This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[BluesLegend]

We give billions away and you defend that while crying out of the other side of your mouth about the bloated budgets.

Who's this "we" shit left winger? Start a business, earn some wealth on your own. America is the land of opportunity not the land of take other people's money.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I already did you worthless piece of shit. The US should prohibit its citizens from holding more than 100 million in assets and generating a net income of 12 million annually. The tax rate can remain the same or even be reduced, that's not a problem. There are other sources of taxes and methods to draw money out of the economy to control inflation, we don't need to impose a heavy income tax on anyone. The purpose of taxes isn't to provide Uncle Sam with USD, because the US Federal Government is the exclusive issuer of the US Dollar. Taxes from the perspective of the federal government primarily take money out of the economy to manage inflation and maintain the value of the dollar.

The government has a lot more freedom and options than right-wing Republicans are aware of or care to admit. If our federal government allocates funds to programs and projects that support the nation's infrastructure, workforce, and business owners, we expand our GDP (i.e. national production capacity). The budgetary limit of the US Federal Government is our nation's GDP. There's a lot more our government could invest in to truly Make America Great Again, but if you continue to vote for right-wing Republicans or establishment Democrats (pretty much all of them with few exceptions, if any), our nation is doomed.

We need to have a mixed economy like practically every other modern industrialized nation has, if not we're up the creek without a padel.

That's the stupidest thing ever posted in the internet.

 

[Thinker101]

I already did you worthless piece of shit. The US should prohibit its citizens from holding more than 100 million in assets and generating a net income of 12 million annually. The tax rate can remain the same or even be reduced, that's not a problem. There are other sources of taxes and methods to draw money out of the economy to control inflation, we don't need to impose a heavy income tax on anyone. The purpose of taxes isn't to provide Uncle Sam with USD, because the US Federal Government is the exclusive issuer of the US Dollar. Taxes from the perspective of the federal government primarily take money out of the economy to manage inflation and maintain the value of the dollar.

The government has a lot more freedom and options than right-wing Republicans are aware of or care to admit. If our federal government allocates funds to programs and projects that support the nation's infrastructure, workforce, and business owners, we expand our GDP (i.e. national production capacity). The budgetary limit of the US Federal Government is our nation's GDP. There's a lot more our government could invest in to truly Make America Great Again, but if you continue to vote for right-wing Republicans or establishment Democrats (pretty much all of them with few exceptions, if any), our nation is doomed.

We need to have a mixed economy like practically every other modern industrialized nation has, if not we're up the creek without a padel.

Great, and who will be valuing these assets. How about Judge Engoron, he did such a wonderful job placing a value on Mar-a-Lago.

 

[pknopp]

Who's this "we" shit left winger? Start a business, earn some wealth on your own. America is the land of opportunity not the land of take other people's money.

OPM.

Trump's Road to Socialism | Tho Bishop

It's cool to start a business and then take OPM?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's like arguing that there are good slave masters hence we should preserve the institution of chattel slavery.

That analogy would be apt if every employee in this country did not have the liberty to find another job, learn a trade or otherwise try to better their financial situation. But alas, that is not the case.

The institution itself is wrong, if not in practice in principle.

What institution, making money?

A human being owns another, even if that master treats his or her slave well.

Are you a slave?

There were truly good slave masters throughout history, who treated their slaves as members of their families. In the Southern United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, there were black slave women who breastfed white babies. The pancake syrup brand "Aunt Jemima", was based upon a black slave woman who lived in the house with her white masters, cooking for them and taking care of their kids. She was "Aunt" Jemima.

What's my point? My point is that just because there might be some good billionaires, that doesn't imply that society should allow such a special, exclusive class of people with an unlimited amount of resources that can and is often used to rig elections, purchase legislation, create government protected captive markets and monopolies and essentially turn a democracy into a plutocracy ruled by vested interests at the expense of the public good. It's possible that JFK was assassinated by this class of people (i.e. Bankers..etc).

This still begs the question: What about those who do not abuse that power?

If a person isn't satisfied with a net income of a million dollars monthly, or 12 million yearly, and 100 million dollars in assets or savings, they should go see a psychiatrist or maybe even a priest. They're suffering from some type of mental and emotional disturbance.

This is purely opinion on your part. But it does beg another question: At what point, exactly, does one's income constitute "some type of mental and emotional disturbance"?

