Should there be a cap on wealth?

Question

Does an individual really need 10 billion dollars?

How about a 1 billion dollar cap?

500 million?

20 billion?

100 billion?

Any excess money the individual recieves from going over the cap goes to fund something good(education, health, parks, whatever).

Answer 1

That's what the graduated income tax rates are supposed to do. Unfortunately, the top brackets were lowered drastically and plus, people who have a billion dollars can afford to find clever ways to avoid paying taxes. Redistribution of wealth is necessary for the preservation of a democracy. Unfortunately, there is really no way to prevent the widening of the gap between rich and poor, given the reckless and anti-social nature of mankind. Our society will eventually become too top heavy and suffer a painful readjustment because of it.

Answer 2

No. Ross Perot once worked in a job that capped the amount of money he could make per year. He did really well, and once he reached the cap, he'd just stop working every year. Rich people might do the same. It wouldn't hurt them, since they don't need the extra money. But it'd hurt the people they employ, and who buy their goods and services, and who live off the taxes that they would have paid on the wealth they would have made if you'd given them a reason to make it.

Or they could just leave the country and go somewhere where they're appreciated. If someone is capable of creating a billion dollars, I'd rather have them be a part of my country than a part of another country.

Answer 3

"Does an individual really need 10 billion dollars"?

Sure, why not? That's the beauty of our system...if that's your dream, you have a right to not only pursue it, but to achieve it.

Putting a cap on earnings is a slippery slope. Once you put a cap on 100 billion, when the government needs more money, they'll lower the cap to 50 billion....then 1 billion..then 100 million....after all, who needs more than 100 million?

That's communism, pure and simple...when the government determines what you can and can't have.

Coupled with your "nationalize oil" question previously, are you SURE you're not a closet communist?

Answer 4

There should be no cap. If you want to work and earn that kind of money, it is your right. You fail to understand that people with enormous wealth provide jobs for people. By limiting what they can make, you are limiting how many they will employ. They also tend to give away a lot of money. Who are you to say they don't deserve to be rewarded for their hard work? On the flip side, where is the incentive for someone to go out and earn a living if they can leech off of the earnings of another?

Answer 5

No. If a combination of inheritance, luck, and/or hard work result in you having a net worth of $10 billion, then you have the right to enjoy the fruits of that bounty.

Answer 6

No there shouldn't be. But there should be caps on how many tax breaks the wealthy can get. Bill Gates once admitted that is he wanted to, he could set up his money so he would never have to pay taxes.

Answer 7

That really wouldn't work.

99% of Bill Gates worth, is his stock in his own company.

A cap on wealth, would mean he would have to sell part of his own company.

It could end up meaning, he loses control of his own company.

Thats not a very good way to encourage people to start new companies, and create new jobs.

You get to sucessful, we take your company away from you.

Answer 8

Its not a cap that is needed, but the breaking up of super conglomerates that stifle competition and install unfair labor practices!

Answer 9

Sounds like the idea of Freedom is in trouble here.

Answer 10

A. Define wealth
B. It's none of your business and it's not your money.
So who made you GOD?
I know that being a Neo-Socialist Progressive Liberal made you a nanny, but who made you GOD?