this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
1457 points (98.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
5821 readers
1869 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Billionaires should not exist
I would also support a wealth cap at eg. $10M, or a rule to a similar effect
I'd like to see a soft cap implemented that's tied to the nation's average income (I think median would be the most fair, but it's very possible I'm wrong). So for instance, the real median income in 2023 was about 80k according to census.gov. Let's say we cap total wealth at 500x that median which = 40 million, after which taxes make it increasingly difficult to accumulate wealth, and have a yearly earnings soft cap of 100x = 8 million with similar restrictions.
I think that would drastically reduce inequality while still preserving different economic classes, which I think are critical to motivating people into difficult, high-value jobs like engineers and surgeons. Stacking up 500 years worth of income would let the rich stay wealthy, and a soft cap would discourage hoarding and encourage spending which stimulates the economy and spreads money around. If the wealthy wanted to be able to earn more per year or raise the soft cap they'd have to arrange for the average income to go up. Moreover, I that increases across many people at the bottom would move the median more than a few large increases at the top, which would encourage a higher "floor" for earnings.
40 million is about 20 lifetimes.
The thing about lifetimes is you don't need more than one. And surgeons/engineers aren't making 40 million. You certainly don't need that much money to motivate a professional class. Even if money was such a motivator.
There's no reason for anyone to have more than a few million dollars at their command.
That's true. I'm just ballparking numbers and gave surgeons/engineers as an example of what I consider difficult, valuable jobs (as far as education etc.). I don't think they are the top paid individuals in America by a long shot.
I think a person living with the best society has to offer (big house, multiple cars, a yacht, luxury trips, personal chef, etc) + setting up their kids to succeed (e.g. buying them a house) could spend 40 million in their lifetime . Obviously those aren't necessities, but IMO enjoying the best society can offer is the hallmark of being in the top tier of a system with economic classes. It's definitely just a ballpark, but I think the purchasing power of 40 million in 2024 dollars is a sustainable cap on wealth that would be immensely better for wealth inequality while still allowing the very successful to enjoy the best in life.
I don't disagree a whole lot with what you said, but I think perhaps you are placing caps based on a middle-class life lived according to necessities + some luxuries like yearly vacations. Honest question, not putting words in your mouth I promise - are you expecting absolutely everyone to live a middle-class lifestyle (which I think makes caps on wealth a much harder sell)?
If they're living in a yacht and doing luxury trips then they aren't being professionals. The only group that's incentivized by that level of wealth are the same people who are billionaires now. They will continue to operate in the same way.
I think someone who takes say, a month off per year could still be a professional. Even 2 or 3, which has them working 9 months a year. If you disagree it's not the end of the world. If you have a grounded argument to make in opposition, go for it and I'll listen.
Yes, they will operate in the same way (motivated by money) but they'll do it at a drastically reduced level of societal harm. You come across as someone who isn't greedy, and who understands the concept of "enough" which are admirable qualities I strive for myself - I live on disability payments and largely succeed in being thankful for it. However, making everyone happy with a middle class level of "enough" (i.e. no motivation to succeed beyond that) would require changing the nature of a lot of, perhaps most, human beings IMO. I think it would be a hard sell. Failing to convince at least most people to not strive past middle class living could lead to dissatisfaction, a collapse of the limits we're proposing, and an eventual return to more harmful "norms".
That sounds sensible. Yes I have exactly the same line of thinking.
Good luck getting the politicians in the billionaires' pockets onboard.
We can always dream
1% tax imposed on any money entering or leaving a bank or stock account.