Society, Holidays etc (split from Ossus tax thread)

[D.Turtle]

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that individuals are driven by greed, and if you make greed illegal, they won't work past a certain point.

This is a strawman - Duchess's proposal does NOT make greed illegal. It sets limits on the amount of money one can amass. The limit she proposed is high enough, that only very few people will be close to reaching it - especially if they do not start out with an additional advantage of receiving huge amounts of money as inheritance.

Very few companies are owned by a single individual. Bill Gates never owned more than 10% of Microsoft, and yet he was still worth over $100 Billion at one point. Furthermore, once he hit the wealth cap, why would he bother to work anymore? He doesn't benefit from working; why not retire and sit on his ass for the rest of his life?

If he doesn't want to continue working once he reaches his wealth cap, he can retire. His company will then be controlled by some other person/people who can continue the work he started. Unless you think that all of the successes of Microsoft (or Google) are completely dependent on one person?

Sure - but Germany built itself up from the rubble after WWII. It started from essentially NOTHING. In the US, you'd be displacing or overhauling massive institutions that have been around for decades, if not longer. In any case, universal healthcare, free education, a month of vacation, and similar things are the easy part, if you can pay for it. It's Duchess' desired destruction of the free market that will have more serious consequences.

Of course implementing this proposal would mean a massive overhaul of many industries, institutions and the like. That is the purpose of this proposal!

And once again, you are strawmanning Duchess's proposal: She is NOT advocating the destruction of the so-called free market - she wants to set limits on it. If you think that the limits she proposed would result in the destruction of the free market, then the burden of proof is on you to provide proof that this is the case. If you think it would destroy the american laissez-faire type free market, but result in a european type social market economy, then you would also have to show why that would be worse than the current system.

[Big Phil]

At this point, I'm going to limit my responses to Duchess and Stas (I'll type up my reply to you later tonight), if they would care to continue the debate. There are too many people in this discussion, and folks are coming at things from slightly different angles, and I don't have the time to respond to every poster with an opinion.

[aerius]

To The Coliseum! Thunderdome! Thunderdome!

[Big Phil]

Alright, Sanchez, the answer to your complain is a straightforward one.

In my original post, you didn't seem to notice that I'd stated that I was going, to, quote: "To avoid wealth seizure the very rich can divert funds into registered charities (including ones they form, but they must be registered and carefully regulated by the government only)."


So I don't think you really have an argument--the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would simply still exist, and would contain all but (IIRC they have one child) 250 million of their assets, since Bill could freely transfer 100 million to Melinda and so on. 250 million which because it was constantly earning more money from mostly being wrapped up in investments, would never decrease, even as most of the earned money was just automatically transferred to their charitable foundation.

And of course corporations worth more than 100 million would exist; that's obvious. Just not huge companies privately held by a single person, though they could be privately held by a single family, even, at a huge size.

Anyway, I would not have proposed this a hundred years ago, when the economy was different; it might have prevented the Rockefellers, et. al., from making America an Industrial society, but it will not hurt America now that America is already an industrial society. Something may work great now but not in the past, you know, or vice-versa. Try to implement modern democracy in Sumeria in 3,000 BCE...

It seems like you're suggesting that society has reached the pinnacle of achievement, and so all that's needed now is maintenance and slow, carefully managed growth. Am I understanding you correctly?

EDIT - Never mind, just read your response to Bilbo. Assuming your worldview is correct, then your approach makes sense. Of course, I have some mild doubts about how correct you are, but we'll save that for a rainy day when it isn't 15 degrees in Seattle.

I suppose at the end of the day there really isn't a "right" answer here - taxation is set more or less arbitrarily, and there's no reason why a wealth cap couldn't also be set arbitrarily, although such a cap would be probably be unconstitutional; that whole life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing in the Declaration of Independence, plus that damned Constitution and Bill of Rights (Amendment 9 might be the most applicable, but I'm not a lawyer, so that's just a guess). I simply fail to see where the justice lies in seizing wealth from the very wealthy.

As for the public transit note, I find Seattle's to be very clean, pleasant, and efficient, same with the Kitsap peninsula. Sometimes there's smelly people, but I've never noticed anything worse, and I used to take the bus to commute into Georgetown, and I don't think there's a more run-down area of the city than that.

Have you ridden in the free bus zone downtown, or in and around Aurora or the U-District? It's been a few years since I did that, but in high school and college it was a rare day when there wasn't some homeless dude (or two or three) drunk, stoned, or just flat out crazy sharing the bus with you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I suppose at the end of the day there really isn't a "right" answer here - taxation is set more or less arbitrarily, and there's no reason why a wealth cap couldn't also be set arbitrarily, although such a cap would be probably be unconstitutional; that whole life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing in the Declaration of Independence, plus that damned Constitution and Bill of Rights (Amendment 9 might be the most applicable, but I'm not a lawyer, so that's just a guess). I simply fail to see where the justice lies in seizing wealth from the very wealthy.

Yeah, it might require an amendment. So, if we could get support for one, we could do it. I'm not proposing extra-constitutional measures. That said, I don't think there's a lack of justice in taking money from the super-rich; no conceivable human standard of living could be objectively improved by having more than 100 million USD in assets per person.

Have you ridden in the free bus zone downtown, or in and around Aurora or the U-District? It's been a few years since I did that, but in high school and college it was a rare day when there wasn't some homeless dude (or two or three) drunk, stoned, or just flat out crazy sharing the bus with you.

I've only taken the bus up to UW a couple of times on the express runs from in the tunnel, and a bit north, but I've ridden in the free ride zone and just outside of it downtown a lot, and I've never been bothered by the homeless guys onboard for whatever reason, which I always found kinda weird--I've actually had more men hit on me on Kitsap transit buses and the ferry than on Metro. Never been up Aurora in the north, though, though I figure that's still a hole. I know the free ride zone isn't popular with the drivers, but I have friends who work for Metro, and they at least say it's mostly because collecting fares on departure from the bus is a pain in the ass, and it means that lots of people get on and don't pay and you're going to stop them from leaving the bus without paying.. How? You're not.

