That is do you think society would be better if there were a theoretical cap on how much money someone could acquire for themselves. The exact limit doesn’t matter but let’s assume the enforcement is through policy not force. For example, income after XX dollars is taxed at 95%.
3 impossible things.
- Being too rich.
- Being too sexy.
- Having a garage that’s too big.
No, I don’t think society would be better.
ETA: and even taxation is backed up by force.
Mandatory quibble with hypothetical: without force, there is no policy.
If you can’t enforce your policy, I could ignore it. As HurricaneDitka points out (regarding the suggested policy vehicle, taxation.)
What problem does answering your question solve? What are you going to do with the money you take away from the purported “too rich”? Taxing it and putting it into public coffers doesn’t DO ANYTHING until it’s spent on something. So are you solving any problem other than “that jerk has too much money”?
While I voted “yes,” it’s hard to answer. Some people, if in possession of $50 million, will simply sit on it forever, in which case they’d be the same even if they had just $5 million. Some other people, though, can have Bill Gates-style billions and spend most of it in philanthropy and worthwhile causes.
Yes, but its hard to define.
There is something like 200 trillion in wealth in America. If 1 person owned all 200 trillion and the rest of us had $0 in wealth, then that person would be too rich.
I don’t know where the upper limit is. People like Bill gates are worth $100 billion. I don’t consider that too rich myself, and people like him are going to donate most of their money anyway. Many rich people agreed to donate half or more of their wealth.
No, society wouldn’t be better off. In the first place, most of the money belonging to ‘the rich’ isn’t just sitting in a vault somewhere waiting to be spent. It’s invested in money-making enterprises that people benefit from (which is why the rich get rich in the first place, people want or need the goods or services they offer and are willing to trade their money in order to obtain them). So by deciding to tax them at a rate intended to suppress their wealth, you are also suppressing the incentive they have to keep producing whatever it is that people want and are willing to pay for, and this of course will result in less money being earned by them and therefore less tax being paid by them.
There is nothing wrong with people having large amounts of wealth. Their money doesn’t keep you from earning whatever you’re capable of, and similarly, when they lose money it doesn’t come out of your pocket. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could go broke tomorrow and you will still be bringing home the same amount you’re earning now. And similarly again, your income hasn’t declined as a result of their wealth increasing.
In short, everything works better when people are free to earn as much as they’re capable of by providing things that other people want. Take away their earnings and there’s less incentive to generate them, and it’s obvious when people stop making money the amount available for taxation decreases. So you get both less good stuff and less money for taxes.
Not a good plan.
I went yes although I admit to being at a loss to define how much is too much and what solutions should be used.
For me, I am unconcerned with the maximum wealth of a given individual. I am more concerned with the stratification of wealth within a society as a whole, and with policies designed to augment wealth at the expense of the poor.
But what exactly is the problem with the stratification of wealth in society as a whole. In real world terms how is this harming anyone? A relatively small number of people produce the things that other people want, therefore the money people spend on these things flows to the relatively few who provide them. I see no problem with that at all, other than perhaps jealousy or resentment caused by the view that it isn’t ‘fair’. In my view it’s perfectly fair, logical and reasonable that the most money goes to those who are providing the most of those things that people want and choose to spend money for. The true unfairness lies in trying to force a different type of ‘fairness’ that is anything but.
And what are these policies that augment wealth at the expense of the poor? The only way I know of in which the wealthy harm the poor is by resisting efforts of the government to take away their money to spend on the poor.
I voted “Yes” but (and it’s a big but).
I would not agree that taxing away the wealth is a good practice. Why should the government end up with that money? However, I think there should be some type of public policy that discourages amassing vast wealth resulting in significant income & wealth inequality. I sure don’t know what that is, though.
I would rather see society as a whole cease to celebrate vast wealth. Yes, everyone wants to be rich, and success should be applauded, but vast wealth should be seen as obscene or immoral (some do already) and significant charity / philanthropy as mitigating that.
It’s easy.
Anyone with lots more money than me has too much.
I feel like yes is the moral answer here, especially if we take in to account the ownership of land. The competitive nature or existence, and the finite nature of resources necessitate that at some level people need to share what’s available or die.
Just FYI, I’m taking the question to its hypothetical extreme, in which one person owns the entirety of the earth and everything on and in it.
Edit: This is assuming that the definition of ‘rich’ goes beyond just having money, but includes all forms of wealth.
It’s easy. Have progressive marginal tax rates with the highest bracket at 95%. That discourages hoarding of money that does not help society. It encourages people and corporations to spend massive profits on reinvestment in their companies, hiring workers, and stimulating the economy, all of which are good for society. The money spent on building the economy reduces the taxes these people and companies have to pay. (Remember that nobody actually paid the top tax rate back in those halcyon days so-called Conservatives long for.)
This is along the lines I was thinking. To take it another step - if X number of people hold Y percent of all the wealth in America, what is the optimal balance?
In countries where much wealth is held by a few, you end up with a host of problems. Note that wealth, in many cases, translates to power, and access to power.
I agree there should be no upper limit on how much wealth someone can acquire, and enforcement of such a hypothetical limit would be problematic, but the answer to the above equation will vary according to your political compass, I would guess.
Government policy plays a huge role in shaping income inequality using endless policies that all play a minor role in shaping the economy.
Canada and Australia have economies and per capita wealth about the same as the US, but much lower rates of income inequality. You can have a wealthy, developed nation with lower rates of inequality. It depends on government policy. The US has been pursuing policies that make inequality worse while Canada hasn’t.
Polices that enhance the wealthy while harming everyone else.
Supply side tax cuts (cuts to income, dividend, capital gains tax)
Regressive tax hikes (hikes in FICA taxes, sin taxes, real estate taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes, abolition of SALT deductions)
Suppression of labor unions
Low/no minimum wage
Regulatory capture and government capture by monied interests
Cutting subsidies for education
There are probably endless other policies too. Of them, suppression of labor unions is probably a major one. If 30% of Americans were in a union then income inequality would likely be much lower. If you found a way to totally prohibit bribery in the form of lobbying and regulatory capture, income inequality would go down too. You can reduce income inequality without wealth redistribution via taxation, however wealth redistribution is a good idea that should also be implemented.
Oligarchies are bad. A mono-oligarchy would be even worse.
If someone has so much money that a large percentage of politicians are forced to kowtow to that person for most of their campaign contributions would be very, very, very bad.
Such a person on their own could overwhelmingly flood the airwaves with election ads touting their own personal preferences. (All disguised as to their source, of course.)
I reiterate, what difference does it make? How does that inequality harm anyone?
Virtually everything you just listed amounts to taking money from the wealthy and spending it on the poor, including labor unions which employ extortion to exact artificially high wages from business owners.
And I disagree wholeheartedly that government redistribution of wealth is a good thing. First and foremost it’s patently unfair. Secondly, it discourages productivity and encourages non-productivity. It creates a sense of entitlement (“the world owes me a living”). And it kills incentive on the part of those who aren’t wealthy to attempt to improve their circumstances. Why concentrate on getting an education and learning a craft or job skill when the government will take care of everything for you by taking money away from those who already have?