Wealth Cap?

@liljo said
I TOTALLY support a flat tax.
It is not, however, a "liberal" idea. Liberals have long argued that a flat tax favors "the rich" (as defined by them, of course) and actually hurts the lower income folks.

I'm pretty radical in that I believe they should stop taxing my INCOME, and tax SPENDING. Give me the pay I earn, and I'll spend a lot more on goods and services. Tax me the ...[text shortened]... blue state that thinks the government should be able to control what size drink I buy at McDonalds.

Ha. And the Libs say that we are the ones that want power!!!!

@averagejoe1 said
Thankyou for this, no one ever listens to me. What is curious to me is that the liberals, for want of burying the rich people, will lose the war. If they could only see what you are saying, they would realize to let the Rich be what they want to be and make all the money they make as long as they create the tremendous prosperity in this country. The liberals hate Rich just like they hate Donald Trump,, pulling out all stops. They don’t think it through.

Indeed, you do not need to destroy the rich to help the poor. The poor can have a better social security through taxes from the rich, and middle class can be provided with small business assistance. Also there is a certain mindset that one must have to be a successful businessman..

The sad thing is that sometimes a country needs to go through that phase of hating the rich, and destroying them, then descending into poverty, for then to learn how these things work.

@rajk999 said
Indeed, you do not need to destroy the rich to help the poor. The poor can have a better social security through taxes from the rich, and middle class can be provided with small business assistance. Also there is a certain mindset that one must have to be a successful businessman..

The sad thing is that sometimes a country needs to go through that phase of hating the rich, and destroying them, then descending into poverty, for then to learn how these things work.

Indeed, A shame that liberals do not delve into these matters instead of writing post after post about gender race and other insignificant issues.

@very-musty said
So we live in a world where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
So... would you agree that each individual could only make a certain amount of money?
If so...how much?

Once they reach the limit where would you put that extra money?

A billionaire is someone who has a million dollars 1000 times.
What can they buy that a regular millionaire can't?

I think ...[text shortened]... ne time.

Not 30 million a year that you build up.

30 million total wealth cannot be surpassed.

People won't accept that and find ways to overstep the barriers with means already existing today:

companies owning companies, that own companies, that in turn own companies, that in turn own the original company.

Plus you would have the problem if a person wons something say: stock of a company for 29 million $ (the y also need a place to live that is were the other million is located). Now that stock makes a rise by 5%. they have to give away the money, but then the stock falls again, will the administration have to reimburse them? At what datwes is the value assesed? Same for all?

There is something in your suggestion, but I can't see any way that it can work.

@ponderable said
People won't accept that and find ways to overstep the barriers with means already existing today:

companies owning companies, that own companies, that in turn own companies, that in turn own the original company.

Plus you would have the problem if a person wons something say: stock of a company for 29 million $ (the y also need a place to live that is were the oth ...[text shortened]... d? Same for all?

There is something in your suggestion, but I can't see any way that it can work.

This your moment, Musty!
🤔🤔🤔

@liljo said
I TOTALLY support a flat tax.
It is not, however, a "liberal" idea. Liberals have long argued that a flat tax favors "the rich" (as defined by them, of course) and actually hurts the lower income folks.

I'm pretty radical in that I believe they should stop taxing my INCOME, and tax SPENDING. Give me the pay I earn, and I'll spend a lot more on goods and services. Tax me the ...[text shortened]... blue state that thinks the government should be able to control what size drink I buy at McDonalds.

Of COURSE it's not a liberal idea.

Conservatives try to get this passed so that the rich only have to pay their measly tax amount, not a percentage, instead of what that tax percentage SHOULD be.

A flat tax is a boon for the rich and an anchor around the neck for the poor. What this results in is a net DROP in what percentage of income the rich pay and a net INCREASE in the tax percentage the poor pay. Just do the math.

Likewise, dropping an income tax, and increasing sales taxes, or consumption taxes, does the exact same thing as a flat tax. It increases the percentage of income paid by the poor while the rich get off relatively scot-free.

Frankly, I am surprised that I have to explain this. Those with higher incomes KNOW they get away with paying less tax while stiffing the poor under both of these schemes.

@averagejoe1 said
This your moment, Musty!
🤔🤔🤔

I'll think we'll just get rid of the rich and greedy and sort out the other problems later.

We are poor now so being poor later won't matter 😉

@averagejoe1 said
Indeed, A shame that liberals do not delve into these matters instead of writing post after post about gender race and other insignificant issues.

Insignificant FOR YOU. You're white. And straight. And cis-gender.

Not so insignificant for non-whites or LGBTQ+.

@Ponderable

30 million you retire.
Anything over is taken.
If you lose any it's your fault.
Anything under 30 million total wealth and you can keep going.
All assets are in the total...not just cash.

It could work 🤔

@very-musty said
So we live in a world where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
So... would you agree that each individual could only make a certain amount of money?
If so...how much?

Once they reach the limit where would you put that extra money?

A billionaire is someone who has a million dollars 1000 times.
What can they buy that a regular millionaire can't?

I think ...[text shortened]... ne time.

Not 30 million a year that you build up.

30 million total wealth cannot be surpassed.

Clearly you have a "win-lose" mentality when it comes to wealth.

And seemingly you conflate "wealth" with "money". Although for most of us, a distinction between "wealth" and "money" is not so important, when you're trying to implement good financial policy for a nation, the distinction is very important.

A country can print money, but that does not create wealth. (e.g. Venezuela and hyper-inflation). Wealth consists of goods and services. Money is a median of exchange, and for ordinary people over short periods of time can be an okay way to store wealth. Over the long term, cash does not store wealth. (just consider what $1 bought in 1970 versus now).

So in your world, if I had $29,700,000 in the bank and owned a $300,000 house, I'd be done. I would be barred from remodeling my kitchen because then my house would be worth $301,000 and that would put me over the limit. Even if I did the work myself, the government would need to prevent it.

If I wanted to restore antique cars in my spare time, nope. That would create value and must not be done. I could only do it if someone else owned the car and I didn't get paid.

But if I did restore an antique car, that would increase the total wealth of the nation, because there'd collectively be one more valuable car. If I were to sell it, it would in some small way drive down the cost of cars for everyone because there is one more car on the market and no new person has been added to need a car. Even if I don't sell it, it has diminished my desire to buy a car, and hence I'm not driving up the cost others have to pay for a car.

Wealth creation is much more productive when we see the true "win-win" nature. When someone produces an item of value or provides a service that has value, the whole society wins.

Edit: Currently, I have a decent job that is thankfully the result of someone, somewhere, trying to get richer. The fact that some of those people are more wealthy than I doesn't bother me. I consider this arrangement to be a "win-win" and I hope those that have invested in the company I work for gain wealth while continue to pay me the agreed upon amount.

@techsouth

You're over the age barrier of 64 right?

@very-musty said
@techsouth

You're over the age barrier of 64 right?

Can't believe I took this thread seriously.

In hindsight, it's obviously just some sort of satire against liberal wealth envy. No one could really believe this was a good idea, not even leftists.

Keep 'em coming. I'll try to play along with the satire next time.

Everyone knows that the production of goods and services is the ONLY way to enrich society and it could only spread misery if we inhibited it.

@techsouth

I was just playing 😉

@very-musty said
@Ponderable

30 million you retire.
Anything over is taken.
If you lose any it's your fault.
Anything under 30 million total wealth and you can keep going.
All assets are in the total...not just cash.

It could work 🤔

There Is no emoji for this imbecile

@averagejoe1 said
There Is no emoji for this imbecile

Yes there is...

💩