A cap on wealth?

Post Reply New Topic

In principle, putting a cap on the amount of income is moral and good, but in practice.
it is unlikely to gain popularity and be voted in, especially among the people of government
who are generally self serving capitalist politicians (even in communist countries.

I have thought long and hard about such a subject, and personally i feel rather than cap wealth
(and kill individuals incentive to work hard for self gain).

I feel that enforcing a global policy of x % of profit sharing for all businesses.
This means that when business is bad and there is little profit, the businesses give little or no profit sharing, just basic wage.

However, when profit is high, even in such unusual circumstances that we presently face due to the corona virus.
then those who make the profit are forced by law to share x % of their profits equally among all staff, no matter as to how high or low they are in the country. All members of a company are then valued and considered an essential part of the country.

I also feel that this strategy is also effective at achieving several other objectives, including
increasing income tax overall, as if you increase the low to middle earners income, they are likely to pay a percentage to the tax man, in contrary to how most business owners pay tax, as many of the owners will simply get their accountant to write off extra income off to expenses or transfer their capital to a tax haven (such as the one that i live on), where they pay no tax on their income.

When you increase a low earner's income however, the low earner not only really appreciates the extra income, and thus gives them more incentive to work harder and be a good work mate, but they usually spend any extra, as most low earners don't really have that much disposable income, so any extra disposable income will get spent quick.

Increasing low earners disposable income if done across the board, helps promote spending which in turn helps businesses stay afloat and increase their profits, which in turn increases their income tax, but also keeps the economy buoyant and more importantly prevents the economy, whether local or global, from stagnating and going into crisis/ recession. as which happens when people stop spending! because they are scared about going into a recession!

The main downside of the concept of global profit sharing across the board, is that big corporations will make a percentage less profit, and thus will not be able to expand as quick, so progress in some areas will slow down.

Whether that is necessarily a bad thing, I think that is debatable. obviously, in certain areas, slowing down progress would be negative, such as in the areas of health science etc.

However, in other areas of life, it probably wouldn't have that much affect. I mean, personally, i could live without having tomorrows technology today, if it meant that the entire world benefited from this, but especially the lower earners, who generally get a crappy deal too.

But also think of how much extra tax income the various governments will get, which will make managing human society a great deal easier.

I think that globally applied profit sharing really would help address some of the inequalities that the human race has had to put up with for many centuries, while at the same time protecting the worlds economy from suffering from crisis after crisis (which inevitably results in many people dying).

I feel profit sharing of this type would be the way ahead, in order to save the future.

It would just need someone to then work out a way to solve the global inequalities that exist in terms of value of property etc. As there still is massive inequality of the value of land, services and goods from one country to another/

Hopefully one day the human race will grow up enough or event technology that will make capitalism obsolete.
For example, imagine if someone invented machines as seen on star trek that can make anything out of practically nothing.

Then owning stuff would have less value / worth, and the human race could get rid of their obsessive materialism as well as attributing ownership of material objects to a superior value.

I wish... if only... but i guess the human race first need to get past their religious and political indifferences.

Support absolutely, I find it obscene that some flaunt their excessive wealth while others lack basic necessities.

See also: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

since I like to have 3 references to a thing, 1 last, and I shall begin with its end,

Sweetleaf, just from this thread I can tell you're one of my favorite people on this site. So few people are willing to even consider the things you've talked about, even though they're good ideas. What most people (at least most Americans) see as radical left is actually pretty close to the center. I don't think most of the world has seen radical left yet. Capitalism is unsustainable and we need people like you to help come up with something to replace it.

Stifling incentive is never a good idea.
Look what happened to the U.S.S.R.

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.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

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.