3 ms·

It's just not practical to enforce a cap though. Even with a very authoritarian world government to stop people moving assets elsewhere, there'll be too many wa

It's just not practical to enforce a cap though. Even with a very authoritarian world government to stop people moving assets elsewhere, there'll be too many ways around it. So you can only have $15mil of assets? But your partner can have $15mil too, as can your kids, and parents. And if that's not enough, you can still try to hoard extra wealth in easier-to-hide forms - whether it's physical gold, bitcoin, art, fine wines, etc. Or worse still, the super-rich will realise that they can spend many times the wealth cap per year consumable/disposable items (so long as they stay under the cap, or get back there by year-end), and become more wasteful. "Might as well spend a few million on a private jet, if I don't, I'll hit the wealth cap!".

snapplebobapple 3y ago
Its not that its not practical as much as it is actively counterproductive to progress since the minimum effective size in many sectors is larger than that so you would end up force liquidating founders out of companies they start, which is a bad thing in for progress in mlst cases. You want quality founders to ma*ntain control and grow a business up to the point it starts abusing market power rather than innovating and that is often far beyond 15 mm valuation. Tje real problem is the market power and that is when heavy regulation and breakup should set in, not at some arbitrarily low asset limit.
jszymborski 3y ago
But even in your family hypothetical, the overall inequality is still much less than between billionaires and the middle-class (nothing said of the truly destitute). > Or worse still, the super-rich will realise that they can spend many times the wealth cap per year consumable/disposable items (so long as they stay under the cap, or get back there by year-end), and become more wasteful. "Might as well spend a few million on a private jet, if I don't, I'll hit the wealth cap!". This is a very interesting point! I'd worry less about rich folks spending to be below the cap (that money re-enters the economy), but rather evasion by sending money back and forth between a small set. Clearly evasion would need to be monitored.
- FredPret 3y ago
  Ah yes, here come the arguments for "monitoring". Next come regulations about having to "cooperate". Then the question will be raised as to what happens to those rich people who don't cooperate, or middle class / poor people who, god forbid, don't agree with this plan for society. Pretty soon, you've got your jackboots and your re-education camps.
  - jszymborski 3y ago
    I don't know how this is different from filing income taxes. When you are convicted of committing tax fraud, you may get incarcerated in a prison. Most often, you pay a fine. Call the prisons re-education camps or the tax people jackboots, if you like.
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    You made quite a few significant leaps there.
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      "The slippery slope is a fallacy!" quoth those actively greasing the slope.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      So did the NKVD! Started as regular police, ended up doing purges 13 crazy years later.
      - r3d0c 3y ago
        lol, put the meth pipe down
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    The US used to tax up to 90% or so at the highest brackets. Rich people survived.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

Its not that its not practical as much as it is actively counterproductive to progress since the minimum effective size in many sectors is larger than that so you would end up force liquidating founders out of companies they start, which is a bad thing in for progress in mlst cases. You want quality founders to ma*ntain control and grow a business up to the point it starts abusing market power rather than innovating and that is often far beyond 15 mm valuation. Tje real problem is the market power and that is when heavy regulation and breakup should set in, not at some arbitrarily low asset limit.

jszymborski 3y ago

But even in your family hypothetical, the overall inequality is still much less than between billionaires and the middle-class (nothing said of the truly destitute). > Or worse still, the super-rich will realise that they can spend many times the wealth cap per year consumable/disposable items (so long as they stay under the cap, or get back there by year-end), and become more wasteful. "Might as well spend a few million on a private jet, if I don't, I'll hit the wealth cap!". This is a very interesting point! I'd worry less about rich folks spending to be below the cap (that money re-enters the economy), but rather evasion by sending money back and forth between a small set. Clearly evasion would need to be monitored.

FredPret 3y ago
Ah yes, here come the arguments for "monitoring". Next come regulations about having to "cooperate". Then the question will be raised as to what happens to those rich people who don't cooperate, or middle class / poor people who, god forbid, don't agree with this plan for society. Pretty soon, you've got your jackboots and your re-education camps.
- jszymborski 3y ago
  I don't know how this is different from filing income taxes. When you are convicted of committing tax fraud, you may get incarcerated in a prison. Most often, you pay a fine. Call the prisons re-education camps or the tax people jackboots, if you like.
- NegativeK 3y ago
  You made quite a few significant leaps there.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    "The slippery slope is a fallacy!" quoth those actively greasing the slope.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    So did the NKVD! Started as regular police, ended up doing purges 13 crazy years later.
    - r3d0c 3y ago
      lol, put the meth pipe down
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  The US used to tax up to 90% or so at the highest brackets. Rich people survived.