4 ms·

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

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.
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      They don’t have to break the law to exert great control over others. And that’s the only point in having so much wealth.
      - jay_kyburz 6y ago
        Its is if we make a law saying you can't do that. That's the point I am trying to make. If we can make laws, we can fix problems.

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.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    They don’t have to break the law to exert great control over others. And that’s the only point in having so much wealth.
    - jay_kyburz 6y ago
      Its is if we make a law saying you can't do that. That's the point I am trying to make. If we can make laws, we can fix problems.