What I'd really like to see in Seattle transit is the waterfront streetcar line extended up along the BNSF main across to Ballard and then following the Burke-Gilman trail straight over to Lake Sammamish around the north end of Lake Washington. It would be fun to listen to the cyclists scream in terror, and we could run big electric cars on it like the South Bend run out of Chicago and really provide an alternative to the mess which is trying to get into Seattle from the north end of the Eastside. Oh well, now I'm just rambling about unrelated issues--though I Just got home from Seattle on the ferry right now. Whee, everybody forgot how to drive!

[Junghalli]

What about instead of having an absolute wealth cap we just tax very high incomes at very high rates? It would accomplish about the same thing while reducing some of the possible negative side-effects, and coming off as less of a blatant "fuck you" to high income earners.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't see the harm. That's $15 million pumped into the economy, rather than just sat on.

15 million spent on a rich fuck party are "pumped" into the economy? Clearly, the whole issue about finite investment and alternative costs flew over your head. What is more useful to a society, especially in a crisis - a 15 million party or 15 million for infrastructure reconstruction?

While I don't believe property rights are absolute, neither do I believe the "government" has a right to just take people's money "for the greater good."

The government is a representative of the people. Unless you believe otherwise, of course. A corporation is a representative of a tiny fraction of people. It is not elected, it's heads are not answering to the workers below. Therefore, public property has accountability which private property does not; it's a simple fact and if it takes a lot to wrap one's head around it, that just shows how miserable the understanding of even basic economic concepts has become.

The government does not have any "rights". It's not about any rights at all. The government is the regulator of society; the regulations are laws; and as a representative of the people, it can put forth laws which shall increase the well-being of the majority.

Instead that money should be given to a massive, bloated, inefficient government to waste.

You clearly have a low opinion of the US government; other governments do not fare that badly when re-distributing worth. Perhaps it's a problem with your government then, not with the idea of the government re-distributing wealth.

Governments build decrepit, ready to be torn down, housing projects.

Funny how I live in a "decrepit" Brezhnew-era house which is already doing many years over it's initial construction age limit. Perhaps natural conditions have something to do with sturdiness of a house? Shoddy construction practices in the USA?

Once again, the problems of the US government construction practices do not necessarily translate to other governments.

Your disdain for philanthropy is misplaced, particularly since business and charitable organizations are far more effective at dealing with societal issues such as poverty and homelessness than government.

Really? Why has philantropy not, never once in history, ended poverty inside a nation then? And why have governments, via taxation, coped with that task? Maybe there's that pesky "economy of scale" issue, you know, when a needle in the hay, however effective it might be, matters not.

If it's easy, then do us all a favor and do the calculations. Then it's not about your opinion vs. my opinion, but hard numbers.

$4500 - $2000 (taking 2000 to be a rough average of healthcare costs in First World and approaching-First World level healthcare nations) = $2500 per capita savings.

$750 billion (750 * 10^9) economy will result in the optimal outcome (i.e. US healthcare costs are brought down to the average). I have data from 2007 which indicates that the size of the entire US Insurance Market is ~$2,5 trillion, but the US health insurance alone is a merely $40 billion market.

Thus, even if we consider the US healthcare insurance industry collapsing, it would still earn $710 billion (approximately) in savings. Hello to "efficiency" of privatized health care.

Can you provide examples?

What examples? The US nationalized it's largest insurer and gigantic banks in a whim. Does this mean it's "communist"? There have been countless nationalizations in nearly every nation of the world, sometimes nationalizations of entire sectors, sometimes just of the leading companies (see: Microsoft examples) and it did not lead to RAH COMMUNISM. I mean... come on.

Why is a government-run corporation better than a privately run corporation? You seem to be assuming that a government run organization will function better than a privately held company, but there are lots and lots of examples where that's simply not true.

Actually I don't believe it will necessarily run "better" (what is "better" anyway, higher profits?). It can be a failure. Every time you nationalize, you take the risk of failure and transfer it to the nationstate. It may clap, it may not. Competency of the management is the key to success for both nationalized and private companies as I'm sure you agree (well, pesky issues like capital size and barriers to entry aside).

The difference between the government and a corporation however, are pretty critical - the government answers to the citizenry. The corporation answers to it's owner(s) alone.

How many Soviet computer manufacturers were selling PCs in the mid-80's?

I merely said the government created the technology. Honing it and making it customer-friendly is a task for private re-distributors... who did not exist in the USSR. Do you need to construct stramwen to deal with my point?

Except that there won't be any large private companies to innovate and drive new ideas.

You still don't get it? The private company is only needed to bring a technology to the market, apply it to a consumer product. The bare R&D costs - fundamental science - can and most likely will be born by the government. The private company does not need to be "large", so you haven't shown any necessity of large private enterprises.

Frankly, the size itself is a monopolistic factor, and since there is no natural competition - but only oligopolistic competition - at a certain level which companies reach as they grow large enough - there is no difference if they were nationalized as the large corporations they are.

While you can argue about the success of its descendants, you can't argue that increased options isn't a good thing. If I don't like AT&T's service, I can switch to Qwest, or get rid of my land line altogether and go purely mobile.

Who said there should be a lone supercorporation providing a service? You are arguing in favour of alternatives, and yet you exalt the Microsoft way in the same post? Doesn't it run contrary to what you said before? I argued the necessity of either nationalizing extremely large corporations, or turning them to some other type of collective ownership (wide cheap IPOs?)... you said that a huge monopoly is bad and competition is nice to have. Sure? What does this have to do with the size of private companies?

[bobalot]

Why is a government-run corporation better than a privately run corporation? You seem to be assuming that a government run organization will function better than a privately held company, but there are lots and lots of examples where that's simply not true.

