4 ms·

I would say the rich getting richer allows the people who the politicians want to suck up to escape from most of the problems in the country, and therefore allo

I would say the rich getting richer allows the people who the politicians want to suck up to escape from most of the problems in the country, and therefore allows them to haggle with politics and policies instead of really focus on pressing issues. Easy fix would be to limit how much wealth you can amass. Who really needs more than $50million?

jay_kyburz 6y ago
Who needs more than full belly and a roof over their heads? It's weird to want to cap somebodies worth. We need to limit how people and companies can use their wealth to exert power or make more money. How about a rule where you can't charge more rent that what it costs to maintain the property. How about a rule where you can't sell drugs after you have recouped the cost to develop them. How about a rule where you can't donate money to a politician or political party. How about a rule where employees of a company automatically paid dividends before shareholders are.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I mean, that's the abolition of capitalism, though. You are literally describing market socialism. The only thing left is to automatically make workers the main shareholders, and making shareholders nothing more than financiers that must be repaid their interest.
- briefcomment 6y ago
  That's a lot of rules though, and rules bog a society down. It definitely sounds weird, but seriously, why would you need more than $50 million to live a good life? At that point, you're probably imposing on other people rather than focusing on yourself. What do you do with wealth after $50mil? You probably exercise your influence on people who would be much better off being helped by people who are closer to the problem. Those people don't have enough money? Well I bet with capped wealth, we'd see a lot more competition, and there would be an explosion of opportunities to create modest wealth. A (somewhat) natural way of spreading wealth.
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    but, who cares how much somebody else has. The problem is not how much somebody else has. The problem is that a person can work 40 hours a week for 40 years and not have anything to show for it. And the reason they don't have anything to show is because they find themselves surrounded by vampires sucking them dry from paycheck to paycheck. "Inequality" is not a problem that needs solving, its a symptom of a society that doesn't reward people for work, it instead rewards those that already own everything. I don't care if Mr. Fancy Pants flies everywhere in his private plane and eats off a gold plate. I only care if he uses his wealth to take my money from me. And in that case I would like the government to protect me. The same way they protect me from being mugged on the street, with laws.
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      I think we're focusing on different aspects of this. I don't really care about equity. I think capped wealth would create more equity from greater competition (think localized everything, or highly specialized services (Google early 2000's instead of now)), but that's besides the point. What I'm really trying to accomplish is to not let uber rich people have unlimited power in setting or even skirting policy. Some of the uber rich don't just own private planes and eat off gold plates. They try to impose their views on the world without having to be elected. They have so much money, that they can buy anyone or anything. And when our elected officials are bought, or when unreasonable amounts of land or capital are bought, the uber rich then have stupid amounts of leverage, and aren't subject to pushback. The uber rich don't have to worry about how much normal people complain. They can ignore everyone and suffer no consequences (unless they're doing something obviously illegal, but they're probably not so stupid as to do that).
      - jay_kyburz 6y ago
        Well then, if they break the law and try and subvert our democracy we should put them in jail and seize everything. If we don't have the capacity to do that, we don't have the capacity to cap their wealth.
- RhysU 6y ago
  > How about a rule where employees of a company automatically paid dividends before shareholders are. Wages...?

jay_kyburz 6y ago

Who needs more than full belly and a roof over their heads? It's weird to want to cap somebodies worth. We need to limit how people and companies can use their wealth to exert power or make more money. How about a rule where you can't charge more rent that what it costs to maintain the property. How about a rule where you can't sell drugs after you have recouped the cost to develop them. How about a rule where you can't donate money to a politician or political party. How about a rule where employees of a company automatically paid dividends before shareholders are.

sudosysgen 6y ago
I mean, that's the abolition of capitalism, though. You are literally describing market socialism. The only thing left is to automatically make workers the main shareholders, and making shareholders nothing more than financiers that must be repaid their interest.
briefcomment 6y ago
That's a lot of rules though, and rules bog a society down. It definitely sounds weird, but seriously, why would you need more than $50 million to live a good life? At that point, you're probably imposing on other people rather than focusing on yourself. What do you do with wealth after $50mil? You probably exercise your influence on people who would be much better off being helped by people who are closer to the problem. Those people don't have enough money? Well I bet with capped wealth, we'd see a lot more competition, and there would be an explosion of opportunities to create modest wealth. A (somewhat) natural way of spreading wealth.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  but, who cares how much somebody else has. The problem is not how much somebody else has. The problem is that a person can work 40 hours a week for 40 years and not have anything to show for it. And the reason they don't have anything to show is because they find themselves surrounded by vampires sucking them dry from paycheck to paycheck. "Inequality" is not a problem that needs solving, its a symptom of a society that doesn't reward people for work, it instead rewards those that already own everything. I don't care if Mr. Fancy Pants flies everywhere in his private plane and eats off a gold plate. I only care if he uses his wealth to take my money from me. And in that case I would like the government to protect me. The same way they protect me from being mugged on the street, with laws.
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    I think we're focusing on different aspects of this. I don't really care about equity. I think capped wealth would create more equity from greater competition (think localized everything, or highly specialized services (Google early 2000's instead of now)), but that's besides the point. What I'm really trying to accomplish is to not let uber rich people have unlimited power in setting or even skirting policy. Some of the uber rich don't just own private planes and eat off gold plates. They try to impose their views on the world without having to be elected. They have so much money, that they can buy anyone or anything. And when our elected officials are bought, or when unreasonable amounts of land or capital are bought, the uber rich then have stupid amounts of leverage, and aren't subject to pushback. The uber rich don't have to worry about how much normal people complain. They can ignore everyone and suffer no consequences (unless they're doing something obviously illegal, but they're probably not so stupid as to do that).
    - jay_kyburz 6y ago
      Well then, if they break the law and try and subvert our democracy we should put them in jail and seize everything. If we don't have the capacity to do that, we don't have the capacity to cap their wealth.
RhysU 6y ago
> How about a rule where employees of a company automatically paid dividends before shareholders are. Wages...?