A cap on wealth?

Post Reply New Topic

Something that I really noticed where I live is as soon as minimum wage came in jobs dissapeared, and those that were left, one had to work "Hidden hours" or the employer made up for it in other ways like changing the uniform and all staff had to buy the new uniforms which cost 10 times more then ordinary clothes would. (E.g. in the late 1990's a company tee shirt was costing £90 each and one had to have a full uniform which came out as more then a months wags just to be allowed to work there... And every so often they changed the colour or style of the uniform. But foe me it was "Hidden hours" where one worked nearly double the hours one was actually paid for to keep ones job.

It doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Like has been said, why would one put in any more effort once they've reached the cap? Let's say that someone rich/well off, who's just a little ways away from reaching the cap, came up with a good business idea. The question is, why would they act on the idea if they'd get no profit? Sure, their name might get more known in a positive light, but is it worth the financial risk that comes with a new business? Worth the stress? Worth the free time lost, especially when they know that even if it's a success, they themselves wouldn't gain anything. Some people might be ready for it, but I'm pretty sure extreme majority wouldn't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for everyone (assuming they're law following citizens) having a roof over their head, food to eat and access to needed medical care and having all that arranged with tax money, but people need to have a chance to get more than that with their own hard work. And inheriting money and other goods is simply about someone who has earned them passing them down to who they want to, in other words using their own money as they please, so I don't think that government confisticating property when one dies would be fair, either.

However, if there was a cap, I think one of the ways to get people to be more accepting of it would be to let them choose how the government has to use their money that goes over the cap. Not the details, but things like if it was used for medical care, education, well being of animals etc. For example, I personally would much rather prefer my tax money to go to medical research than advancing new technology.

If there was a cap, what rights do a government have in taking money beyond that cap as it is not theirs to take unless the government happens to turn into a form of dictatorship.

Just a quick note to Sweetleaf. Thank you for this thread as it has made me think. I may take the opposite side to your thinking (But because of the restrictions to freedom rather then the principles you have stated), but I think you are ace for your thoughts on the subject.

Let's say there's a cap put at 1 billion. How would Jeff Bezos 181billion be whittled down to that?

Alternatively, we could put a poverty cap on poor people that triggers an intervention by a government life coach.

"You're poor, and that's not OK".
"What are you doing to improve your situation?"
"What are your roadblocks?"
"How can I help you find a job?"
"Where is your money going?"
"How can I help you get smarter with money?"

This entire thread seems based on the premise that there is a finite amount of wealth -- a "Zero-Sum Game".

In reality, this is not the case -- we are not living on a Monopoly™ game-board.

The fact that I have ten dollars in my pocket and you have only ten cents does not mean that there is only $10.10 in the entire world, nor does it mean that I am hoarding any of your money.  It only means that I have $9.90 more than you, and implies that if you want some of my money, you need to earn it.

Let us say there are 7,800,000,000 people in the world.  Let us also say that the total global wealth is $360,603,000,000,000.  This comes to a one-time total of $46,231.15 for each person's "fair share" of global wealth.

Then let us say that on January 1st, 2021, everybody's accounts are zeroed out, and re-allocated with exactly $46,231.15 for the remainder of the year.

What happens next?

I imagine that those who know how to invest well will shortly double their wealth, those who can manage their money well will have enough for the entire year, and those who have no common sense at all will burn through all of their allotment before the year is even half over.

Everyone starts out equal, yet some gain wealth, some lose wealth, and some stay the same.  Is this fair?