There are plenty of examples for both. It depends on management. Frances civilian nuclear industry is superior to the largely privately own American nuclear industry. It's health care system is far superior to the semi-privatized American health care sector (Far cheaper as well).

[The Grim Squeaker]

Why is a government-run corporation better than a privately run corporation? You seem to be assuming that a government run organization will function better than a privately held company, but there are lots and lots of examples where that's simply not true.

There are plenty of examples for both. It depends on management. Frances civilian nuclear industry is superior to the largely privately own American nuclear industry. It's health care system is far superior to the semi-privatized American health care sector (Far cheaper as well).

The French Nuclear system has the advantage of having a far larger "customer base" for lack of a better term, there isn't the cultural bias against Nuklear technology that exists in the USA (The French never had a Hiroshima or 3 mile island scare for example, or as much of the fear mongering that derived from that), so it being in better shape due to having a lot more sales, construction and real ongoing work (both in France and now possibly with the UK) has them in a far healthier place. Isn't it a private company, albeit with partial government ownership?
My point is that it's fundamentally healthier.
My thoughts on the US healthcare system though, are known. "A purely Private system sucks, go to a public one, with a hybrid public + private system as is the case in Israel and other countries in the West to varying [the private practices part] degrees"

[Broomstick]

But the US healthcare systems is NOT entirely private, regardless of the propaganda. Medicare and medicaid are both public systems (with a little private participation). Entirely private healthcare is a failure but the US can't bring itself to admit that, although in practice "purely private" hasn't existed for decades.

[KrauserKrauser]

What about instead of having an absolute wealth cap we just tax very high incomes at very high rates? It would accomplish about the same thing while reducing some of the possible negative side-effects, and coming off as less of a blatant "fuck you" to high income earners.

Agreed, and I have said as much in my posts that for the most part seem to be being ignored, oh well.

What does this wealth confiscation accomplish that a much higher tax bracket would not?

As many have asked, why the need for wealth siezure when the same amount of revenues can be generated through less onerous means?

Why would you shoot yourself in the foot by removing the profit motive at a certain point when that point is no where near the highest amount of wealth that has been achieved.

Without Steve Jobs being brought back as CEO, Apple would have gone down the crapper, so setting a wealth cap will restrict the profit motive in this case and more where a single person can make a large difference, which happens alot in companies. Chrysler would have been shit without the balls of Lee Iacoca, etc. At some point you have to stop arguing about the profit motive and understand that companies, especially startups that make it big are created by a small group of people that put the time and effort in to create a product that people want enough to end up transferring alot of wealth to them. Remove the profit motive, or limit it to some arbitrary number and you have limited the contribution a single person will contribute to society.

It's obvious from Duchess's posts that she believes the economy to be a closed system and that people with large amounts of welath are obviously having more than their "fair" share and should be limited as to what they can own. With that in mind I can see why the wealth cap would be required as there is a limited supply of wealth and these people would be hoarding it. Am I right in my assessment on your views? Do you believe that wealth cannot be created?

I believe that wealth can actually be created as we are no where near 100% utilizing the planet's resources and as such imposing limits on the "fair" share is irresponsible and incredibly pessimistic and short sighted.

Short sighted policies are super great in the idea stage but when price controls and other such wonderful policies get into the system, they have a tendency to stick.

If this is a short term issue, as Duchess stipulated, shouldn't we try and leave the Constitution alone as far as amendments go? Why add an amendment that fundamentally changes the role of government with respect to personal freedoms when the issue can be dealt with in other ways.

[Alyeska]

Jon Stewart had a good comeback to Mike Huckabe about the government's role.

Why do we trust the government with our guns and bombs (Police and Military) but fear them controlling our schools or health system? We have socialized Police and Military, but I don't see people complaining about that. Maybe we should use a new name for Health Care. The new Militarized Health Care, run just like the Military and paid by the government.

[Beowulf]

Why do we trust the government with our guns and bombs (Police and Military) but fear them controlling our schools or health system? We have socialized Police and Military, but I don't see people complaining about that. Maybe we should use a new name for Health Care. The new Militarized Health Care, run just like the Military and paid by the government.

"Hi, I lost the packaging for my medication, so I couldn't call ahead for a refill."

"Well, you're going to have to come back on Monday."

"But I can see my medication right there in the fridge behind you!"

True story.

[Lonestar]

Why do we trust the government with our guns and bombs (Police and Military) but fear them controlling our schools or health system? We have socialized Police and Military, but I don't see people complaining about that. Maybe we should use a new name for Health Care. The new Militarized Health Care, run just like the Military and paid by the government.

To add to Beowulf's comment, the Military is notorious for "Uhh...here's some Motrin and water." I think it would be a bad idea for any NHS to be run like the military's healthcare.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Without Steve Jobs being brought back as CEO, Apple would have gone down the crapper, so setting a wealth cap will restrict the profit motive in this case and more where a single person can make a large difference, which happens alot in companies. Chrysler would have been shit without the balls of Lee Iacoca, etc. At some point you have to stop arguing about the profit motive and understand that companies, especially startups that make it big are created by a small group of people that put the time and effort in to create a product that people want enough to end up transferring alot of wealth to them. Remove the profit motive, or limit it to some arbitrary number and you have limited the contribution a single person will contribute to society.

On the other hand, one would have instead argued that it is because of the obsession with profit motive that has instead led to the current economic malaise. Mind you, it was greedy bankers who abused the system, committed the worse possible errors, all in the pursuit of personal wealth. The end result is a train wreck which instead led to the detriment of many many more.

One would have instead argued that Apple is where it is because of passion, with profit being the icing on the cake. Good companies are run by responsible CEOs who care about the company more than enriching themselves at the expense of the company.

[KrauserKrauser]

For the first point, I would argue that the current perdicament is due to regulations and stops being removed from the system that have since allowed the system to run rampant.

Apple is where it is due to dynamic leadership of Steve Jobs. Passion is one aspect of what he brings to the table and he is successfully able to spread that passion to his minions. Other leaders are not able to do that and as such Apple has done well under his leadership.

