Do People Have a Right to Own Vast Wealth?

[Nous]

Such critiques of the paper cannot compare to an actual empirical study contradicting the paper. Until that happens, I'll tentatively accept the paper as one more bit of evidence, among many different lines of evidence, that the average citizen has little or no influence on policy these days.

Do you know of an empirical study that concludes that "the average citizen has little or no influence on policy these days"?

Is there any other "theory-testing" study like the Gilens and Page study that has found something such as "the average citizen has little or no influence on policy these days"?

 

[Sunstone]

But you are taking the power out of the hands of the people who created their income and handing it over to someone else who may or may not have any financial expertise in any particular area. There are an uncomfortable amount of assumptions at play here and as well as some quite laudable ideas.

The thing is how to get from point A to point B? For example, @sun rise quoted a $10,000,000 cap and @Sunstone floated the idea of a $100,000,000 cap. One thought that occurred to me was how could either be implemented without collapsing the stock market, especially if the figure was set at a measly 10 million? As I asked Sunstone, who decides on the cap level? What if the cap level is put at $250K (or $500K) which is a LOT of money to the vast majority of humans on the planet?

Likewise, as I see it, any plan of this nature would have to be done on a global scale otherwise any given country would just succeed in crashing their economy.

How a cap on wealth could be implemented is a fascinating question, Paul, but it's not the issue here. The issue here is a moral and/or political one. Should we allow such wealth as pose a threat to representative democracy to accumulate in the hands one or a few individuals?

 

[YmirGF]

How a cap on wealth could be implemented is a fascinating question, Paul, but it's not the issue here. The issue here is a moral and/or political one. Should we allow such wealth as pose a threat to representative democracy to accumulate in the hands one or a few individuals?

I say yes, because the alternative offers no guarantees of righting any wrongs.

 

[bobhikes]

That's kinda like saying "Should there be a limit on how fast people can run?". Some people are born with natural ability. Some work for it. Some inherit it. Some use their use of power for good. Some don't. I am very much not rich, but also very much wouldn't like to be told I couldn't be. So, I suppose, short of criminality, no.
Then, of course, there's: "For ye have the poor always with you..."

No its not physical prowess is solely your ability with the possible exception of good training, but the worst physical specimen with the best training is never going to be world class. Making money relies on other people no matter how you do it. NO ONE makes money independent of others. You are at best providing a needed service or commodity to others at a negotiated cost. At worst you are scamming others for profit. There are various levels in between but all rely on others.

 

[Sunstone]

Do you know of an empirical study that concludes that "the average citizen has little or no influence on policy these days"?

Is there any other "theory-testing" study like the Gilens and Page study that has found something such as "the average citizen has little or no influence on policy these days"?

Not offhand. Googling might find something. My views on the question were formed early on in my life over the course of multiple courses I took in political science while at university. I no longer have my textbooks, and they'd probably be outdated anyway, but I am nevertheless under the impression that there are multiple lines of evidence leading to the same conclusion. The conclusion that elites have disproportional power and influence, and that average people have little or none. I was once a conservative and ok with that, but over the years I've changed my views for several reasons, such as the growing lack of upwards social mobility that makes it harder and harder for someone to break into the elite class, the growing isolation of elites from other people that is creating an elite class ignorant of or indifferent to the problems faced by the rest of us, the growing disparity between rich and poor that -- so far as I know -- no republic has long withstood in the past, and so on.

 

[YmirGF]

No its not physical prowess is solely your ability with the possible exception of good training, but the worst physical specimen with the best training is never going to be world class. Making money relies on other people no matter how you do it. NO ONE makes money independent of others. You are at best providing a needed service or commodity to others at a negotiated cost. At worst you are scamming others for profit. There are various levels in between but all rely on others.

That's pretty obvious, but it's not like those who provide services hold guns to the heads of the clients forcing them to buy their products. If both parties are satisfied where is the problem? Where is the immorality? Does it become immoral when you have a million people lining up for what you have?

Is it immoral that YouTube has billions of page hits per month thereby making it all but impossible for anyone, regardless of how much cash they have, from creating a rival platform?

 

[Sunstone]

I say yes, because the alternative offers no guarantees of righting any wrongs.

I see your point. It would be so much more wrong for a billionaire to lose his or her billions than it would be for every average person in the country to lose their freedoms and liberties.

 

[YmirGF]

I see your point. It would be so much more wrong for a billionaire to lose his or her billions than it would be for every average person in the country to lose their freedoms and liberties.

In all fairness AND respect, my friend, I think it's a false dichotomy. It's not that clear cut and simple.

 

[Sunstone]

In all fairness AND respect, my friend, I think it's a false dichotomy. It's not that clear cut and simple.

You're no doubt right about that. Almost nothing is simple in this world apart from Trump's mind.

 

[YmirGF]

You're no doubt right about that. Almost nothing is simple in this world apart from Trump's mind.

