Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

A cap on wealth?

Page 5 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Cap on wealth a person can earn/money they can control yay or nay?
Yes 25%  25%  [ 7 ]
No 61%  61%  [ 17 ]
Maybe 14%  14%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 28

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,934
Location: Stendec

23 Nov 2020, 10:13 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
There is a finite amount of money in the world.
Technically, there is a finite amount of hard currency; but there is new money being printed all the time, so the amount is constantly increasing.  However, the potential for wealth is infinite.  What is worth one dollar today could be worth two dollars next year, and without a corresponding increase in the amount of hard currency.  Wealth may be measured in dollars, but a billionaire does not literally have one-billion dollar bills laying around somewhere.  Most of his wealth is either virtual or tied up in material property.  While hard currency may be part of a person's wealth, it is not all of a person's wealth.
XFilesGeek wrote:
Are you honestly arguing that everyone who is currently alive can become a millionaire?
No.  I am honestly suggesting that given an equal amount of money and a long enough period of time, some people will double their wealth, some people will halve their wealth, and some people's wealth will remain roughly the same.  It all depends on the people.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

23 Nov 2020, 12:53 pm

Mikah wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Pay politicians on a fixed ratio of 2x the average income of the nation, and watch that average go up, and wage inequality go down. To help themselves they'd have to help everyone else, first.


You're too kind. How about 0.8 times the minimum wage hehehe


If anything, on reflection I think maybe it should be 3x, but with collecting any other income at all whilst in office being made totally illegal.

They need to be paid enough to make the hassle worthwhile. I'm no fan of politicians but leading a nation isn't easy. I wouldn't want those standing to be in the pocket of big money interests rather than representing the electorate (pretty much as it is now). Conversely I wouldn't want a complete lack of candidates either.



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

23 Nov 2020, 1:06 pm

Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
There is a finite amount of money in the world.
Technically, there is a finite amount of hard currency; but there is new money being printed all the time, so the amount is constantly increasing.  However, the potential for wealth is infinite.  What is worth one dollar today could be worth two dollars next year, and without a corresponding increase in the amount of hard currency.  Wealth may be measured in dollars, but a billionaire does not literally have one-billion dollar bills laying around somewhere.  Most of his wealth is either virtual or tied up in material property.  While hard currency may be part of a person's wealth, it is not all of a person's wealth.
XFilesGeek wrote:
Are you honestly arguing that everyone who is currently alive can become a millionaire?
No.  I am honestly suggesting that given an equal amount of money and a long enough period of time, some people will double their wealth, some people will halve their wealth, and some people's wealth will remain roughly the same.  It all depends on the people.


A lot of people would just squander it as fast as possible. And then ask for government assistance to carry them throughout the rest of the year.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

23 Nov 2020, 1:19 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Pay politicians on a fixed ratio of 2x the average income of the nation, and watch that average go up, and wage inequality go down. To help themselves they'd have to help everyone else, first.


You're too kind. How about 0.8 times the minimum wage hehehe


If anything, on reflection I think maybe it should be 3x, but with collecting any other income at all whilst in office being made totally illegal.

They need to be paid enough to make the hassle worthwhile. I'm no fan of politicians but leading a nation isn't easy. I wouldn't want those standing to be in the pocket of big money interests rather than representing the electorate (pretty much as it is now). Conversely I wouldn't want a complete lack of candidates either.

I would prefer using median income in there calculations, instead of average.
Median is where exactly half of people get more and half get less.
Average can be easily raised by raising income of the 1% to unbelievable amounts and leaving all the rest poor.
Median tells more about an average citizen.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

23 Nov 2020, 1:21 pm

magz wrote:
I would prefer using median income in there calculations, instead of average.
Median is where exactly half of people get more and half get less.
Average can be easily raised by raising income of the 1% to unbelievable amounts and leaving all the rest poor.
Median tells more about an average citizen.


Good point. That is what I had in mind, but I used the wrong term.



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

23 Nov 2020, 1:48 pm

magz wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Pay politicians on a fixed ratio of 2x the average income of the nation, and watch that average go up, and wage inequality go down. To help themselves they'd have to help everyone else, first.


You're too kind. How about 0.8 times the minimum wage hehehe


If anything, on reflection I think maybe it should be 3x, but with collecting any other income at all whilst in office being made totally illegal.

They need to be paid enough to make the hassle worthwhile. I'm no fan of politicians but leading a nation isn't easy. I wouldn't want those standing to be in the pocket of big money interests rather than representing the electorate (pretty much as it is now). Conversely I wouldn't want a complete lack of candidates either.

I would prefer using median income in there calculations, instead of average.
Median is where exactly half of people get more and half get less.
Average can be easily raised by raising income of the 1% to unbelievable amounts and leaving all the rest poor.
Median tells more about an average citizen.


There are a lot of people in America who aren't rich but live well. They have a nice home and nice things and are comfortable.

I personally wouldn't want to trade places with a CEO and be stuck trying to do their job.



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

23 Nov 2020, 2:17 pm

Tempus Fugit wrote:
magz wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Pay politicians on a fixed ratio of 2x the average income of the nation, and watch that average go up, and wage inequality go down. To help themselves they'd have to help everyone else, first.


You're too kind. How about 0.8 times the minimum wage hehehe


If anything, on reflection I think maybe it should be 3x, but with collecting any other income at all whilst in office being made totally illegal.

