2006-09-12 10:01:31 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
and noone could own more than 3 achers of land.
2006-09-12 10:03:00 · update #1
i like this question.
i also don't like it because the only way to answer it properly is to spend hours thinking about it and typing, and i'm not gonna. Stream of consciousness follows instead:
- index linked? does the £10m ratchet with inflation?
- entrepeneurial incentive... whither that? is £10m enough anyway? or would it cut off the entrepeneur just at the point where they're about to break through and do something new?
- what would you do to someone at the £9,999,999 point? would they be forced to donate to charity? pay 100% tax above that point? do they get to choose where the tax goes?
- what of the very seriously ill? Can £10m in the bank look after someone who breaks their neck and can't even breathe for themselves?
- is there any link to spending here? it's quite easy to end up very poor and still gross £10m in your career. What to do with them?
Very cunningly judged number, by the way. £1m would not be enough on most of those tests, so couldn't be sustained. £100m would have no effect in the vast majority of cases.
I will watch to see what the rest think...
2006-09-12 10:02:43 · answer #1 · answered by wild_eep 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You would have productive people make all the way up to that amount of money and then they would just drop out of society and live off of their earnings. The world would then by a worse place to live because only the self-motivated would be able to make that much and they'd all stop with their extraordinary efforts. I would hate to live in a world like that
2006-09-12 13:57:54 · answer #2 · answered by Dan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This sounds like a kind of moral capatalist/comunism, 10.000.000
or 10 million isn't all that much money these days, but it sure is plenty as far as your average person is concered, so is 3 acres of land.
Like land though money belongs to those who allready have it and theres no way there gonna divide it up equaly; or they would lose there power, and we would either find ourselves in eutopia or total anacharcy.
2006-09-12 11:20:56 · answer #3 · answered by surfer soul 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I want that much again, maybe if that's all the money kings could earn, I would not want so much. Truth is, I had it all and gave it all to the poor. Poor, rich, poor, that's me, and that will bew me again soon, giving's the fun of having it all, but I hope i can do it again, several times. Tony, in remotest Indo-China,
2006-09-12 10:08:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd be happy that I got that much, over average working life £200,000, but sad cos would have to sell our 200 acre farm. But there again if I was getting 200 grand a year I don't think I'd care!
2006-09-12 10:05:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We'd have no billionaires, that's for sure. What if that was the minimum we could earn? We'd be just a poor 'cause it would be worthless!
2006-09-12 10:03:37 · answer #6 · answered by Joker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
my max limit as we speak is lower than that so it doesn't matter to me but this would be the end of capitalism due to lack of interest in investments and destined profit reached at some point.
2006-09-12 10:20:04 · answer #7 · answered by vick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tony Blair would have to give up his plans for million dollar lecture tours and run this country for our benefit.
2006-09-12 10:04:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ken Lay wouldn't have had to fake his death, the government would be holding bake sales to finance war....and all obnoxious rich people would be common
2006-09-12 10:09:58 · answer #9 · answered by ! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then the most you could earn would be £10,000,000.
2006-09-12 10:04:44 · answer #10 · answered by Polo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