Wealth! How much is enough?

[AdamCrock]

I am mostly operating under the premise Adam gave, of offering self-employed people favourable rates in comparison to corporations. So people offering a service that a "company" ordinarily would. He raised it as a concern within my proposed system, but to me, someone who owns a neighbourhood hardware store will never get to the point of being affected by anti-ultra-wealth policy. For them to reach that threshold, they'd have to expand and become a corporation. There's a "limit" to how much someone in that position can earn while still being small fry.

With your example of creatives or investors, there's a bit of a different calculation involved. Their incomes are transient and uncertain, yet they are definitely capable of earning big money, especially in comparison to a mom & pop shop. But since we're talking about assets, I'm not sure it moves the needle, really. If someone "self-employed" can get to the point where they are capable of hoarding valuable assets, I don't see a compelling reason to give them preferential treatment. They're not the underdog anymore. They're the elite class.

There's no such class like elite , You have to earn for it - my adive to treat those .... is censored

 

[AdamCrock]

If I had enough money I would just build CDC avenue as a private sub development.

what kind of a diictator are You?!

 

[Zardnaar]

what kind of a diictator are You?!

One that supplies cheap booze.

Worked for the USSR!!

 

[Synobun]

There's no such class like elite , You have to earn for it - my adive to treat those .... is censored

Depends on your definition of earn, I guess. I can't really see a compelling argument for why some people should have 500,000,000 in liquid cash while others live in abject squalor. The people with the former, as well, have the power to influence policy more directly than someone living paycheque to paycheque. The fair meritocracy is largely a myth, and is propaganda spoon-fed to everyone from birth.

 

[uppi]

There's no such class like elite , You have to earn for it - my adive to treat those .... is censored

"Earn it" as in "inherit it"?

 

[AdamCrock]

One that supplies cheap booze.

Worked for the USSR!!

say no more , say no more ! .... (most likely Your're gonna blew it an I would really appreciate a strong spirit right about now to kill the headache)...You have my vote

Depends on your definition of earn, I guess. I can't really see a compelling argument for why some people should have 500,000,000 in liquid cash while others live in abject squalor. The people with the former, as well, have the power to influence policy more directly than someone living paycheque to paycheque. The fair meritocracy is largely a myth, and is propaganda spoon-fed to everyone from birth.

You're onto something here friend

 

[gay_Aleks]

I have voted one million dollars - not because I think that's "just", but because that is the lowest amount possible. It is interesting to hear that people say taxation could resolve this - have you not heard of tax havens? Or loopholes? Money is not too unlike a black hole, when it comes to politics. I do not, in fact, think that a person should own more than, say, 50,000 dollars, let's set an arbitrary figure underneath 100k dollars. The reason people right now need an extraordinary amount of money to survive isn't a "natural" one, but that which is created by our system. Once institutions serve the people, and not money/profit, this need to accumulate more as an individual will pass away, instead the individual benefiting society and reaping the fruits of society's work. As opposed to a few private individuals doing so.

Inheritance, beyond that which is needed for survival (i.e, a house) will also become wholly unnecessary, especially after land is socialized. Thank you for your attention.

 

[El_Machinae]

I used a different metric, but one (I think) acknowledged how wealth works in our current system. But, remember that I said that things should be subject to a ratcheting tax. I'm not yet convinced there's needs to be a ceiling limit, especially if the system is designed around "giving people what they want makes you money". I can only partially imagine what would have happened if Bezos had been limited to $1 billion of personal wealth. And I'm not at all sure what would have happened if JK Rowling had been limited to $1 billion. Unpacking the hard ceiling like that ... I just don't know. Whereas, I'm pretty sure I know how things would have worked if there was just a high marginal tax rate at those levels.

But I used $7 million for a very simple reason. If one wants to engage in low-risk savings assets, $7 million generates $70k for 'free' (at 1%). Greater returns can be had with greater risk, and the damage kicks in once the returns are guaranteed to be higher than the latent growth rate. We want active investing that returns greater than average growth, but I see no reason why passive or risk-free should.

