Do People Have a Right to Own Vast Wealth?

[LuisDantas]

Yes, but it depends on how you acquired that wealth. Whether it was earned or taken, right?

It seems to me that the means of acquisition also matter quite a lot. Some activities are inherently more dangerous to democracy and freedom than others, all the more so when they are paid particularly well - most evident to me among them, lawyering.

Actual productive activity is very much necessary for wealth to have moral validity. Word has it that many people among the group that is called conservatives in the USA have a strong aversion to having a government that is any bigger than necessary. I can't help but wonder how come those same people aren't more outspoken about the need to stop lawyers from getting rich out of their activity.

 

[Nous]

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 I no longer have my textbooks, and they'd probably be outdated anyway, but I am nevertheless under the impression that there are multiple lines of evidence leading to the same conclusion.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.

Your title and OP ask a question about “vast wealth,” and the OP speaks of “the rich”. Here you use the terms “elites” and “average people”. What do you mean by these terms? To whom are you referring by these designations?

I don't understand why you consider the methods and findings of Gilens and Page correct, but dismiss the peer-reviewed papers that have merely reanalyzed the same data and found null results. One of the simplest but most important issues, pointed out by Bashir, would seem to be the minuscule R-squared value of Gilens'/Page's 3-variable probability model, where the measured views of all 3 groups combined explain only 7.4% of the variation in policy outcomes. It seems hardly worth expending the energy of a thought over.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It seems to me that the means of acquisition also matter quite a lot. Some activities are inherently more dangerous to democracy and freedom than others, all the more so when they are paid particularly well - most evident to me among them, lawyering.

Actual productive activity is very much necessary for wealth to have moral validity. Word has it that many people among the group that is called conservatives in the USA have a strong aversion to having a government that is any bigger than necessary. I can't help but wonder how come those same people aren't more outspoken about the need to stop lawyers from getting rich out of their activity.

I think you make a very good point Luis. Many presidents, including our previous one, were lawyers. The current one, for a refreshing change, was not, and his lack of such typical political qualification was simultaneously used against him in the press, while earning votes for him from people like you and me. Our voices were heard and counted, in the face of every effort from lawyers to intervene, that's democracy at it's finest, don't you agree?

 

[YmirGF]

The very nature of economy revolves around the need to deal with great stresses. There is no clear reason why current levels of concentrated wealth should be considered desirable, and there is a very obvious, very serious amount of real damage coming from them.

But the solution being offered is not anywhere near realistic, nor does it have any guarantee of righting any wrongs. It would simply be swapping of power dynamic for another. It is the shortsightedness of the view that disturbs me, while professing a moral high-ground of equality it would simply usher in an era of horrendous upheaval.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you make a very good point Luis. Many presidents, including our previous one, were lawyers. The current one, for a refreshing change, was not, and his lack of such typical political qualification was simultaneously used against him in the press, while earning votes for him from people like you and me. Our voices were heard and counted, in the face of every effort from lawyers to intervene, that's democracy at it's finest, don't you agree?

Are you trying to be funny? Trump can hardly claim to have earned his wealth.

 

[LuisDantas]

But the solution being offered is not anywhere near realistic, nor does it have any guarantee of righting any wrongs. It would simply be swapping of power dynamic for another. It is the shortsightedness of the view that disturbs me, while professing a moral high-ground of equality it would simply usher in an era of horrendous upheaval.

It seems to me that all that means is that the level of intervention must be deep and ambitious. Far from shortsighted, it is an urgent and badly needed intervention.

 

[Nous]

I don't recall hearing about any legislature in any country seriously considering placing a limit on how much wealth a person may acquire. But, then, I don't really keep up with current events or politics. Is anyone here aware of any such proposal? It seems to me a rather useless matter to be pondering.

 

[sun rise]

What if a tiny minority of people, by exercising their overwhelming political power, effectively denies the majority of people their right to self-governance? Is that something they have a right to do?

no

 

[YmirGF]

It seems to me that all that means is that the level of intervention must be deep and ambitious. Far from shortsighted, it is an urgent and badly needed intervention.

It is odious thinking such as this that makes me glad such a change will never happen in my lifetime. In all fairness, it is simply warmed-over neo-Marxist piffle being tarted up as tax reform. Marx was wrong about the rising up of the proletariat before. I'm not sure why lesser thinkers delude themselves with the idea that they can rouse billions to pull it off now.