Steve Jobs, with his multiple violations of stock options regulations is obviously in it for the money, not just some desire to make everyone happy happy. He's made some shady deals to make sure everyone in his inner circle gets the monies, including himself. Profit motive is definitely the driving factor to his success, altruism just helps sell more computers.

Stas is right in saying that management determines the success or failure of any venture or company. If the management of a public business is good and the management of a private business is bad, the freedom allowed in the private sector is not going to magically save a poorly run company. The question is whether the limiting of the profit motive will decrease the drive of good managers. I think it will, especially in the private sector.

I see no reason for limiting someone's ambition as long as the proper precautions are taken with respect to regulation, transparency of actions, etc. Why put a cap on someone's ambitions when their wealth generation will benefit everyone else through property taxes, income taxes and the like?

[K. A. Pital]

The question is whether the limiting of the profit motive will decrease the drive of good managers. I think it will, especially in the private sector.

Yeah, to some point. But taxation already limits the profit motive. And that's not mentioning the incredible, trillions-worth of losses to economy, collective bad judgement by some of the most unhinged profiteers in the financial sector, people whose profits and obscene wealth was not limited by almost anything at all...

More cautious profiteers? Slower growth of the economy? Might be. But who said growth at all costs is the ultimate goal, or that it is even moral? Growth (eg industrial growth) at all costs is sometimes a necessary imperative (say, under threat of annihilation), at other times and in other situations it may not be at all an imperative.

Also, growth results should be spread proportionately between the population, else the principles of majority well-being increase is violated - in case few reap the benefits of growth, but most actually see nothing, or very little increase in their social well-being/economic weath, such growth is oligarchic and cleptocratic in nature and indeed should be discouraged. That's just my view though.

I don't think putting a very hard cap on people is more effective than taxing the hell out of them with 90% taxes, but it will work. Perhaps work worse than a 90% tax, which is what matters when making a decision.

[KrauserKrauser]

Right, which is why I believe that Duchess needs to explain her reasoning for the necessity of the wealth cap. If the same funds can be obtained through less onerous means, why must the rich be made to work for free after a certain point? Sure they have a ton of money, but at the first cent above her arbitrarily limit, they are effectively nationalized individuals.

Hell with this kind of law in place, the government would almost want to force them to keep working, otherwise the drive that got them to 100 million would be lost along with any future production that they would have generated. You are already telling them they can't earn anymore money, why not tell them they have to work and do the same things anyway? If you are going to start depriving freedoms and enforce what is effectively bordering on slavery if they continue to work, why not go even further?

There is a difference between making changes that are concurrent within the current governmental system of the US Constition and proposals that would require multiple amendments to the constitution and never get passed anyway. I want a constitutional amendment that all recipients of welfare should have to wear scarlet "W's" on their jacket to encourage them to get off welfare (Not really, but a good comparison to how based in reality I believe this wealth siezure idea to be), too bad that will never pass either.

Can the Duchess or anyone provide an example of this kind of wealth cap being put in place and the economy in any way flourishing? USSR is this to the extreme, but I can't think of anywhere this idicoy has been implemented successfully and achieved anything positive.

How about price controls and wage caps? There, screw those rich bastards and their price gouging, money stealing ways, let's shoot ourselves in the foot for no reason just to teach them a lesson.

[Big Phil]

I don't see the harm. That's $15 million pumped into the economy, rather than just sat on.

15 million spent on a rich fuck party are "pumped" into the economy? Clearly, the whole issue about finite investment and alternative costs flew over your head. What is more useful to a society, especially in a crisis - a 15 million party or 15 million for infrastructure reconstruction?

If that were the choice, it would obviously be $15M for infrastructure. However, you're creating a false dilemma by giving those options. It's either $15M on a party or nothing (maybe that money is spent elsewhere). You're up in arms because someone with money to waste chose to waste the money?

Look, the obvious counter argument to that is that while you consider $15M on a party wasteful, someone in Bangladesh or the Congo might consider the $25 you spent to go out to dinner last week wasteful. By your argument they have as much right to your $25 as you do to some rich person's $15M.

While I don't believe property rights are absolute, neither do I believe the "government" has a right to just take people's money "for the greater good."

The government is a representative of the people. Unless you believe otherwise, of course. A corporation is a representative of a tiny fraction of people. It is not elected, it's heads are not answering to the workers below. Therefore, public property has accountability which private property does not; it's a simple fact and if it takes a lot to wrap one's head around it, that just shows how miserable the understanding of even basic economic concepts has become.

The government does not have any "rights". It's not about any rights at all. The government is the regulator of society; the regulations are laws; and as a representative of the people, it can put forth laws which shall increase the well-being of the majority.

Government can do that, you're right. The United States, however, has laws in place to prevent the minority from the tyranny of the majority. They don't always work (as the Prop 8 vote in California shows), but generally speaking "majority rules" still has to pass the test of constitutionality. Personally, I feel much better living in a country where "majority rules" isn't the law of the land, but I guess you feel differently.

Instead that money should be given to a massive, bloated, inefficient government to waste.

You clearly have a low opinion of the US government; other governments do not fare that badly when re-distributing worth. Perhaps it's a problem with your government then, not with the idea of the government re-distributing wealth.

I don't know of any major bureaucracy that isn't bloated and inefficient. Look at your own government, either today or back in the old USSR days. Lots of waste, lots of corruption, lots of inefficiency. Money that could be spent on productive things is spent on overhead and management (or stolen). I don't really understand why you have so MUCH faith in government.

Governments build decrepit, ready to be torn down, housing projects.

Funny how I live in a "decrepit" Brezhnew-era house which is already doing many years over it's initial construction age limit. Perhaps natural conditions have something to do with sturdiness of a house? Shoddy construction practices in the USA?

Once again, the problems of the US government construction practices do not necessarily translate to other governments.