If I hold as a premise that a National Basic Income of 'a living wage' is 'fair', then in my region of the world, it's about $30k. Since wealth and income are interchangeable, I cannot resent or even forbid $3 million of liquid wealth. And then $70k becomes another number, because that's (maybe) where life satisfaction starts flat-lining. I don't hold to these numbers hard, they're placeholders for the underlying concept.

With a ratcheting marginal tax on income (which occurs when there's either barter or use of currency), the income tax would then be used by the populace to purchase a combination of welfare goods and public goods. Ideally, we want people who're able to work to be able to afford good lives and we want people unable to work to have good lives. The floor on that life-quality should be determined by the potential wealth in the economy, so it grows when the economy grows.

 

[Lexicus]

"The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

 

[stinkubus]

With proper taxation, I don't see a need to cap assets. I don't see a need for the state to interfere with inheritance either.

Without capping Jeff Bezo's assets how are you able to stop him from using that wealth to capture the political process anywhere he wants Amazon to set up shop?

 

[Synobun]

Without capping Jeff Bezo's assets how are you able to stop him from using that wealth to capture the political process anywhere he wants Amazon to set up shop?

Why wouldn't he leave to somewhere he can capture the political process if you cap his assets? Seems like he'd earn more with heavy taxation, and your retort is that he'd just go somewhere else if he was taxed, so...

Can't stop people from moving elsewhere. No reason to try.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Allowing for wealth to accumulate well past what is necessary to make everyone appear "equal" permits innovation and change as wealthy people adopt new ways of doing things that then work their way down to everyday use by the non rich. Rich folks have money to spend and do so on frivolous and unnecessary things which at the time seem totally wasteful and show offy extravagant. Up through the 1960s air travel was a luxury only for the wealthy. Buses, trains and cars were for the masses. Then in the 1970s, Southwest decided to make airplanes flying buses and displace the rich as the source of air travel revenue. We need the excess spending of the very rich to keep things dynamic and changing. Too little wealth will stifle that element. Wealth fosters both good and bad human traits so we need enough of it around to keep those good traits active. As I see it would be a mistake to shovel everyone into a narrow band of subsistence plus living.

 

[Hygro]

"The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

Sounds awful.

 

[Patine]

Once institutions serve the people, and not money/profit, this need to accumulate more as an individual will pass away, instead the individual benefiting society and reaping the fruits of society's work. As opposed to a few private individuals doing so.

As an avid student of history - global and in a broad temporal scope - I must ask, when was this halcyon and magical day of yore when, " institutions served the people?" Mammon is not a newer villain to arrive on the scene, if you will.

 

[Hygro]

As an avid student of history - global and in a broad temporal scope - I must ask, when was this halcyon and magical day of yore when, " institutions served the people?" Mammon is not a newer villain to arrive on the scene, if you will.

@Phrossack has been asking this question lately, and it has me thinking.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As an avid student of history - global and in a broad temporal scope - I must ask, when was this halcyon and magical day of yore when, " institutions served the people?" Mammon is not a newer villain to arrive on the scene, if you will.

@Phrossack has been asking this question lately, and it has me thinking.

Lots of institutions have served "the people". To begin, though, you have to define what one means by "institution" and which people you are talking about.

 

[Hygro]

In this case, “The” institution. Democracy and universal citizenship is new and incomplete.

 

[Patine]

In this case, “The” institution. Democracy and universal citizenship is new and incomplete.

And still allows for flagrant inequity, corruption, and abuse of power with reckless abandon. Funny how that works.

"Populism, lack of education, and apathy are the Achilles' Heels of the democratic system of government."

-James Callahan

 

[Birdjaguar]

In this case, “The” institution. Democracy and universal citizenship is new and incomplete.

Interesting topic that probably deserves its own thread.

 

[stinkubus]

Why wouldn't he leave to somewhere he can capture the political process if you cap his assets? Seems like he'd earn more with heavy taxation, and your retort is that he'd just go somewhere else if he was taxed, so...

Can't stop people from moving elsewhere. No reason to try.

You most certainly can stop people from moving. No one gets on an airplane without the US government's approval. Furthermore assets can be seized under a wide variety of pretenses. Almost any illegal conduct by Amazon would make them subject to forfeiture and the only reason not to do it is to protect specifically the wealthiest .01% of Americans that own most of it.