinely hold this very uncommon belief...


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

The Luntz poll (02/2006) found that the main reason people support a flat tax is because of fairness.

This runs counter to conventional wisdom in *Washington, which views fairness as the flat tax's greatest vulnerability, since a rich person would pay the same marginal tax rate as someone with a moderate income.* (Because of a large personal allowance, low-income families would pay nothing under a flat tax system.) Yet the American people view this as the essence of fairness. In fact, focus groups clearly believed that abolishing all deductions is the best way of making the rich pay their fair share.

I no longer remember the bill number, but this idea has been presented in the form of a joint house bill more then once. It has been shot down or tabled (permanently) each time.

Our lawmakers are agianst this form of taxation, because it would mean *Everybody* pays the same.

*those with the Gold make the Rule*

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

Obviously any proposed sales tax would have to account for foriegn goods and the internet in some way.

Many people will tell you that a sales tax is regressive because poor people spend more of their income. This is a fallacy, because money does not really exist until it is spent. If it is not being used to consume goods and services, then it is working in the economy. Furthermore, food and housing would probably not be taxed under such a system, so the poorest Americans would pay hardly anything.

Regarding global poverty and starvation: famine does not occur because we eat too much and there isn't enough to go around or anything ridiculous like that. There's more than enough food for everyone in the world. People starve because warlords use food as a weapon against other ethnic grops. Now, if you're proposing that we tax the wealthy so that we can bomb those warlords, then I'd be 50% on board (to get me all the way on board, the tax would have to be on everyone).

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Knightly_
> 
> This is a fallacy, because money does not really exist until it is spent.


If you really believe this, may I have your savings and investments?


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

Mr. Di Liberti

I'm afraid I am still confused. Obviously a flat tax would be fairest. What I am unclear on is your statement that "those with the gold make the rule". That's why I asked, but didn't assume, if you meant to imply that the wealthy were against the flat tax. I completely understand the merits of the flat tax and I guarantee you plenty of "those with the gold" are in favor of paying 15 or 20 percent instead of 30 and 35.


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Concordia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only if you don't spend them 

Seriously, all I'm saying is that money is an abstract concept with no concrete substance. I think we should tax consumption of real goods rather than abstract ideas.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:
> 
> JLPWCXIII, as much as I appreciate your sartorial comments,


 Thank you, kind sir.



> quote:this idea is simply crude.


 What? The idea of the bottom forty-per-cent of the population in the United States only having 0.3% of the wealth, and the global disparities even being much more stark? Yes, I agree: that is crude indeed.



> quote:If you want to remove poverty, remove the corrupt third-world dictators and install open, fair and transparent systems. This, however, is never going to happen, as in many countries corruption is part of the local culture.


 Corruption...well third-world countries certainly have no monopoly on corruption, and many can point to events in the first-world of the past couple of years alone that would truly 'shock and awe' even the most devoutly corrupt of the third-world. Regarding that third-world corruption, one might ask oneself whether those areas were poor first, or corrupt first - and factor that into one's reasoning.



> quote:The reason why people in Africa are starving is not the thoughtlessness of the West, but the indifference of the local leaders towards human life.


 That is probably one of the reasons, yes. Though I wouldn't dare say it is 'the reason'. Africa is a poor continent ('country', as W would say). Poor countries have a tendency to get desperate - and desperation provides a hot-house environment for the least admirable of human qualities to thrive.



> quote:The problem is not the global distribution of wealth, but the _local_ wealth distribution in many of these countries.


 Both are problems. The world maps above show that the problem exists on a global scale, and the figures for the US alone shows that the problem exists on a miniature scale within even the richest nations.



> quote:I would agree with a domestic wealth cap, though, if you gave the money to the army.


 Which army, and why?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> Do we really have to vote? I can barely get through the clothes forum without having to hack through a thicket of threads asking me to "Vote for your favorite Kiton jacket" "Vote for your favorite Vass shoe" and "Vote and decide what I should buy because I can't figure it out myself".
> 
> I vote that we quit asking people to vote.


 I take that as a 'For' vote. Thank-you for your participation.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> Wealth Cap:
> 
> ...


 I can think of one or two well-placed people who wore such a hat, and still got ahead.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Then what is the government going to do with all that extra capital it's going to tax away? I guarantee you it won't be wisely invested, but dumped back into the economy through entitlements or buying stuff. If you don't belive me that diverting capital destined for investment directly back into the economy is inflationary, please grab an intro to macroeconomics book.


 And please read my other posts, such as the one where I remind you that governments can make loans at least as easily as rich people. Also, feel free to quote from any text you wish. We would not wish to impose any rules on the discussion that would limit the information available at our disposal.



> quote:
> The US constitution lays out what the government can and cannot regulate. The problem is all the legislators and judges using ouiji boards trying to figure out what the framers *really* meant when they said "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If they wanted firearms to be regulated, the constitution would say "Congress shall regulate the trade of firearms."


 But is this to say that you do or don't stand by all of your government's policing actions?



> quote:You're right, medical benefits account for about half of welfare spending. That still leaves $7,000 cash for each man, woman and child living at or below the poverty line in the US. Keep in mind that the poverty line in the US is quite a bit higher than in other places...


 I still doubt those figures. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's pretend for a moment that the 7,000 USD per annum figure is true. The question becomes, why aren't those in need getting the funds? Shall we say it is because your country is run by corrupt warlords, who are indifferent to human life?



> quote:So, who deserves income equality and who doesn't?


 This discussion is obviously not about income-equality, but is intended for us to think about ways that the immense wealth disparities (which can include income) might be remedied.



> quote:Really? What company was backing the Taliban in Afghanistan (not Africa I know, but still) Does Shell back the Hutus and BP back the Tutsis? What company benefits from the complete destabilization of Somalia?


 International business interests do not always mean American oil companies, even though it might seem that way.



> quote:I could pick the graphs apart for substantiveness (definition of "wealth," median income compared to welfare spending) but I'm bored


 It isn't always stimulating explaining to people why the graphs above are cause for concern, since it should be axiomatic. Certainly, if you have comments to make about those data, no one is stopping you but yourself.

Again, thank-you for your participation.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

If there was a wealth cap, who would decide how much was enough?

And how long would it take them to exempt themselves?

Is there no field of human endeavor uncontaminated by the Lizard People?


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Rich, poor, wealth, its all relative.

The rich pay most of the taxes as it stands. The Top 1% earn about 15% of all income yet pay 30% of all taxes.

I don't consider most public school teachers as financially rich, yet they are in the top 50% of wage earners. Two teachers filing a joint return would put them close or in the top 25% of wage earners. But yeah, we should all soak the _"rich"_.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

I'll try again..

What should this cap be? And who gets to decide?

What should one do when he reaches this point?

I know what I would do. I would shut down my business. Fire all my employees, sell my houses (thereby terminating the payment of property taxes, utility payments, yardmen, housekeepers, cable, phone, etc) then move to the islands. I would then spend my money there, stimulating the economy of said destination. Then once I got my balance diminished sufficiently that I could once again be allowed to return, I would consider moving back. But I would probably just change my mind and stay on the island to build my businesses where I would be taxed far less (if any at all) and where the workers would appreciate the new commerce and opportunity to work for a living at one of our companies.

But that's just me. What would YOU do?


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> If there was a wealth cap, who would decide how much was enough?
> 
> And how long would it take them to exempt themselves?


That's just what I was thinking earlier today. Many people do not think they have enough money... certainly not enough to give more of it away via taxes in the spirit of equity.

I nominate Barbra Streisand to go first. She can keep 35k a year and give the rest to the UN for redistribution. Line starts after her!


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Wealth caps and redistribution erode the incentive to create, build, and succeed in the "wealthy" (again, just where is the limit to be set, who decides it, and will they exempt themselves?) because the "wealthy" know that when they reach a certain point it's just going to be taken away from them. So why bother?

Wealth caps and redistribution erode the incentive to create, build, and succeed in the recipients of the redistributed wealth because every time they get a check they know there's plenty more where that came from. So why bother to lift a finger themselves?

Wealth caps and redistribution _do_ succeed at making Liberals feel good about themselves because by golly they were virtuous enough not only to notice an inequality but also recommend doing something about it. They think that makes them morally superior to those of us against such plans. Liberal guilt is a powerful motivator.

In the U.S., for example, prior to welfare reform, we were well on the way to creating a more or less permanent, self-perpetuating, dependent class, where the goal of many young women was to get pregnant out of wedlock in their early teens so they could go on the dole. So although the Liberals get to feel good about themselves for taking from the rich and giving to the poor, they've actually made things worse for the poor.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:What should this cap be? And who gets to decide?


 What would you propose?



> quote:I know what I would do. I would shut down my business. Fire all my employees, sell my houses (thereby terminating the payment of property taxes, utility payments, yardmen, housekeepers, cable, phone, etc) then move to the islands. I would then spend my money there, stimulating the economy of said destination. Then once I got my balance diminished sufficiently that I could once again be allowed to return, I would consider moving back. But I would probably just change my mind and stay on the island to build my businesses where I would be taxed far less (if any at all) and where the workers would appreciate the new commerce and opportunity to work for a living at one of our companies.


 Please 're-try' reading my previous post about our discussion of a wealth cap being under the assumption that it could not be evaded.

The (personal) wealth-cap area I am proposing for our philosophical chat is around 750 millions to one billion USD or its equivalent, on a global scale. If being limited to this (personal) wealth range would be enough to incite you to completely sever your roots in a society and abandon those that helped you reach that immense level of success, then thank-you - you have provided a better argument for a wealth cap than has yet appeared on this thread.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Wealth caps and redistribution erode the incentive to create, build, and succeed in the "wealthy" (again, just where is the limit to be set, who decides it, and will they exempt themselves?) because the "wealthy" know that when they reach a certain point it's just going to be taken away from them. So why bother?


 If someone so brilliant comes along who is still indispensibly creative at a worth in the neighbourhood of one billion USD, and yet refuses to continue to create without additional money, then I'm sure the world would vote to make a conditional exception. Mozart, Edison, Einstein, and Sabin to name a few, never seemed to be anywhere close to having this problem however, and so it is unlikely to ever be very relevant to the discussion.



> quote:Wealth caps and redistribution erode the incentive to create, build, and succeed in the recipients of the redistributed wealth because every time they get a check they know there's plenty more where that came from. So why bother to lift a finger themselves?


 To presume that the human motivation to create and produce is fundamentally rooted in high-gauge financial rapacity is ignorant at best, and wincingly crude at worst.



> quote:Wealth caps and redistribution _do_ succeed at making Liberals feel good about themselves because by golly they were virtuous enough not only to notice an inequality but also recommend doing something about it. They think that makes them morally superior to those of us against such plans. Liberal guilt is a powerful motivator.


 And what, good sir, motivates you to expound upon the emotional motivations of those with whom you disagree? Is it in the hopes of incoming financial rewards, or merely good old-fashioned_ ad hominem _ flame-baiting?



> quote:In the U.S., for example, prior to welfare reform, we were well on the way to creating a more or less permanent, self-perpetuating, dependent class, where the goal of many young women was to get pregnant out of wedlock in their early teens so they could go on the dole. So although the Liberals get to feel good about themselves for taking from the rich and giving to the poor, they've actually made things worse for the poor.


 I look forward to you backing these claims up with objective evidence.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> Please 're-try' reading my previous post about our discussion of a wealth cap being under the assumption that it could not be evaded.


 So in this mythical world-system, everyone would participate? I thought you were serious.



> quote:The (personal) wealth-cap area I am proposing for our philosophical chat is around 750 millions to one billion USD or its equivalent, on a global scale. If being limited to this (personal) wealth range would be enough to incite you to completely sever your roots in a society and abandon those that helped you reach that immense level of success, then thank-you - you have provided a better argument for a wealth cap than has yet appeared on this thread.


 Whoa. Easy there fella. You assume that I would "sever" my roots just because I wanted to spend a year abroad with my family? How do you know I would "abandon" anyone? I don't owe anything to any employee after I paid them their paycheck and whatever else is in the terms of our employment agreement. If that wasn't enough, then they should look for a better paying job. Besides, if they had actually been instrumental in getting me there, then I think it is safe to say that they would've been mentored along the way, and left in the enviable position, with my endorsement, to fill the void I have just left in the marketplace.

Why, oh why, would I want to continue to build a business for NOTHING?

_Note_: If I ever got anywhere near that level of income/wealth, I would've already "checked-out" anyway. But who in the heck has the right to tell me when that should be?


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> To presume that the human motivation to create and produce is fundamentally rooted in high-gauge financial rapacity is ignorant at best, and wincingly crude at worst.


Why must you assume that accumulation of wealth is all "rapacity"? Had it not been for the hundreds of millions accumulated by the wealthy of this country (and others, of course), there would be very few museums, hospitals, libraries, universities, etc. Accumulating wealth is not a bad thing.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

People with billions of dollars, like Bill Gates, don't pile it in the basement. They build companies that employ thousands of people, from janitors and food service crews to people in marketing, accounting, and law, to graphic artists and computer programmers. I live not far from the Microsoft campus; there aren't enough programmers in this country to fill the demand, so they are hiring them from overseas, from places like India. People with huge fortunes also start charitable foundations, like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.

My cousin's wife was a social worker employed by the welfare agency. She spent a great deal of time counselling teenage girls that having a second or third child was not such a good idea, even though each child produced would mean a larger welfare check. She saw 11, 12, and 13 year old girls from poor families whose goal in life was to get pregnant and have a baby so that they could start receiving welfare income.

More information on this aspect of welfare:

https://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder092899.asp (search on "welfare")

If you really want to help people in third world countries, export capitalisim and democracy.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:So in this mythical world-system, everyone would participate?\


 No, only the uber-rich. This thread is about a wealth cap, not human being cap (though speaking of human cap, look for a future thread by me regarding population controls).



> quote:I thought you were serious.


 Hedging your bets? Well you get this one right: I was serious.



> quote:Whoa. Easy there fella.


 Sorry. I will try to make my arguments less compelling next time.



> quote:You assume that I would "sever" my roots just because I wanted to spend a year abroad with my family? How do you know I would "abandon" anyone? I don't owe anything to any employee after I paid them their paycheck and whatever else is in the terms of our employment agreement.


 Alright; in exchange, we'll say that society doesn't owe you any more 'earning opportunities' after you've accumulated 85,000 times your share of wealth (based on per-capita global GDP at purchasing power parity). Sound fair? Good.



> quote:If that wasn't enough, then they should look for a better paying job. Besides, if they had actually been instrumental in getting me there, then I think it is safe to say that they would've been mentored along the way, and left in the enviable position, with my endorsement, to fill the void I have just left in the marketplace.


 You're much too magnanimous for your own good, please stop. It's so heartwarming. If you show any more gratitude for those who have helped you, we will all just be overwhelmed and the thread will implode out of sheer fraternal ecstasy.



> quote:Why, oh why, would I want to continue to build a business for NOTHING?


 If you consider a billion USD 'nothing', then perhaps we can strike a deal. I have five *magic* beans you'll be interesting in hearing about - exclusive, limited-time offer, mind you.



> quote:_Note_: If I ever got anywhere near that level of income/wealth, I would've already "checked-out" anyway. But who in the heck has the right to tell me when that should be?


 The very same society which nurtured you, incubated your business, and permitted you to accumulate that very level of wealth. That's who.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 All you prove with your statement is that giving away wealth is not a bad thing.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quoteeople with billions of dollars, like Bill Gates, don't pile it in the basement. They build companies that employ thousands of people, from janitors and food service crews to people in marketing, accounting, and law, to graphic artists and computer programmers.