Then why are you talking about other countries and not the US? Duchess' plan was about the US.

Your disdain for philanthropy is misplaced, particularly since business and charitable organizations are far more effective at dealing with societal issues such as poverty and homelessness than government.

Really? Why has philantropy not, never once in history, ended poverty inside a nation then? And why have governments, via taxation, coped with that task? Maybe there's that pesky "economy of scale" issue, you know, when a needle in the hay, however effective it might be, matters not.

What government have ended poverty inside a nation?

If it's easy, then do us all a favor and do the calculations. Then it's not about your opinion vs. my opinion, but hard numbers.

$4500 - $2000 (taking 2000 to be a rough average of healthcare costs in First World and approaching-First World level healthcare nations) = $2500 per capita savings.

$750 billion (750 * 10^9) economy will result in the optimal outcome (i.e. US healthcare costs are brought down to the average). I have data from 2007 which indicates that the size of the entire US Insurance Market is ~$2,5 trillion, but the US health insurance alone is a merely $40 billion market.

Thus, even if we consider the US healthcare insurance industry collapsing, it would still earn $710 billion (approximately) in savings. Hello to "efficiency" of privatized health care.

Makes sense in the long term. The short term would be highly unpleasant.

How many Soviet computer manufacturers were selling PCs in the mid-80's?

I merely said the government created the technology. Honing it and making it customer-friendly is a task for private re-distributors... who did not exist in the USSR. Do you need to construct stramwen to deal with my point?

Except that there won't be any large private companies to innovate and drive new ideas.

You still don't get it? The private company is only needed to bring a technology to the market, apply it to a consumer product. The bare R&D costs - fundamental science - can and most likely will be born by the government. The private company does not need to be "large", so you haven't shown any necessity of large private enterprises.

I'm afraid YOU don't get it. Niche companies don't force market-wide or global changes to the economy. Microsoft and Apple were once tiny niche companies, but it was when they became major players that they really started to impact the PC market. Google was once a handful of people, but it was a major corporation when it really took off. It took a company with the clout of Motorola to bring mobile phones to the market, but I'll bet you've never heard of George Sweigert, have you?

[Big Phil]

I suppose at the end of the day there really isn't a "right" answer here - taxation is set more or less arbitrarily, and there's no reason why a wealth cap couldn't also be set arbitrarily, although such a cap would be probably be unconstitutional; that whole life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing in the Declaration of Independence, plus that damned Constitution and Bill of Rights (Amendment 9 might be the most applicable, but I'm not a lawyer, so that's just a guess). I simply fail to see where the justice lies in seizing wealth from the very wealthy.

Yeah, it might require an amendment. So, if we could get support for one, we could do it. I'm not proposing extra-constitutional measures. That said, I don't think there's a lack of justice in taking money from the super-rich; no conceivable human standard of living could be objectively improved by having more than 100 million USD in assets per person.

Of course there's no need for individuals to have such obscene wealth. However, it's theirs to do with as they like, not yours to seize from them.

That being said, there are very practical reasons why a wealth cap is a terrible idea. Look at the example of Britain in the 60's and 70's, when the highest tax rate was around 90%. The very wealthy frequently took excursions abroad to avoid paying such exorbitant taxes (Led Zeppelin being the most prominent example I can think of off the top of my head).

I suspect that rather than seizing wealth from the very wealthy, what you would see is a massive offshoring of wealth and liquidation of assets, as those with personal wealth above your cap would get their money the hell out of the country. Now all you've managed is to drive Billions, possibly Trillions of dollars out of our economy, without seizing much of anything.

Have you thought about what you would do with foreign nationals with more than $250 Million in wealth from assets in the USA? Would you seize their wealth as well?

[K. A. Pital]

Look, the obvious counter argument to that is that while you consider $15M on a party wasteful, someone in Bangladesh or the Congo might consider the $25 you spent to go out to dinner last week wasteful.

Yeah, the counterargument for injustice is to say that "look, there's injustice everywhere in the world - why don't we spread it on a yet bigger scale instead of actually doing things to move into a more just society!" Basically, your approach is the status quo: no matter if something is injust, or even fundamentally evil - it exists, ergo, we should allow it to exist and spread and rise to whatever levels it wants. No matter society. The society cannot dictate which spending is wasteful!

By your logic, a person who sells off a steel plant equipment and buys a house somewhere on Goa, while his former plant workers literally starve and scavenge trash cans for food deserves a commendation for "effective utilization of resources" as opposed to being found in a dark corner and killed.

Our moral values do differ. You deny objectivity.

I feel much better living in a country where "majority rules" isn't the law of the land, but I guess you feel differently.

Frankly, if the majority is stupid enough to enact laws which are seriously harming it's own well-being, I am likewise against the majority. A great suffering of a minority does not excuse an incremental increase in well-being of the majority. But seriously, how the fuck can anyone seriously claim that a rich fuck is "suffering greatly" if he gets only 100 million and not 1 trillion? Is he hungry? Is he beated around like a hobo? Is he tortured by the mafia? No, he's legally prevented from gaining even more wealth than he already has, to improve the well-being of other people.

So stop this tune of "opression of the rich!". Rich people know fuck nothing about suffering. In short, the level of suffering inflicted on them by a wealth cap is not even remotely similar to the increase in well-being of a poor person in Bangladesh, whose poverty is teeth-grinding. No amount of wank could ever justify their extreme wealth as "minority right".

I don't know of any major bureaucracy that isn't bloated and inefficient.

The government of Finland is a good example of a transparent and low-corruption government. Hell, quite a few European governments are more efficient and less "bloated" than the USG.

What government have ended poverty inside a nation?

Social-democratic nations of Europe have efficiently alleviated poverty to a level where even it's relative rate is neglible, and it's absolute rate is even more neglible.

The short term would be highly unpleasant.

Because short term is what a government should plan at! Nevermind that short-sightedness results in economic crashes which makes the government blush and cash out billions of taxpayer cash...