I don't recall hearing about any legislature in any country seriously considering placing a limit on how much wealth a person may acquire. But, then, I don't really keep up with current events or politics. Is anyone here aware of any such proposal? It seems to me a rather useless matter to be pondering.

You're quite correct. No one in their right mind is seriously proposing such utterly ridiculous ideas.

 

[idav]

Do people have a right to own vast wealth? That is, to own and control disproportionately huge portions of the world's economic resources?

Currently, the world's richest 1% own half the world's wealth, and just eight men own as much as the poorest half of the world's total population -- 3.6 billion people.

It is simply a fact that most -- perhaps even almost all -- very wealthy people use some portion of their wealth to influence politics and/or government policy in order to benefit themselves and sometimes others. When they do so, they can be orders of magnitude more powerful and influential that the average citizens of their society.

In 2014, the Princeton and Northwestern report came out. After shifting through 1,800 policy decisions made by the US government, the researches found that the probablility of a particular policy being adopted barely changes whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favors it. In other words, average citizens have little or no say in whether "their" government adopts any particular policy that might effect them.

However, the same study discovered that policies with low support from the rich were adopted only 18% of the time while policies with high support from the rich were adopt 45% of the time, showing that the rich have much more influence over which government policies get adopted than do average citizens -- even large majorities of average citizens.

In short, the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy.

Which raises the question: Should there by any limits to the amount of wealth one person can own and control in this world, especially given that ownership of large amounts of wealth translates into disproportionate political power?

Why or why not?

If no, then what form of government do you prefer and would an oligarchy or dictatorship be acceptable to you?

Capitalism has helped with a lot of innovations but without fairness as part of the equation we end up with the vast disproportion you hit upon. There isn’t an easy solution but others who acknowledge an issue but just would rather choose to do nothing I feel just help further the issue. Everyone wants a shot at being wealthy and having their own business but a monopolistic society doesn’t make that much possible for the 90 percent left behind with their ideas and livelihoods often stolen due to shee corporate greed.

Here is a ted talk touches on many of the issues of Capitalism.
Why we need to rethink capitalism

 

[oldbadger]

.............Should there by any limits to the amount of wealth one person can own and control in this world, especially given that ownership of large amounts of wealth translates into disproportionate political power?

Why or why not?

Yes........ If humanity is to become humane, then there should be limits to wealth.

Why? Because, apart from World starvation levels, our young cannot afford to buy homes any more, and will be renting for life. It's no good.

But we are trying, for instance the UK government is proposing to increase taxation and National Insurance charges upon working (comfortable, home owning, pension receiving) pensioners and to give £10,000 to all young persons of (around) 25 years who haven't got a deposit for a home.

But inheritance tax needs to be increased.

 

[Spiderman]

I prefer the government allows people to get filthy rich, provided they are not breaking the law.

when the government steps in and starts taking money from the rich, it appears noble in many ways, but it looks too much like communism for me to stomach. And communism is the form of government I despise the most, that killed over 100 million people , that really trumps the 28 million killed by fascism.... so I get uncomfortable when the government starts to institute policies that resemble communism.

Now it would be nice, if there were an ethical way to take from the filthy rich and give to the poor.... it's just Governments that have done that have a bad reputation for committing more atrocities than Hitler.

 

[Nous]

It is odious thinking such as this that makes me glad such a change will never happen in my lifetime. In all fairness, it is simply warmed-over neo-Marxist piffle being tarted up as tax reform. Marx was wrong about the rising up of the proletariat before. I'm not sure why lesser thinkers delude themselves with the idea that they can rouse billions to pull it off now.



You're quite correct. No one in their right mind is seriously proposing such utterly ridiculous ideas.

First and foremost, it seems to me simply unworkable--estimating a person's wealth (e.g., the value of a business or property) is often difficult, even under the best of circumstances, even using current dollars. It isn't really a science. And how does one even begin to make such estimations in next year's dollar value? And, of course, there are myriad ways one can hide one's property and the profits of a business. The regulatory mechanisms for pulling off such a scheme would surely have to be enormous. And what counts as a "person"?

Beyond that is the point you made: for a country to try such a scheme unilaterally would undoubtedly quickly wreck the country's economy.

And, in the end, such a scheme of wealth-cap apparently wouldn't solve any identifiable or empirically substantiated problem.