They need to be paid enough to make the hassle worthwhile. I'm no fan of politicians but leading a nation isn't easy. I wouldn't want those standing to be in the pocket of big money interests rather than representing the electorate (pretty much as it is now). Conversely I wouldn't want a complete lack of candidates either.

I would prefer using median income in there calculations, instead of average.
Median is where exactly half of people get more and half get less.
Average can be easily raised by raising income of the 1% to unbelievable amounts and leaving all the rest poor.
Median tells more about an average citizen.


There are a lot of people in America who aren't rich but live well. They have a nice home and nice things and are comfortable.

I personally wouldn't want to trade places with a CEO and be stuck trying to do their job.


Yeah that's kind of the point, here. Getting more people into that reasonably comfortable middle ground by reducing abject poverty and also obscene wealth-hoarding at the top, while still having a system that rewards hard work. Hence the multiplier! It would incentivise politicians to look after the most disadvantaged (as they're a "quick win" here) AND encourage the ultra-rich to "trickle down" the benefits of success with their employees. But without ending up in a communist, everyone-is-equal-so-why-bother? situation.

I've seen this proposed before but applied to Director's pay within companies. So the Board get paid a maximum of X times the median wage within the firm. You could even tweak the multiplier ratios for different types of company. But it strikes me that could get awfully complicated very quickly, whereas applying the same thinking to our political decision-makers leaves all the policy details downstream up to them. It also brings social policy into play, for example improving the lot of pensioners or those with disabilities or chronic health conditions, who won't automatically benefit from rules applied to companies.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

23 Nov 2020, 5:07 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:

There is a finite amount of money in the world. Are you honestly arguing that everyone who is currently alive can become a millionaire?


Finite yes, constant no.

Money is an accounting tool, what it really counts is the productivity of a society. When innovation creates more efficiency there is more productivity and total wealth. This is why economics is not a zero sum game.

The vast majority of the wealthy don't "hoard" wealth, they invest it. This increases their wealth, but the gains come from giving money to innovators and getting paid back more when the ideas succeed. Investment drives the improvement of our society.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,934
Location: Stendec

23 Nov 2020, 5:48 pm

Antrax wrote:
Money is an accounting tool...
It is also a medium of exchange; and whatever can be used as a medium of exchange can be called "money".


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

23 Nov 2020, 6:00 pm

Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Money is an accounting tool...
It is also a medium of exchange; and whatever can be used as a medium of exchange can be called "money".

Words?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,934
Location: Stendec

23 Nov 2020, 8:30 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Money is an accounting tool...
It is also a medium of exchange; and whatever can be used as a medium of exchange can be called "money".
Words?
No, just a broader definition.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

24 Nov 2020, 1:57 am

Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Money is an accounting tool...
It is also a medium of exchange; and whatever can be used as a medium of exchange can be called "money".


Well yes, but my point is that the amount of wealth (which can be exchanged), is determined by the productivity of society. A more productive society will have more wealth.

I would cite statistics on how modern american society is wealthier for basically all income brackets then at any prior point in history (pre-pandemic, but that's a whole other issue), but people who think the rich are making them poor don't want to accept that people were poorer in the past.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

24 Nov 2020, 2:46 am

Antrax wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Stifling incentive is never a good idea.
Look what happened to the U.S.S.R. 8)


The bigger issue for the USSR was their centrally planned economy was horribly inefficient. It's not like you couldn't rise to positions of wealth and power in the USSR, although the avenues for doing that were not as numerous as in the US.


The workers had little incentive to work harder.
That was part of the reason for the rampant alcoholism, I have heard. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

24 Nov 2020, 2:48 am

Fnord wrote:
While we're at it, let's put a cap on the size of one's house/apartment, how many pairs of shoes they own, how much food they eat, how many friends they have, how many changes of clothing they own, where they can go, and how much education they can have.

Yes, let's make this a REAL totalitarian state, make everyone slaves to the state, and no one will ever again feel sorry for themselves for not being as wealthy as their neighbors, because everyone will be as poor as everyone else.

:roll: Yes, that was sarcasm.


You have much to lose if the Marxist queen, Harris, gains the presidency. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

24 Nov 2020, 2:52 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
I personally wouldn't mind.

And the lengths some people will go to to defend the ultra wealthy boggles my mind. In any case, our current version of capitalism isn't sustainable, and I fear too many people are going to learn that the hard way when it's far too late.


I am not defending the ultra wealthy. I am defending the rights of freedom. Start putting limits to what one is allowed to do and ones freedom has been erroded.


Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

When the top 1% are hoarding wealth to the point where it is a detriment to society, it is no longer a matter of "freedom."


I realize that. But what we are proposing is what the ultra wealthy want because they are no longer interested in wealth, but are interested in power and control, hence why they seem to be spiting themselves but they want people to consider communism so they can take control, as they are bored as they are as they have already gained many times more then they need under a system which promotes freedom in order that people can thrive.

I do not know what an ideal answer is though.


"Communism" is a moneyless, stateless, classless society. And the ultra wealthy already control just about everything.


Quote:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.


8)



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

24 Nov 2020, 8:14 am

Fnord wrote:
While we're at it, let's put a cap on the size of one's house/apartment, how many pairs of shoes they own, how much food they eat, how many friends they have, how many changes of clothing they own, where they can go, and how much education they can have.

Yes, let's make this a REAL totalitarian state, make everyone slaves to the state, and no one will ever again feel sorry for themselves for not being as wealthy as their neighbors, because everyone will be as poor as everyone else.

:roll: Yes, that was sarcasm.


Sounds like life aboard the starship Enterprise.