Microsoft and Apple were once tiny niche companies, but it was when they became major players that they really started to impact the PC market.

So they rise to leading positions, the technology is there already. Then they are breaken up, their shareholder pool is forcibly increased so that no single person owns more than 100 million, or they are nationalized in entirety. A multitude of solutions, none of which is particulary better or worse than the "status quo" of the pre-existing corporations. Next step?

[Big Phil]

Look, the obvious counter argument to that is that while you consider $15M on a party wasteful, someone in Bangladesh or the Congo might consider the $25 you spent to go out to dinner last week wasteful.

Yeah, the counterargument for injustice is to say that "look, there's injustice everywhere in the world - why don't we spread it on a yet bigger scale instead of actually doing things to move into a more just society!" Basically, your approach is the status quo: no matter if something is injust, or even fundamentally evil - it exists, ergo, we should allow it to exist and spread and rise to whatever levels it wants. No matter society. The society cannot dictate which spending is wasteful!

By your logic, a person who sells off a steel plant equipment and buys a house somewhere on Goa, while his former plant workers literally starve and scavenge trash cans for food deserves a commendation for "effective utilization of resources" as opposed to being found in a dark corner and killed.

Our moral values do differ. You deny objectivity.

Is there a reason you keep strawmanning my argument? I have never, not once, said that the wealthy deserve commendations, respect, or that they are better than other people. It doesn't strengthen your argument to accuse me of things I haven't said; it just makes you look dishonest.

In any case, it really boils down to you believing the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and me believing that the needs of the many don't excuse trampling the rights of the one, at least not here within the United States.

I feel much better living in a country where "majority rules" isn't the law of the land, but I guess you feel differently.

Frankly, if the majority is stupid enough to enact laws which are seriously harming it's own well-being, I am likewise against the majority. A great suffering of a minority does not excuse an incremental increase in well-being of the majority. But seriously, how the fuck can anyone seriously claim that a rich fuck is "suffering greatly" if he gets only 100 million and not 1 trillion? Is he hungry? Is he beated around like a hobo? Is he tortured by the mafia? No, he's legally prevented from gaining even more wealth than he already has, to improve the well-being of other people.

So stop this tune of "opression of the rich!". Rich people know fuck nothing about suffering. In short, the level of suffering inflicted on them by a wealth cap is not even remotely similar to the increase in well-being of a poor person in Bangladesh, whose poverty is teeth-grinding. No amount of wank could ever justify their extreme wealth as "minority right".

Quit strawmanning my argument - I'm not talking about oppression of the rich. I'm arguing that it is unfair to seize wealth, as well as being completely unworkable. In the United States it would also be illegal and probably unconstitutional as well.

I don't know of any major bureaucracy that isn't bloated and inefficient.

The government of Finland is a good example of a transparent and low-corruption government. Hell, quite a few European governments are more efficient and less "bloated" than the USG.

More efficient and less bloated doesn't mean it's well run. In any case, which fucking country are we talking about, Finland or the US? It's completely idiotic to reference Finland as an example. You're talking about a country with fewer people than my Washington State, vs. a country thirty times its size.

What government have ended poverty inside a nation?

Social-democratic nations of Europe have efficiently alleviated poverty to a level where even it's relative rate is neglible, and it's absolute rate is even more neglible.

You said "Why has philantropy not, never once in history, ended poverty inside a nation then? And why have governments, via taxation, coped with that task?" Now it's alleviated rather than ended, huh? Convenient...

Microsoft and Apple were once tiny niche companies, but it was when they became major players that they really started to impact the PC market.

So they rise to leading positions, the technology is there already. Then they are breaken up, their shareholder pool is forcibly increased so that no single person owns more than 100 million, or they are nationalized in entirety. A multitude of solutions, none of which is particulary better or worse than the "status quo" of the pre-existing corporations. Next step?

Can you offer an example of any society which has successfully implemented a wealth cap, or successfully redistributed wealth in a similar manner, without devastating their economies? China's Great Leap Forward, perhaps, which was an unmitigated disaster for China? And please don't use examples of countries with 90% income tax rates; it's not the same thing at all.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Observation, for both Sanchez and Krauser:

Remember that you will lose money buying disposable items, so you need to keep some investments to keep income flowing in enough to maintain yourself at a steady state. Also note that the confiscation tax would apply on a yearly basis, necessarily, because it's a sum of reported assets for the prior year; well, as long as your assets were at 100 million USD at the end of the year, no confiscation takes place. So a clever individual would actually have 100 million worth of homes, airplanes, S-class Mercs, whatever he wanted, in short. And of course his wife would have another 100 million worth, and between their combined assets each kid the same. Now then his income each year would still be worthwhile insomuch as it's spent on gasoline for his Mercs and airplanes, servants for his houses, feasts of roast peacock tongue, in short anything that doesn't retain value.

So, you have two reasons to keep "working"--which we all know means maintaining investments in the stock market, since most of these people no longer work--that are very obvious:

1. Upkeep costs, as noted above: Your servants, your drivers and gardeners and security personnel, gas for your vehicles, maintenance upkeep on them, repainting your houses, replacing pipes in them, vacations to the Bahamas, lavish Roman toga parties on yachts in the Mediterranean, pretty much all of that. It would be impossible for the government to seize wealth on more than a yearly basis, so if you spend it over the course of the year then you should have zero net gain in wealth, yes?

2. Future children--your wealth limit goes up fairly substantially when you have kids, so you'd be able to accrue a lot more in assets.

Furthermore, there's another good reason to keep working--running your own charity. Because on top of these two causes above for more income, you can of course choose to divert all the money you make in excess of the limits to charities of your choice, rather than letting the government take it.

