Wealth most definitely isn't finite. We came from being cavemen with no possessions to owning a house, car, tv, computer, mp3 player, clothes, refrigerators, microwaves, ovens, etc etc etc... We have way more wealth than even 100 years ago, where people barely made it by without any of these items, let alone being able to afford them.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The rich have too much money? Whats the solution?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Wealth most definitely isn't finite. We came from being cavemen with no possessions to owning a house, car, tv, computer, mp3 player, clothes, refrigerators, microwaves, ovens, etc etc etc... We have way more wealth than even 100 years ago, where people barely made it by without any of these items, let alone being able to afford them.
I think it's important to note that wealth translates into political power, at least in our modern world, and that there's a certain tension between wealth and democracy that's unavoidable, actually desirable.
Without that tension, wealth can easily overwhelm democracy, in a variety of ways. I doubt, for example, that our forefathers even dreamed that the press, what has become the media, could ever be consolidated into half a dozen mega-corporations that we have today. If they had, it seems doubtful that they'd have allowed the press that particular freedom. Nor could they have foreseen just how much money is now involved in political advertising and what amounts to paid political editorializing.
They understood, rather well, what inherited wealth meant, and how it worked- it's the basis for european royalty, a royalty that had titles, and those titles meant titles to land and its resources- the ability to exploit resources, collect rents and levy taxes to support their own lifestyles. Not wealth that was earned by those who held it, but rather by their distant forebearers, usually by force of arms...
Revolutionary era Americans opposed that concept wholeheartedly, if shortsightedly. While there were wealthy Americans, the relative difference between wealthy and average was a lot smaller, and, besides that, there was a whole continent there for the taking... they didn't forsee the day when that would be accomplished, when inheritance of wealth would begin to play a major role in the economy. They couldn't even fathom the concept of limited resources.
The whole idea of Capitalism was in its infancy, with capitalists acting in opposition to the established order of royalty, with commerce becoming a much greater source of wealth than mere property. The emergence of inherited Capital as the new royalty was very far in the future, virtually undreamed of...
All of which very much shaped the American psyche, and still does today. Even though the frontier closed over a hundred years ago, we see extreme wealth as a good thing, rather than as a necessary evil... we still think in terms of unlimited resources, and unlimited opportunity, both of which no longer apply... inspiring statements like Xman's-
" Capping wealth is silly. It wrongfully assumes that wealth is a finite resource. "
Over time, wealth is elastic, but at any given moment, it's finite. What one person owns at that moment simply can't be owned by another simultaneously. And that elasticity has limits, with wealth having a tendency to accumulate in the hands of a few, particularly over generational time. Wealth is its own opportunity. Those who start out way ahead can hardly help getting further ahead, particularly in our modern world of professional money managers. They can't actually spend what they take in- the surplus is reinvested, and the whole thing wants to snowball out of control...
The answer isn't in limiting wealth, per se, but rather in limiting inheritance, making sure that wealth circulates rather than stagnating in a few huge pools accessible only to the owners... When inheritance taxes force liquidation of assets, then those assets become available to the highest bidder, and the proceeds flow back into the economy via govt spending... keeping the process of the economy alive and healthy...
Third world economies don't do that, at all, with wealth becoming more and more concentrated over time, and the only ways to keep it moving being in the form of revolution or invasion...
Without that tension, wealth can easily overwhelm democracy, in a variety of ways. I doubt, for example, that our forefathers even dreamed that the press, what has become the media, could ever be consolidated into half a dozen mega-corporations that we have today. If they had, it seems doubtful that they'd have allowed the press that particular freedom. Nor could they have foreseen just how much money is now involved in political advertising and what amounts to paid political editorializing.
They understood, rather well, what inherited wealth meant, and how it worked- it's the basis for european royalty, a royalty that had titles, and those titles meant titles to land and its resources- the ability to exploit resources, collect rents and levy taxes to support their own lifestyles. Not wealth that was earned by those who held it, but rather by their distant forebearers, usually by force of arms...
Revolutionary era Americans opposed that concept wholeheartedly, if shortsightedly. While there were wealthy Americans, the relative difference between wealthy and average was a lot smaller, and, besides that, there was a whole continent there for the taking... they didn't forsee the day when that would be accomplished, when inheritance of wealth would begin to play a major role in the economy. They couldn't even fathom the concept of limited resources.
The whole idea of Capitalism was in its infancy, with capitalists acting in opposition to the established order of royalty, with commerce becoming a much greater source of wealth than mere property. The emergence of inherited Capital as the new royalty was very far in the future, virtually undreamed of...
All of which very much shaped the American psyche, and still does today. Even though the frontier closed over a hundred years ago, we see extreme wealth as a good thing, rather than as a necessary evil... we still think in terms of unlimited resources, and unlimited opportunity, both of which no longer apply... inspiring statements like Xman's-
" Capping wealth is silly. It wrongfully assumes that wealth is a finite resource. "
Over time, wealth is elastic, but at any given moment, it's finite. What one person owns at that moment simply can't be owned by another simultaneously. And that elasticity has limits, with wealth having a tendency to accumulate in the hands of a few, particularly over generational time. Wealth is its own opportunity. Those who start out way ahead can hardly help getting further ahead, particularly in our modern world of professional money managers. They can't actually spend what they take in- the surplus is reinvested, and the whole thing wants to snowball out of control...