See. There are some things we can agree on.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I'm a bit puzzled why anyone would need an explanation. A cap on wealth would limit how much one can expect to earn as anything over that limit would immediately be forfeited. This would stifle innovation, if not kill it, outright due to the large sums that are often required to bring new products to the market. You would, in effect, make the government the biggest game in town. Everything, of any consequence, would require to government to take a major role. Try to imagine how the success story of Silicon Valley would have gone if the principals were locked into a limit on how much they could make. We wouldn't have a Silicon Valley.

Money taken out of a company and put into an owner's bank account as profit is also not going towards innovation or bringing new products to the market. I think it would be easy enough to separate business capital from personal gains. If there were a tax bracket with a very high tax rate then business owners might keep that money in their company where it can actually go towards more jobs and more innovation instead of going into a new big mansion. There could also be a much higher and progressive capital gains tax to limit profits from selling stock or dividends.

 

[YmirGF]

Money taken out of a company and put into an owner's bank account as profit is also not going towards innovation or bringing new products to the market. I think it would be easy enough to separate business capital from personal gains. If there were a tax bracket with a very high tax rate then business owners might keep that money in their company where it can actually go towards more jobs and more innovation instead of going into a new big mansion. There could also be a much higher and progressive capital gains tax to limit profits from selling stock or dividends.

So, you have no problem with the government telling you how you can spend your own money?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So, you have no problem with the government telling you how you can spend your own money?

Taxing profits is not the same as telling you how to spend your money.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you believe monetary rewards are the only type of reward that could be granted, or the only reward that matters? Are there other types of limitations that you believe are punishments (for example, do you believe taxes are punishment)? If excess financial gains (whatever that value is) are invested in global benefits, is that still a punishment?

Sure, if that is were they get allocated, but there's no gurantee this will be the case. I don't mind taxes if there is a real benefit. Maybe other states are different, but in my state the politicians keep asking for money to fix the road, appropriate the money for other things and then come back asking for more money to fix the roads. No matter how much money they keep asking for, in tax increases, the roads never get fixed. Kind of a non-incentive to actually fix them because they no longer have that excuse to ask for more taxes.

There are many sectors of society that are not about creating wealth. They are non-profit, or exist to provide a public service. How do these fit into the picture?

Somebody has to create the wealth to keep them going. They usually ask for donations or grants from the governments which relies on the wealth creates for tax revenue.

How do you "create" wealth? Most folks will never be able to do what you suggest here, for various reasons.

That's kind of sad isn't it. They'll always be dependent on someone else to create wealth. In which case there really is no solution for them to get out of the economic class they find themselves in.

To create wealth, you locate, provide, create, facilitate the transfer of a commodity of service that's needed or desired by the rest of the community. You provide something to the world that the world needs or wants. This is all pretty fulfilling, unfortunately something most won't be able to experience.

Is it really a problem with the mindset of the employee if there are systemic limitations that prevent any upward mobility or wealth creation for most citizens? What does it mean when the next generation of citizens is predicted to be worse off than their parents financially, as is projected? What's going on there?

They are being taught that the only way to get anywhere is to find someone else who can create wealth to compensate them for their labor. If that doesn't change it is easy to predict the outcome. I'm sure there are "interests" wanting to keep folks at their economic level.

Relying on other people's wealth, it takes a lot of luck. Education helps but it not a gurantee.

So let's agree moving out of one's economic sphere for folks unable to generate wealth on their own takes more luck than hard work. Still avoiding poverty is not that difficult in the US.
Complete your education.
Get a job, start a career.
Advance in that chosen career and best as you can.
Don't start a family unless, until you can afford one.

 

[YmirGF]

Taxing profits is not the same as telling you how to spend your money.

Fair enough. How would you feel if your income was sliced by 75%? Good deal? Happy times?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Fair enough. How would you feel if your income was sliced by 75%? Good deal? Happy times?

If my gross income was 100 million and I took home 25 million after taxes I would be ecstatic.

 

[YmirGF]

If my gross income was 100 million and I took home 25 million after taxes I would be ecstatic.

Not what I asked. Would you be thrilled at having your current income sliced by 75%? Easy question.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Not what I asked. Would you be thrilled at having your current income sliced by 75%? Easy question.

We aren't talking about slashing the income of the middle class by 75%. It's not a fair comparison because slashing the income of the middle class by 75% would prevent them from affording basic housing, food, and transportation. This isn't the case for the uber-rich.

 

[Shad]

Yup. Which is why an international effort would be needed. But that's neither here nor there in the context of this thread. At issue is not how to implement a cap on wealth, but whether such a cap should be created.

No cap should be created. Government has no say in how much I or anyone earns in a legal business.

So, do very wealthy people have a right to the whole of their fortunes if that means in practice that they have extraordinary political power and influence over the rest of us such that we have little or no influence? Your call.

Yes they have a right to their wealth. How they use it is irrelevant to how they earned that wealth. All you have done is create of arbitrary standard.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No cap should be created. Government has no say in how much I or anyone earns in a legal business.

Would you agree that government does have a say in how they tax income?