should it not be possible to restrict to much personal wealth?

Question

for example,should there be made a sort of ristricted capitalisme
where private persons,should not be able to own,lets say, more than 10 million dollar,and the rest goes back to the state for the benefit of all, to help the 40 million people living in the usa under the poverty line, or to stop personal enrichment by third world leaders, forcing banks worldwide to give insights, ect
you cannot disregard capitalisme completely, but restrict it.

Answer 1

Then there's no incentive to make more than $10 million dollars if you have 100% tax for every dollar over that.

Once someone makes their $10 mil, they close up shop and take vacation the rest of the year.

Answer 2

This experiment supposed to have really happened, they took 9 people divided them up in 3 groups.. all 3 had equal amounts of a large sum of money. They were allowed to do anything they wanted with the cash.
Then they checked on them 6 months later.

The first group squandered the cash, vacations, new items, etc.. they were totally broke and angry within the 6 month period.
The second group put their money in some long term money market income. They didn't buy anything and pretty much were the same but content with the next egg in 6 months.

The third group invested their money stared a business and was making at least 3 time the original investment of the money they got in 6 months and their business was going strong. Hiring a lot of people, stockholders, etc.
The point is you try to restrict wealth and all of sudden there are no business to employee the middle class so they can feed their families. Unless you give everyone farm land and then that group that squanders and doesn't work will prey on everyone else.
Its the way humanity is .. its been that way for thousands of years. There are always great ideas but nothing works except letting others with the ideas.. employee the people that will work.

Answer 3

I agree with you that the disparity between rich and poor has to be narrowed. In every country of the world, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (as some of the latest studies have shown). How to re-distribute the wealth is the problem. If you cap the amount of wealth, then the rich will find loop holes or move their money off shore.
More responsible European states do have more graduated income and busines taxes and do a better job at redistribution of wealth, while still allowing the rich to get richer.

It is not the philanthropy of the rich we should admire, it is the philanthropy of the poor which allows the rich to acquire their wealth, the extra value they give the rich in their services provided. Sooner or later, the shrinking middle class will get this message.

There should be reward for risking capital, working harder etc. But when the Royal Bank earns another record quarterly profit, and their share prices drop because shareholders wanted MORE than a huge increase in profit, then something stinks in Denmark.

Answer 4

First off you are suggesting the government steal from people just because they have more. Doesn't this seem wrong to you?
Second of all you are suggesting taking away people's rights. Don't you value freedom?
Next you say giving the government more power results in the benefit of all. When has this ever happened for any length of time? I assume that you are against the war in Iraq. Did government money benefit them? Would we have started the war if the government had very little money?
Some people will stop working if you take away their incentives. Thus when someone makes ten million dollars and you say they can't make anymore they will quit being creative, quit taking risks, quit using their skills to produce goods and employment opportunities. If we had this rule you wouldn't be able to ask your question online because people would not have risked their millions to develop the internet hardware and software to make this site possible.
Let's say you get everyone to agree how is it going to be implemented? Is that ten million cash? or ten million in net value.
So if it is cash or other liquid savings I would just spend money on cars homes etc. Now if you try to do ten million on net value I will spend it on expensive meals trips to europe etc. What I would not do is save it so it can be invested in capital and research thus slowing down the progress of the world. So more people have to die of diseases, pollution, car wrecks etc...
Why don't you just leave other people alone and fight for them to leave you alone. Freedom is more important than your "good" ideas

Answer 5

So why would these capitalists keep working, and building their businesses, past that 10 million income limit? Where's the incentive for growth?

Would Bill Gates have built Microsoft into the giant company it is today, which employs thousands at very good wages, and makes tons of money for it's stockholders, if that limit had been put upon him? Of course not. He would have built the company to the point that it would earn him that, and then stopped growing the company, because after that, it would be pointless.

This is the biggest problem with the socialist and communist crowd. They are always out to punish the achievers who benefit all of us, instead of focusing on ways to help the needy become achievers themselves.

I for one am happy Bill Gates is worth umpteen billions, because he has earned that money by making all of us richer, through increased productivity, better products, employment, and returns on our stock.

Answer 6

Everyone should have the freedom to obtain any amount of wealth they want.

Those 40 million living below poverty CHOOSE to be there. The wake up every morning just like everyone else with decisions to make about their finances. The simply make different choices than I do.

Life IS fair and life is damn GOOD !

Answer 7

No offense, yet that's enormously plenty each thing incorrect with liberalism in a nutshell. Stuff is all emotional like this for you. that's not based in fact and logic, in basic terms although you take place to sense. Newsflash: for each action, there is an equivalent and opposite reaction. i will aid you artwork Newton out. You libs love technology.

Answer 8

That is called communism. It did not work, check the record. The American Dream would be dead.
I think that you are not capable of ever becoming wealthy and have a deep fat fryer in your employment future, otherwise you would not have asked such and asinine, mid 1970's cliched question.

Answer 9

They tried that in russia It doesen't work. Always the lazy complain about the working people having too much GET A JOB!!!

Answer 10

Hell no, your thoughts border on communism. I'm broke now, but working my butt off and would hate to be told that I would cap out someday. I think our lives are what we make them. Your either lazy or ambitious!