So what you can see is that the practical effect of a wealth cap is that it's just a 100% tax in the net income of rich people--not the gross income. As long as you end the tax reporting year at the wealth cap for your family, no assets are seized--if you exceeded it during the year, or went below it, that's not the government's business. The government is only interested in your net balance sheet of reported assets at the end of the year. And if that exceeds the cap--then you're given the choice: You can give everything in excess of the cap to the government, or to a registered charity of your choice, including one you run.

So the wealth cap is really just a 100% tax on net yearly appreciation in asset value.

[KrauserKrauser]

Remember that you will lose money buying disposable items, so you need to keep some investments to keep income flowing in enough to maintain yourself at a steady state. Also note that the confiscation tax would apply on a yearly basis, necessarily, because it's a sum of reported assets for the prior year; well, as long as your assets were at 100 million USD at the end of the year, no confiscation takes place. So a clever individual would actually have 100 million worth of homes, airplanes, S-class Mercs, whatever he wanted, in short. And of course his wife would have another 100 million worth, and between their combined assets each kid the same. Now then his income each year would still be worthwhile insomuch as it's spent on gasoline for his Mercs and airplanes, servants for his houses, feasts of roast peacock tongue, in short anything that doesn't retain value.

Right, you would have people getting to 99.99 million and staying there, effectively limiting the contribution of each person in the country to 99.99 million worth of possible impact on the economy. You are needlessly limiting the potential of your highest earners for what? So you can say you a better leash on them? You continue to ignore and refuse to answer the question of why this wealth siezure is necessary if the same amount of funds can be had from a 99% tax that does not artifically limit the contribution of the individuals in the society. Once you set a cieling, the people are going to go that far and no further because at that point, what is the benefit to them?

Answer the question or stop posting, I've asked it like three times now.

So, you have two reasons to keep "working"--which we all know means maintaining investments in the stock market, since most of these people no longer work--that are very obvious:

So at 100 million dollars every person magically stops having to work to get more money? Sweet, why don't we just give everyone $100 million dollars so no one has to work anymore! If you limit their wealth, you limit the contribution they will make to society, and yes, before you make the statement that all 100 million+ are simply greedy lazy bastards which I'm sure will follow, there is a difference between the work a person with $100 mill and an hourly worker does. What amount of work do you require for them to justify more than $100 million?

1. Upkeep costs, as noted above: Your servants, your drivers and gardeners and security personnel, gas for your vehicles, maintenance upkeep on them, repainting your houses, replacing pipes in them, vacations to the Bahamas, lavish Roman toga parties on yachts in the Mediterranean, pretty much all of that. It would be impossible for the government to seize wealth on more than a yearly basis, so if you spend it over the course of the year then you should have zero net gain in wealth, yes?

So all of that greedy useless spending will now be even more justified? Having wild parties for millions at a time was something I thought we were trying to eliminate, why would this be something you would be shooting for? Why would it be impossible on less than yearly basis? Why not have a special branch of welath police that investigate every piece of property you own? You are basically corporatizing each individual with more than 100 million, why is this drastic change to the US government necessary when the same amount of revenue can be gathered without this increased hardship? What is inherently evil about earning and amassing wealth if the person is paying all of their appropriate taxes when earning the money? Do you believe the economy to be a closed system with a limited amount of wealth that these people are hoarding from all those poor defenseless less fortunates?

2. Future children--your wealth limit goes up fairly substantially when you have kids, so you'd be able to accrue a lot more in assets.

Yes, because the ultra rich have TONS of children! This is a super reason to bring more children into the world with workaholic parents! Children = $$$ Brilliant!

Didn't you say there wasn't going to be any joint filing? How would the parents claim the child and the spouse if there is no joint filing? Did you forget that part of your plan?

Furthermore, there's another good reason to keep working--running your own charity. Because on top of these two causes above for more income, you can of course choose to divert all the money you make in excess of the limits to charities of your choice, rather than letting the government take it.

Again, why give them the choice? People are naturally going to avoid the limit at all costs, so why bother with this extra charity bullshit huggy feely crap? Just take it for the government as then the money will be redistributed most equitably. You are already fucking them, you don't have to tell them it should feel good because they decide how they are being fucked.

So what you can see is that the practical effect of a wealth cap is that it's just a 100% tax in the net income of rich people--not the gross income. As long as you end the tax reporting year at the wealth cap for your family, no assets are seized--if you exceeded it during the year, or went below it, that's not the government's business. The government is only interested in your net balance sheet of reported assets at the end of the year. And if that exceeds the cap--then you're given the choice: You can give everything in excess of the cap to the government, or to a registered charity of your choice, including one you run.

So the wealth cap is really just a 100% tax on net yearly appreciation in asset value.

Yes, you have decided to turn any person with $100 mill in assets into a corpration, why not have them report their assests quarterly like a corporation, less room for excessive spending, so why not? The "choice" you give them is bullshit and for some reason you are oblivious to reality. If you set a cap at $100 million, people that can earn $100 million are smart enough to realize it does not benefit them in the slightest to generate anything more than $100 million in assets. They will always be under the cap, so why bother with the touchy feely carebear shit?

For the last time, everyone that has responded to your plan says your wealth cap is sub-optimal and the same amount of revenues can be obtained through means that would not require a constitutional amendment that will never get passed in your wildest fucking dreams, so why do you believe unlimited wealth ownership to be inherently evil as long as the people earning said wealth are doing so legally?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Right, you would have people getting to 99.99 million and staying there, effectively limiting the contribution of each person in the country to 99.99 million worth of possible impact on the economy. You are needlessly limiting the potential of your highest earners for what? So you can say you a better leash on them? You continue to ignore and refuse to answer the question of why this wealth siezure is necessary if the same amount of funds can be had from a 99% tax that does not artifically limit the contribution of the individuals in the society. Once you set a cieling, the people are going to go that far and no further because at that point, what is the benefit to them?

Answer the question or stop posting, I've asked it like three times now.

The very post you are responding to, which you voluntarily chose to completely ignore, lists three explicit reasons why someone would have cause to keep 'working' after reaching the limit.

So at 100 million dollars every person magically stops having to work to get more money?