 

[Nous]

Your title and OP ask a question about “vast wealth,” and the OP speaks of “the rich”. Here you use the terms “elites” and “average people”. What do you mean by these terms? To whom are you referring by these designations?

For everyone's information, what is referred to as the “economic elites” in the Gilens and Page study are persons in the 19th percentile income bracket, which is $146,000 per year in 2012 dollars. That is far from “uber-rich” in my mind. No such person owns “vast wealth”.

It doesn't ultimately matter in the study, as the “economic elites” did not support policy changes that were enacted significantly more often than did “median” income people ($51,000/year in 2012 dollars).

Frankly I don't think people making $51,000/year should see themselves in opposition to those making $146,000/year. I'm not sure that class wars have ever turned out well for the little guy. The little guy needs a smarter strategy than class warfare.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Within reason. There are levels of taxes which are tyrannical. Taxing those in poverty, extreme taxing of the rich, a lot progressive tax brackets, etc. Those I am against.

I don't see anything in the US Constitution that puts limits on what Congress can tax. It would appear that the founding fathers thought elections would result in tax law that the majority of Americans would agree with.

 

[icehorse]

It is odious thinking such as this that makes me glad such a change will never happen in my lifetime. In all fairness, it is simply warmed-over neo-Marxist piffle being tarted up as tax reform. Marx was wrong about the rising up of the proletariat before. I'm not sure why lesser thinkers delude themselves with the idea that they can rouse billions to pull it off now.

You're quite correct. No one in their right mind is seriously proposing such utterly ridiculous ideas.

How about a taxation approach based on infrastructure usage? So - for example - all families pay some taxes for basic services like education and power and such. Families with cars pay a bit more because a car - per rider - makes more use of the roads than being a rider on a bus. And big businesses pay even more because of their much heavier use of the infrastructure.

So the basic principle is easy "you pay for what you use". Of course there would be tons of details to figure out, but even simplistic implementations would right a lot of wrongs.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It seems to me that the means of acquisition also matter quite a lot. Some activities are inherently more dangerous to democracy and freedom than others, all the more so when they are paid particularly well - most evident to me among them, lawyering.

I would put monopolies way above lawyers on the list of problems. I would also focus on markets where demand strongly outstrips supply which is the case for health care. Another good example is utilities which we regulate because there is often an unbalanced market and a monopoly.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

My reading comprehension is fairly formidable. My deliberate suggestion is that people only feel this way because they have relatively nothing to lose and so very much to gain. It sounds like such a good idea, but it is, in reality, a terrible idea. To paraphrase an old adage, "First they came for the oligarchs..."

That would be the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[WalterTrull]

My reading comprehension is fairly formidable.

Me too! Oh... probably not the way you meant.

 

[Vouthon]

People have a right to acquire whatever capital, that is tangible goods, they personally need to survive and for the purpose of securing the well-being of any dependants, in addition to making some savings for their future.

However, I am not of the mind that private ownership and possession of assets or resources constitutes for anyone an absolute, unlimited or inviolable right and especially not in cases where the exercise or enjoyment of that ownership are detrimental to the common good, the environment or the welfare of the lowest socioeconomic classes.

Once one's own needs and that of dependents (i.e. spouse, children, disabled relatives or elderly parents) are satisfied, and appropriate savings are invested for the future, I believe that superfluous wealth - in excess of what one needs for a comfortable and fitting life - ceases, morally at least, to be at the absolute discretion and enjoyment of the owner.

In a sense, the legal owner becomes a trustee/steward of the excess wealth on behalf of the commonweal, that is, of the poor and underprivileged in particular, who are the true beneficiaries of that wealth (the real equitable owners, one might say), because they need it most.

I am in favour of progressive taxation and land value tax.

In extreme cases, where the common good demands it, I support the right of the state to expropriate the property of the mega-rich.

That said, I am more inclined to rely upon the tax system in tandem with persuasion and appeals to clemency vis-a-vis the super-rich, reminding them of their grave obligations towards the disadvantaged members of society and to nature. State-involvement and expropriation are best reserved for the most extreme cases, as a final resort.

But for me, that remedy always exists.

We need to safeguard the individual's right to autonomy in the private sphere and certain physical possessions, particularly home-ownership, are fundamental to that. We also want to encourage entrepreneurship, small businesses and the creation of new jobs as a direct consequence. There must, therefore, be a careful balance between mitigating the excesses and injustices of capitalism, without succumbing to a Marxist collectivism that erases any freedom and independence for the "individual person".