English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

For examples millionaires and billionaires. For me personally all i would want to earn at the most if i had a choice annually would be 500,000.

2007-07-18 18:21:15 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance Personal Finance

It pains me to learn what some people earn and that there are still starving children in this world. But what do you think?

2007-07-18 18:24:01 · update #1

6 answers

Everybody wants more of something. For some people, it's money.

We have all of these socially-instituted government hand-outs to try to keep everybody fed, clothed, housed, etc. It seems to train certain people to just expect to be taken care of.

And the richest people tend to be the most philanthropic. I mean, how many billions can you really spend on yourself?

As to whether there should be a limit on how much someone can earn, I think there shouldn't be. Those of us who work hard and smart, who make plans and execute them, who build something... we deserve all that we can get.

Everybody who's still alive still has opportunities. Some people would like to wallow in "poor me" excuses, acting like crying babies throughout their lives. But I don't want anyone taking away any of my freedoms, including the freedom I have to make more money, just so a bunch of losers won't feel QUITE as jealous.

$500,000 a year is $1,369.86 a day. Maybe that's all you think you'll ever be worth.

A lot of people in this world subsist (I'd barely call it living) on $2 or less per day. Maybe that's all they think they're worth.

The problem isn't an external one, but one inside each individual mind. And that's all I have to say about that.

2007-07-18 18:44:09 · answer #1 · answered by wood_vulture 4 · 0 0

Many people have pointed out the money that the billionaire and millionaires give away each year to charity.

There is something else to think about. When Bill Gates makes a dollar, there are plenty of other people making money as well. All of his employees get paid. So do the companies that do business with Bill Gates. If you limit Bill Gates to only making $500,000 a year then he will scale back his operation to the point to where it worth making only that much money to him. He will lay off many people and many smaller businesses will go under.

All because you are upset when you see someone else with money? How more envious can you get?

2007-07-19 09:15:40 · answer #2 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 0 0

It's tempting but dangerous to limit what people can earn because it reduces incentive to create value (and create jobs for other people).
I think your concern is very legitimate though.
A high, graduated estate tax prevents the creation of super-rich families that pass wealth down from generation to generation. In the US, the estate tax is low and this results in a bunch of kids who become instant millionaires without working for it.
For example: no tax on the first $500,000 left to each child, 30% tax up to $1mn, 50% up to $2mn, and 75% above $2mn. (These numbers are example only.)
If you are really interested, look at the Japanese estate tax system and read what Barack Obama and Warren Buffett say about taxing the rich.

2007-07-18 18:45:30 · answer #3 · answered by Buddha-rama 4 · 0 0

Your question implies that being rich makes others poor. For example, is the world's richest man, Bill Gates, making people impoverished? Bill Gates gives away millions of dollars a year to the poor. If he gave away all of his money and only made $500k per year, would poverty not exist? Does that make logical sense?

If all you want is $500k, how would your imposing of this restriction on others help the world's poor?

Poverty is caused by a complex array of economic factors beyond the scope of this answer; however, simply putting limits on what people earn won't eradicate poverty.

2007-07-18 20:17:44 · answer #4 · answered by G 2 · 0 0

Gap between rich and poor is the result of disregarding principles that the rich has the duty or responsibility to uplift the downtrodden in their own generations. Earning must no be limited today as standard of living becomes higher. Regarding the underprivilges the govenment has to focus on reconstructed education of populace so they would be ushered into reliant living.

2007-07-18 18:31:14 · answer #5 · answered by wilma m 6 · 0 0

Well, if you live in a free country, then no there should be no limit.

Those who have a lot of money, hopefully try to spread it around a bit, but again, can't force them to.

It would be great to live in a world that used it's resources correctly and everyone got an equal share. But that is not going to happen, not any time in the foreseeable future that is.

2007-07-18 18:33:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers