Wealth Limit

I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

Originally posted by Mindship
I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

All I have to say is

"Amen."

(Prepares himself to be labeled as a "Commie" by other members)

I disagree.

You can't put a value on an idea, or invention, or a person's worth. If one person has the ability, and the talent, skill, etc to do so they should be free to make as much money as possible for them.

People earning the money that way, eg Bill Gates, is much different than people stealing it by de-frauding companies. They should have the right to capitalize on their abilities without someone limiting them.

Not to mention people with that kind of money need it to support their lifestyles.

I agree. Socialism, even in small amounts, goes against the natural flow of things. People should be allowed to either sink or swim on their own.. those who don't swim shouldn't be thrown a life preserver and those who do shouldn't be thrown an anchor.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I agree. Socialism, even in small amounts, goes against the natural flow of things. People should be allowed to either sink or swim on their own.. those who don't swim shouldn't be thrown a life preserver and those who do shouldn't be thrown an anchor.

I think you guys are missing Mindship's point though..I don't really believe that he's condoning Soviet Union style Socialism..which essentially equates to Marxism and Communism, but I believe he's just saying that Capitalism could learn from some socialist ideals.

Come on now guys. Maybe the 10 million dollar figure was a bit low..But I believe there should be a cap on the amount of wealth an individual is able to acquire. After a certain amount, wealth just seems to be gratuitous.

Would it not make sense to have a safety net for society? You're closer to the top of the barrel, when the bottom of the barrell isn't too far down.

Socialism is a wonderful thing, when used in moderation and in the correct way. It benefits everyone involved, and detracts from everyone equally.

Just because socialism is introduced into a society, doesn't mean that free-market economies and capitalism has to be done away with, entirely

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I think you guys are missing Mindship's point though..I don't really believe that he's condoning Soviet Union style Socialism..which essentially equates to Marxism and Communism, but I believe he's just saying that Capitalism could learn from some socialist ideals.

Come on now guys. Maybe the 10 million dollar figure was a bit low..But I believe there should be a cap on the amount of wealth an individual is able to acquire. After a certain amount, wealth just seems to be gratuitous.

As far as I'm concerned, we're better off without a "safety net." The lack of a financial crutch creates more motivation to become self-sufficient.

Socialism is a nice Ideal.
It could never happen, but it would be nice if it did.
I think a better way to deal with the massive gap between the rich and poor is to bring the poor up instead of bringing the rich down.
Not that I am in love with the ultra-rich or anything, I just don't think a wealth cap is the way to solve the problem.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Socialism is a nice Ideal.
It could never happen, but it would be nice if it did.
I think a better way to deal with the massive gap between the rich and poor is to bring the poor up instead of bringing the rich down.
Not that I am in love with the ultra-rich or anything, I just don't think a wealth cap is the way to solve the problem.

speaking from a resource stand point, that isn't possible.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I agree. Socialism, even in small amounts, goes against the natural flow of things. People should be allowed to either sink or swim on their own.. those who don't swim shouldn't be thrown a life preserver and those who do shouldn't be thrown an anchor.

People like Gates, Winfrey, etc, do put much of their wealth to charitable use, but seems to me they are the exception. IMO, most people with wealth and power use their wealth and power to acquire More wealth and power ("Power corrupts yada yada yada"😉, often to the detriment of those who don't have wealth and power, either by overwhelming circumstance or choice.

Should the "less fortunate" be allowed to live off the efforts of the "more fortunate?" Of course not. Every person is ultimately responsible for his/her own life, if not the circumstances then how he/she responds to circumstance. Welfare Layer to society? No, thank you.

Should the "very fortunate" help those in need? Absolutely, though honestly I'm not sure if it should be government-ordained, since corruption exists there too. Plus, charity should come from the heart willingly. But since this seems far and few between, some kind of nationalized system does seem in order. Would it be up to snuff like private? Generally, it isnt, but IMO, it probably would be if the Wealthy and Powerful could in some way profit from it (inject sarcasm here).

I offer the wealth cap only as an initial platform for debate. My broader statement is simply this: our way of life as is, is hardly perfect. Perhaps there is no better way until we, as a species, mature and realize the egocentric lifestyle is not the Golden Path (and vice versa). But (again, working off Churchill) to put it yet another way: if a person fails all subjects but passes with a 65 in Math, that doesnt mean he/she is good in Math.

Have you ever imagined how much simpler and genuinely more rewarding our society could be if, simply, we truly cherished honesty and compassion, instead of giving it so much "Only $19.99 Act now and get 1 free!" lip service?

BTW, ppl, thanks for the feedback. Good stuff.

There's really no point.

First of all, it is hypocritical to have a system that relies upon encouraging people to make money, but then put a limit on how far that can go; it would simply limit the drive of people to be so successful- and remember, people almost never get that rich without creating employment for a whole load of other people.

Secondly... it's far too simplistic. Bill Gates might be worth a fortune, but nearly all of it is in stock. Are you going to forbid people owning stock, or property? The system would be absurd to administrate- not to mention offshore accounts, the fact that value is related to confidence... and so forth.

No, for better or worse- and it's mostly for better- we have capitalism, and if you try and impose limits like that on it, you only bugger it up. Tpt is right; there are much better ways to deal with the issue.

Originally posted by Mindship
I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

we-tard-ed..............our system already throws socialism in the mix.............caps on wealth lame. Bringing up the poor? Well take the poor that bust their ass to make it and take them up a notch. The ones with hands out should get them cut off......ho ho ho merry christmas!

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It doesn't really matter if it's 10 million or 10 trillion as far as I'm concerned.. there should be no uneccesarry limits to one's accomplishments. If they want to have all that money and have the means to do so, they should be allowed. Do I think they should give a lot of it away to charity and whatnot? Of course, but if they don't do so on their own free will then that sorta defeats the purpose.

As far as I'm concerned, we're better off without a "safety net." The lack of a financial crutch creates more motivation to become self-sufficient.

But you see..there is a certain degree of "Socialism" even in "Capalist" societies...just not to the extreme of Soviet Style Marxism. For example..in the United States, they're are all types of "Checks and Balances" in place that are used prevent any one individual(s) from become to wealthy/powerful. Think about it, we have laws in place that prevent monopolizing, as well as a progressive tax system. A true Capitalist society wouldn't have these things. Imagine if the United States had a flat tax system. The gap between the Rich and Poor would be even wider.

There's a lot of demand for flat rate taxing these days, actually. Some of the eatsern European states are trying it out, and there is a big debate about it in the UK.

The idea is that the flat rate only comes in at the rough equivalent of $20000 a year, so people on less than that pay no tax at all, but all income above that point is taxed at a flat rate throughout. The pitch is that it is much easier to administrate and harder for rich people to wriggle out of.

Originally posted by Mindship
I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

I think that that would be a great start. You got my vote.

Originally posted by silver_tears
I disagree.

You can't put a value on an idea, or invention, or a person's worth. If one person has the ability, and the talent, skill, etc to do so they should be free to make as much money as possible for them.

People earning the money that way, eg Bill Gates, is much different than people stealing it by de-frauding companies. They should have the right to capitalize on their abilities without someone limiting them.

Not to mention people with that kind of money need it to support their lifestyles.

The problem with this idea is that some people have certain advantages to gain this wealth than other people do. Being born into a wealthy family for instance would give you more opportunities to become a wealthy individual as an adult. People born and raised in poor settings without advantages of a great education and proper nourishment whether it be food or love, have a significantly less chance to have the social nohow to progress in the business world. And the idea of "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps" is moot. You need someone to direct you. People just don't become a genius overnight with a technical knowledge of the international business community.
Having the "right" to capitilize on other people while already having an unfair advantage is NOT fair.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I agree. Socialism, even in small amounts, goes against the natural flow of things. People should be allowed to either sink or swim on their own.. those who don't swim shouldn't be thrown a life preserver and those who do shouldn't be thrown an anchor.

Okay the natural flow of things is people capitalizing on other less fortunate people. Is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by meep-meep
The problem with this idea is that some people have certain advantages to gain this wealth than other people do. Being born into a wealthy family for instance would give you more opportunities to become a wealthy individual as an adult. People born and raised in poor settings without advantages of a great education and proper nourishment whether it be food or love, have a significantly less chance to have the social nohow to progress in the business world. And the idea of "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps" is moot. You need someone to direct you. People just don't become a genius overnight with a technical knowledge of the international business community.
Having the "right" to capitilize on other people while already having an unfair advantage is NOT fair.

What if a person came from an impoverished family and made it to the top. Would you be willing to cap that too even with all they had to get through?

I think that is unfair, if someone has the determination and drive to succeed, no one should take that away.
But like I said again, I don't mean succeed by fraud or other illegal means.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Okay the natural flow of things is people capitalizing on other less fortunate people. Is that what you're saying?

I'm pretty sure he meant survival of the fittest. That is the natural flow, you're better than someone else then you should have something to show for it.
We have to admit it, everyone is not at the same level, and by putting a cap on wealth that's basically like saying your efforts are pointless. There would be no such to succeed anymore.
And what about professional athletes? With a limit to how much they can make, they do not play as well.