2 ms·

> That’s not an actual argument though… If you can’t answer it you can’t move forward with the plan. It might be an interesting intellectual discussion, but i

> That’s not an actual argument though… If you can’t answer it you can’t move forward with the plan. It might be an interesting intellectual discussion, but it’s pointless beyond the cerebral exercise because it’s impossible to implement. “It’s impossible to implement” simply trumps all other arguments. > but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon There is no way to get to an agreement on a specific amount because you theoretically apply the same “pro” arguments to wealth limitation to a billion dollars to $100k or even to $14,001. The alternative is a prohibition against any individual wealth accumulation. I’m absolutely not for that, so you and I will never agree on a number, because there isn’t a number where I would say “that is too much”. I am dead set against any wealth limitation.

xracy 2y ago
There's an old joke where a man asks a woman M: "Would you sleep with me for $1M" W: "for $1M dollars? Yeah, I guess I could be convinced for $1M." M: "What about for $10" W: "No, what do you take me for!" M: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price." I don't think this is that funny of a joke, but the point I'm making is that picking a number is a detail that comes after we decide that there needs to be a number. And I think if you agree that there needs to be a number, the gov't is the one that could set it (or the voting public). The most likely answer is you pick some multiple of minimum wage, and then some number of years at that number. 1000x minimum wage, 10 years of earnings at that value. That's the maximum you can have. You want more? You gotta raise minimum wage.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Who gets to set the multiple?