The answer isn't in limiting wealth, per se, but rather in limiting inheritance, making sure that wealth circulates rather than stagnating in a few huge pools accessible only to the owners... When inheritance taxes force liquidation of assets, then those assets become available to the highest bidder, and the proceeds flow back into the economy via govt spending... keeping the process of the economy alive and healthy...
Third world economies don't do that, at all, with wealth becoming more and more concentrated over time, and the only ways to keep it moving being in the form of revolution or invasion...
No limits on wealth. The laws now are fair.
Some people are just better at business, innovation, etc and we should NOT discourage it by limiting their wealth. By capping wealth, we would have no Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. All of the their great accomplishments would be lost.
Some people are just better at business, innovation, etc and we should NOT discourage it by limiting their wealth. By capping wealth, we would have no Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. All of the their great accomplishments would be lost.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
Is wealth finite? I think that depends on what specific type of wealth you're referring to. If you were to regard "open space"--open land, forests, untouched lakes, etc., as a form of wealth (that people could own or enjoy), then at least that type of wealth is limited because "they don't make land anymore" (at least not natural land). Also, land is not fungeable (easily substituted or replaceable). That is to say, that some land is more desirable than other land and there's only so much desirable land.
Right, cause giving back to the government that protects and sustains the environment that allows for you to work and live is a bad thing. But that's right, Americans hate paying taxes for anything, even if it allows for us to be safer from criminals, bad roads, raging fires, gives public education, helps pay for college, protects us from foreign armies and helps recover from natural disasters, to name a few.
Agent11
Diamond Member
What we need is a reform of campaign financing. I think politicians would be less likely to give sweetheart deals to certain large corporations if they did not receive millions in contributions from them.
We also need to reform the system so that during war the military industrial complex makes no profits, so that we do not find ourselves in wars that serve the interests of no one but ceo's and shareholders.
We also need to reform the system so that during war the military industrial complex makes no profits, so that we do not find ourselves in wars that serve the interests of no one but ceo's and shareholders.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
The Government should have NO role in regards to wealth.
Unfortunately it is skewed in favor of the rich getting richer and that is wrong.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
"It's people!!!"
I think that no matter how evenly wealth is distributed that some people have better skill sets than others. The wealth will be redistributed back into the pockets of those with the most ot offer. This Utopian concept of wealth distribution is a fallacy. Granted there will be some success where before there was someone being held back.
THe whole concept is inherently wrong in my opinion. People should be allowed to reach for the stars. I mean that. There are some Billionaires looking to fund private space travel. THis would lead the way for human kind to spread out into space before this planet becomes uninhabitable for one reason or another. If you took it away the wealth then this would not be possible and joe sixpack would sink all of it back into poor choices. Cigarrates and the tobbaco co's owners, Heatlh insurance and thier co's owners, child support ect..ect..ect.
THe whole concept is inherently wrong in my opinion. People should be allowed to reach for the stars. I mean that. There are some Billionaires looking to fund private space travel. THis would lead the way for human kind to spread out into space before this planet becomes uninhabitable for one reason or another. If you took it away the wealth then this would not be possible and joe sixpack would sink all of it back into poor choices. Cigarrates and the tobbaco co's owners, Heatlh insurance and thier co's owners, child support ect..ect..ect.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
That gets harder and harder for the little people of the country because as they work harder and harder and can no longer afford health care, driving, good roof overhead while the rich get richer and richer.
It's the reason the little people will eventually band together in enough numbers and kick the rich collective a$$e$ with a revolution.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Have you been around any of these America Takeovers?
America Takeover
They will squash you like a bug.
palehorse
Lifer
no, it's not. After all, I do not equate taxation with being robbed. Taxation is a necessity for any functioning government. So while I may be a bit disheartened by the high rates I currently have to pay, it's still something that I am completely willing to do because of benefits it brings. (transportation, military, law enforcement, judicial system, education, etc)
Maybe I should have said: after I've given up a portion to the government, keep your hands off the rest of my fvcking money. period.
😉
If they stop caring then what problem will they have? It is simply 10 year old jealousy people have. They cant stand somebody else having more than them.
The poor wont overthrow the rich because they typically make bad decisions with their life and wont get it together enough to do anything about it. Instead they will do what they have been doing for decades, sitting on their ass complaining about how life sucks and how it isnt fair somebody else has more material goods and wealth than them.
If they minded their own business they would probably find what they have isnt so bad.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
fairtax imo
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
I guess you haven't heard of offshore accounts or tax havens? Thats where a lot of te money goes where it really isn't doing much general good.
The Assosciation of CPAs, H&R Block, and well over 1/2 of all the accountents in the USA would lobby to prevent that :x
edit:
What we had to understand is that the issue of taxation in the USA and moving to a flat tax is largely just politicial ammunition that will never be fired. The industry and market that has spawned due to a cumbersome and slow system ridiculued with loop holes is a very profitable one.
From this alone any "rally" to a fair tax by EITHER side is MOST LIKELY (I still believe there are politicians with principles these days 😉 ) an "empty issue" in that it provides nothing of real substance because its goal is not to actually talk about doing something constructive, but to change the way people vote...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