 This is another way to say that they invest. This is one of the few uncontested points of the thread, if you haven't noticed. As I've written more than once before, governments can make loans (ie, 'invest') just as easy (if not easier) than rich people.



> quote:I live not far from the Microsoft campus; there aren't enough programmers in this country to fill the demand, so they are hiring them from overseas, from places like India.


 yes...and?



> quoteeople with huge fortunes also start charitable foundations, like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.


 Yes - it's always nice when billionaires choose to transfer a small portion of their wealth to tax-deductible foundations named after themselves. It makes the poor and starving of the world dance a jig of joy.



> quote:My cousin's wife was a social worker employed by the welfare agency. She spent a great deal of time counselling teenage girls that having a second or third child was not such a good idea, even though each child produced would mean a larger welfare check. She saw 11, 12, and 13 year old girls from poor families whose goal in life was to get pregnant and have a baby so that they could start receiving welfare income.


 I asked for objective evidence, not more anecdotes.



> quote:More information on this aspect of welfare:
> 
> https://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1084.cfm


 An article entitled 'How Welfare Harms Kids' published by an organisation whose self-proclaimed mission is to 'formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense' does not correlate with my idea of objective evidence.



> quote:https://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder092899.asp (search on "welfare")


 No thanks. If you have an article you wish to share, look it up yourself and then post the link.



> quote:If you really want to help people in third world countries, export capitalisim and democracy.


 You're missing a few steps. Successful arguments require more than claims.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I meant, are all countries going to participate?



> quote: Alright; in exchange, we'll say that society doesn't owe you any more 'earning opportunities' after you've accumulated 85,000 times your share of wealth (based on per-capita global GDP at purchasing power parity). Sound fair?


 No. If I don't earn, I don't spend, I don't hire, I don't invest in other peoples new businesses. Your view of wealth accumulation assumes that once accumulated, it sits in a cave somewhere to be admired.



> quote:You're much too magnanimous for your own good, please stop. It's so heartwarming. If you show any more gratitude for those who have helped you, we will all just be overwhelmed and the thread will implode out of sheer fraternal ecstasy.


 Your sarcasm brings nothing to this conversation. Do you materially disagree with something I said? Nobody OWES me any favors. I provide products/service and I get the market price. No more, no less. Why is this such a complicated concept? If I don't contribute to society, then society reciprocates in kind. I don't blame anyone for this.



> quote:If you consider a billion USD 'nothing', then perhaps we can strike a deal...


 I said CONTINUE. Why should I continue to work? Do I owe that to someone? If I'm in this tax bracket, then I'm already paying federal income taxes for at least 80 other people. What else do you want from me?



> quote:The very same society which nurtured you, incubated your business, and permitted you to accumulate that very level of wealth. That's who.


 The recipients of welfare and manure art grants did NOTHING to nurture me or incubate my business. I would submit that they certainly didn't permit met to succeed. If anything, I succeeded in spite of the leaches of society. Why do I as an achiever OWE everything to society, but the non-achievers owe nothing, and in fact BLAME everything on society?

I'm speaking hypothetically, of course, since I'm not making anywhere near that kind of coin. But please explain to me, philosophically, how you deem this fair? If I had inherited it all, you might have SOME reason to be so bitter. But if I scrapped and did it on my own, then why? And if society is going to get all the credit for my success, then why can't anyone do it with society's nurturing?



> quote:All you prove with your statement is that giving away wealth is not a bad thing.


 I have *NO* problem giving away wealth. I resent it being forcefully taken away from me by those whom I would never otherwise trust with my checkbook.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:I meant, are all countries going to participate?


 Yes. I am surprised that this is still ambiguous.



> quote:No. *If I don't earn, I don't spend*, I don't hire, I don't invest in other peoples new businesses. Your view of wealth accumulation assumes that once accumulated, it sits in a cave somewhere to be admired.


 No, actually your view does. Because if you mean to suggest that at a worth of one billion USD you will stop spending without more income, you are implying that you will not be spending any of your wealth.



