6 ms·
Here is a simple one: Have a wealth cap and an income cap. State that after X million dollars in bank, societies is not interested in making that specific indi
by Iv 7y ago
Here is a simple one: Have a wealth cap and an income cap.
State that after X million dollars in bank, societies is not interested in making that specific individual richer.
I have yet to see a good, non-ideological argument as to why this would harm the economy.
Someone unwilling to work correctly even for the maximum amount is probably someone we don't want to have in a position of power.
- DuskStar 7y agoThis is a horrible idea, because it removes any reason for a billionaire to keep working, or to work harder. Spend nights and weekends at work for an extra million, or spend it with your family because you won't spend the money anyways? People, in general, do not work for free.
- foolrush 7y agoThey aren’t working. You will never be a billionaire, so stop defending them. “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
- RhysU 7y agoNo, I will never be a billionaire. But I am an incredibly rich man in other ways on account of my labors. Family, career, etc. And I shudder to think that someone might take away all the non-monetary wealth that I have accumulated by convincing others that they can never be as happy as I am.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- foolrush 7y agoAgain, this is not about you. This is about you in as much as increasing the standard of living of you and your family’s medical, education, living, etc. The alien billionaire empathy narrative myth is being used against you.
- mhh__ 7y agoSocialism left millions dead, with those remaining knowing freedom only as an abstract concept.
- y4mi 7y agoThe same applies to religion if you consider our history. Every concept can be applied in a harmful way which profits the few and oppresses society.
- mhh__ 7y agoSocialism cannot not do that due to the abolition of the pricing mechanism in favour of political power
- DuskStar 7y ago> > Every concept can be applied in a harmful way which profits the few and oppresses society. > Socialism cannot not do that due to the abolition of the pricing mechanism in favour of political power I hope you're not serious, but in case you are... How can socialism not be used to oppress the many while enriching the few? You even included the mechanism - political power! You could argue that it doesn't have to, and I'd say that history does not give great odds on oppression not happening... But to say it can't do such a thing? That's insulting.
- throwaway1906 7y agoCapitalism is working really hard to leave all of us -- and everything else on the planet -- dead, all in the pursuit of making the richest 10% richer.
- mhh__ 7y agoMarket liberalisation has caused poverty to collapse around the world over the last 30 years
- foolrush 7y ago
- dang 7y agoPlease don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. Those discussions are repetitive and therefore tedious and therefore off topic here. They also tend to get nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- newen 7y agoWhy is it so bad for billionaires to stop working? Presumably, with the wealth cap or very progressive tax, the resources they would currently use to make the next million dollars would be spread out over a million people and those million people might make that next million dollars. If not, then you are saying that the billionaire would make the next million dollars more efficiently, right? Given that concentration of wealth is bad, isn't it better for the million people to make the next million dollars than the billionaire?
- DuskStar 7y agoWhy do you assume that all work done by a billionaire can be substituted with work done by someone else? This isn't always true further down the spectrum - for instance, if you take away enough surgeons, some surgeries just won't be performed.
- newen 7y agoYou are saying that society needs certain people to have enormous sums of money to be better (however you define it, apparently you are saying that only these people can do certain things because they have individual control of large amounts of money; but I don't see how it's better than organizations, governmental or otherwise, having control of large sums of money) than a society where certain people are not enormously wealthy?
- foolrush 7y agoSurgeons are not billionaires. Surgeons are trained. Billionaires are not magical unicorns, and in fact are byproducts of nothing more than birthright, chance, and a culture that cultivates them.
- Iv 7y agoI'd rather have a thousand competent people working toward their first million than a competent billionaire working toward his second billion. Also I have a huge doubt that billionaires keep working for the money incentive. Once you get that rich, it is not about money anymore.
- bko 7y agoHow can you have a wealth cap? State you can't have more than X dollars in the bank. Okay, can I use my money to buy things (e.g. property)? Should you value my property at the market value as "dollars in the bank"? What if I buy my property and it appreciates, would it get confiscated? Would police come to my home and forcibly move me to a home below the cap? Can I own or invest in a business? Do we mark that at "market value"? Who sets this market value? What happens if my business does well, too well in fact and now my market value is more than the allotted amount. It's impractical and its not entirely clear what "million dollars in the bank" really is. The fact is that very few wealthy people just have money sitting around in a bank. And when you try confiscating other types of wealth you realize how impractical it is. Income cap becomes equally complicated when you count income as money a business you own made and reinvested in itself
- Jackypot 7y agoVery succinct summary of why that's a wild and untenable idea.
- foolrush 7y agoBecause every idea that suggests change from the status quo is wild and untenable, yet legislation that benefits the corporations and billionaires can happen extremely swiftly, almost without friction, nor even legislative discussion. It’s not succinct to suggest that the wealth hoarding cannot be taxed. It’s not wild. It’s not untenable. The onus of taxation being thrust upon the individual has been following a characteristic curve since the Great Depression. It was happening prior to that, with only WWII levelling it out. Wild and untenable ideas are only wild and untenable because of the suffocating ideology that instructs you as such.
- Iv 7y agoIsn't that marvelous? The only nation that landed humans on the Moon thinks that it can't do things that are the norms in many European countries.