The post you are responding to explained why that is not the case, which you have ignored.

Sweet, why don't we just give everyone $100 million dollars so no one has to work anymore!

The post you are responding to explained why that is not the case, which you have ignored.

If you limit their wealth, you limit the contribution they will make to society, and yes, before you make the statement that all 100 million+ are simply greedy lazy bastards which I'm sure will follow, there is a difference between the work a person with $100 mill and an hourly worker does. What amount of work do you require for them to justify more than $100 million?

The post you are responding to explained why that is not the case, which you have ignored.

1

So all of that greedy useless spending will now be even more justified? Having wild parties for millions at a time was something I thought we were trying to eliminate, why would this be something you would be shooting for?

That's what Stas argued for. I actually see some benefit in that sort of expenditure--it keeps lots of people employed, instead of just sitting on unproductive wealth, it's constantly being fed back into the system. The reason for the seizures is so the government can control the investment of this wealth, into the dirigisme-type joint government/private corporations that would thus exist, and therefore the government can take the money which is not fed back into the economy through the purchase of goods and services and place it as investments in future development in sectors that it sees fit to support, rather than the individual in question.

Why would it be impossible on less than yearly basis? Why not have a special branch of welath police that investigate every piece of property you own?

Because I am not proposing a police state, as you like to claim, and now you are confused, so you have to ask me why I don't want these things, when the reason is obviously that I don't want a police state.

But You are basically corporatizing each individual with more than 100 million, why is this drastic change to the US government necessary when the same amount of revenue can be gathered without this increased hardship?

Increased hardship. Hah. Someone has 100 million dollars and the failure to make more is "increased hardship". Hah! This is one the funnier things I've heard on my six years on this board. Have you ever been homeless?

What is inherently evil about earning and amassing wealth if the person is paying all of their appropriate taxes when earning the money?

This is just another tax, so the question is specious in the extreme.

Do you believe the economy to be a closed system with a limited amount of wealth that these people are hoarding from all those poor defenseless less fortunates?

No, I think the government should have some control over where large sums of money are invested.

Yes, because the ultra rich have TONS of children! This is a super reason to bring more children into the world with workaholic parents! Children = $$$ Brilliant!

Workaholic parents? Where is this continuing ridiculous idea that the rich "work" coming from? They don't work; they sit on investments which accumulate money no matter what they do. The rich do not "work". All of them could in fact quit being CEOs and so on and continue to be multi-millionaires indefinitely based off of their investments, a fact you seem to not understand at all. And in fact considering the incompetence of the current generation, I would be very pleased if this happened!

Didn't you say there wasn't going to be any joint filing? How would the parents claim the child and the spouse if there is no joint filing? Did you forget that part of your plan?

No, but you have forgotten part of it, of course, the part where I said that wealth transfers between individuals would not be taxed, so a man could give his wife money (after that money had been taxed, of course!) until she also reached 100 million in assets.

Again, why give them the choice? People are naturally going to avoid the limit at all costs, so why bother with this extra charity bullshit huggy feely crap? Just take it for the government as then the money will be redistributed most equitably. You are already fucking them, you don't have to tell them it should feel good because they decide how they are being fucked.

The government is fucking someone over by limiting them to 100 million in assets? This post just takes the cake in terms of sheer hilarity. Can we drop this whole "OMG UNETHICAL!" screaming and start discussing whether or not the idea is a bad one in actual, practical, economic terms? Because there is nothing unethical at all about being stuck as a multi-millionaire when you could be a billionaire. If people actually complained about it, I'd die of excessive laughter at how utterly pathetic that would be, and let me assure you the average person on the street would show no more sympathy than me. Oh, you poor dear, you can only have a hundred million dollars in assets!

What the hell? I mean, think about how ridiculous what you're saying is. The reason this conversation is going on is because nobody has really supplied a substantiative reason for why the wealth cap is a bad idea (and that the rich would stop working is ridiculous, because the rich already do not need to work--do you think Steve Jobs needs to be the CEO of Apple? Of course not, his Apple stock could keep him worth a hundred mils for all eternity! He chooses to work for Apple because he likes it, or for reasons of prestige), instead just following the ridiculous tack that it's "immoral".

Yes, you have decided to turn any person with $100 mill in assets into a corpration, why not have them report their assests quarterly like a corporation, less room for excessive spending, so why not?

People and corporations are already treated basically the same way in law, so I don't see you stating anything but the obvious here, and actually privately held corporations don't have to do quarterly reporting, just joint-stock corporations.

The "choice" you give them is bullshit and for some reason you are oblivious to reality.

Says the person who thinks it is immoral to keep someone from being a billionaire, and merely limit them to being worth a hundred million dollars instead.

If you set a cap at $100 million, people that can earn $100 million are smart enough to realize it does not benefit them in the slightest to generate anything more than $100 million in assets. They will always be under the cap, so why bother with the touchy feely carebear shit?

But that's exactly what I want--for them to cease generating more wealth, and for their excess to be taken and invested by the government and used by the government to invest in projects.

Also consider the most important part, not raised before, that was part of my considerations: The wealth cap means that dividends are less important to the mega-rich, and dividends are a bad thing We want to minimize the importance of dividends, and minimize how much in dividends that joint-stock corporations pay out, because a focus on short-term dividends over long-term investment in the health and prosperity of the company is what has caused the current collapse of modern American industry. The purpose of limiting wealth is also to make the current short-sighted policies of generating as large of dividends as possible irrelevant, since the mega-rich who control the corporates will not be able to benefit from those dividend payments.

For the last time, everyone that has responded to your plan says your wealth cap is sub-optimal and the same amount of revenues can be obtained through means that would not require a constitutional amendment that will never get passed in your wildest fucking dreams, so why do you believe unlimited wealth ownership to be inherently evil as long as the people earning said wealth are doing so legally?

Because the wealth cap will serve as an indirect method of controlling dividend pay-outs.