> quote:Your sarcasm brings nothing to this conversation. Do you materially disagree with something I said? Nobody OWES me any favors. I provide products/service and I get the market price. No more, no less. Why is this such a complicated concept? If I don't contribute to society, then society reciprocates in kind. I don't blame anyone for this.


 You first broached the objectivity seal when you roared into this thread by heatedly posting what you personally would do if a wealth cap was imposed - which included harming other people. Since you elected to publish a scenario that involved you personally, all relevant responses must unfortunately be framed in that light. I employed sarcasm in an attempt to highlight the disturbing lack of empathy and social conscience that your posts seem to suggest.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Well, that's why I doubted your sincerity. This would never happen. Ever.


> quote: You first broached the objectivity seal when you roared into this thread by heatedly posting what you personally would do if a wealth cap was imposed - which included harming other people.


 When did I advocate harming other people?


> quote:... lack of empathy and social conscience that your posts seem to suggest.


 What? Just because I don't want to continue working for free, I'm suddenly lacking in empathy and social conscience?

Would YOU continue working for free?


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> I employed sarcasm in an attempt to highlight the disturbing lack of empathy and social conscience that your posts seem to suggest.


Though this post wasn't directed at me, it frames the difficulty in debating things like wealth caps.

Many people who would oppose a cap on personal wealth have made points stating why, but JLPWCXIII, do you inwardly just believe that anybody who thinks this is a bad idea really doesn't care about the people in (insert poor nation here) making $1 a day?

I think many people do care very deeply about fiscal inequality but don't think wealth caps or straightforward income redistribution are the best way to go about it.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I enjoy reading your stuff, JLPWCXIII.

I haven't read this entire thread from top to bottom. I've just read parts of it.

Government is notoriously inefficient and wasteful. I'd rather have the private sector investing.

Yes, billionaires do receive tax benefits by transferring a small portion of their assets to foundations named after themselves. But you make it sound like that's the end of the story, that the foundations never actually do anything to help people.

You can't expect articles written by liberal organizations to focus on the ways in which welfare programs do harm. You have to get that story from the conservatives. Granted, welfare programs aren't all bad, and they aren't all good. If you want a discussion of their flaws, look to the conservatives. If you want a discussion of their benefits, look to the liberals. Are you saying that conservative organizations are always wrong?


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Government is notoriously inefficient and wasteful. I'd rather have the private sector investing.


In my experience, corportations are wasteful too. I don't think there's anything inherently more wasteful about gov't. And I don't think we can measure responsibility of corps. not to be wasteful by their responsibility to shareholders.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I find it quite bothersome how dismissive JLP... is of charitable donations. Why does a sacrifice necessarily need to be painful to the donor for it to be worthy? Obviously there are tax adantages to be had by donating to charitable organizations (that may even be named after the donors), but that doesn't mean that good is not done with those donations.

Also, if the article from the Heritage Foundation contains factual information, how can you reasonably dismiss it on the basis that their mission statement disagrees with your philosophy? Does this mean I get to dismiss every fact presented by NARAL, the ACLU, and other liberal interest groups/think tanks?


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

JLP... I'll ask again, since you missed my earlier post...



> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> You first broached the objectivity seal when you roared into this thread by heatedly posting what you personally would do if a wealth cap was imposed - which included harming other people.


 When did I advocate harming other people?


> quote:... lack of empathy and social conscience that your posts seem to suggest.


 What? Just because I don't want to continue working for free, I'm suddenly lacking in empathy and social conscience?

Would YOU continue working for free?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> JLP... I'll ask again, since you missed my earlier post...
> 
> ...


 I have already answered all of these questions, and more, in prior posts.

Perhaps it would be best if we permitted this thread to die a natural death, lest it become a creature resembling the one about gentlemen and guns. Variations on the theme of the same arguments are just time-wasters.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Thanks to everyone who participated. I hope, at the very least, that each of us was exposed to new points of view about wealth disparity in the world, and inspired to consider its ramifications in greater depth. It is an issue that the world will be dealing with more and more - whether it wants to or not.


----------