 

[TruthNotBS]

And claiming that communism is a "stateless society" might very well be the dumbest thing anyone has ever uttered on this board! Communism is ALL about the State! Ask anyone who has ever lived under a communist government!

The term "communist state" that you used, given the Marxist definition of communism, is an oxymoron, that has never existed and will never exist. What has existed in the past and still exists today are nations with socialist economies not communist ones. Most of them have markets and the ones that don't are sanctioned economically by the United States, Capitalist-run Empire, into obscurity and hardship. That's the reality that you conveniently choose to ignore pretending socialism just "fails on its own", no it doesn't. It needs PLENTY of help to fail from superpowers like the US and its crony allies.
The USSR was in a state of war from its founding in October 1917 to the day it died in December 1991. Despite that, it still had a certain degree of representation and held elections. It was far from perfect but it wasn't as authoritarian as what anti-socialist polemicist-propagandist like you assert.

The US was also quite authoritarian for a considerably long period of its history, with a political system that only allowed white, male property owners to vote, and legalized chattel slavery. It was a society plagued with plenty of misogynistic sexism and violence towards women, including the brutal exploitation of factory labor, even to the extent of employing children as young as five years old. That was the capitalism of the 1800s until we began to civilize ourselves.

Capitalism is also "all about the state" (assuming communism is what you claim), the only difference is that private corporations take the place of the authoritarian state. In most cases, businesses aren't run as worker-owned and run cooperatives they're run like little fiefdoms. At least with a democratic socialist government, we can elect our representatives through an electoral process. Not the case in the place where most Americans spend most of their waking hours toiling for a living, namely the capitalist-run, privately owned workplace. In that place, there are no elections and you simply do what you're told like a cog in a machine.
Communism is indeed stateless, according to Marx and Engels, with their theory known as "The Withering Away Of The State":

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't agree with Marx and Engels, I think that humanity will always need states and to pretend otherwise is naive and impractical. The state in the socialism that I subscribe to, is a social apparatus organized by the people to manage their largescale socioeconomic affairs and projects. That which an individual or small group of people can't achieve, a state institution with all of its resources can. It's that simple. The state isn't inherently evil, or good, it's whatever we want it to be. That's the bottom line.

Socialism and later when technology permits, communism, are inevitable due to the advancement of automation. artificial intelligence, high computing power, and the miniaturization of machines and devices. The transition from for-profit, market capitalism, to non-profit marketless socialism might take another 25 years, or maybe 200 years, but eventually, it will happen. Communism is the final stage of socialism when the individual consumer has complete control over the machinery of production. When you and I can produce everything in our homes or wherever we might live, free of a government or a corporation, that is the ultimate objective of communism.

 

[Nostra]

That's the stupidest thing ever posted in the internet.

Give him a few minutes…….

 

[Nostra]

The term "communist state" that you used, given the Marxist definition of communism, is an oxymoron, that has never existed and will never exist. What has existed in the past and still exists today are nations with socialist economies not communist ones. Most of them have markets and the ones that don't are sanctioned economically by the United States, Capitalist-run Empire, into obscurity and hardship. That's the reality that you conveniently choose to ignore pretending socialism just "fails on its own", no it doesn't. It needs PLENTY of help to fail from superpowers like the US and its crony allies.
The USSR was in a state of war from its founding in October 1917 to the day it died in December 1991. Despite that, it still had a certain degree of representation and held elections. It was far from perfect but it wasn't as authoritarian as what anti-socialist polemicist-propagandist like you assert.

The US was also quite authoritarian for a considerably long period of its history, with a political system that only allowed white, male property owners to vote, and legalized chattel slavery. It was a society plagued with plenty of misogynistic sexism and violence towards women, including the brutal exploitation of factory labor, even to the extent of employing children as young as five years old. That was the capitalism of the 1800s until we began to civilize ourselves.

Capitalism is also "all about the state" (assuming communism is what you claim), the only difference is that private corporations take the place of the authoritarian state. In most cases, businesses aren't run as worker-owned and run cooperatives they're run like little fiefdoms. At least with a democratic socialist government, we can elect our representatives through an electoral process. Not the case in the place where most Americans spend most of their waking hours toiling for a living, namely the capitalist-run, privately owned workplace. In that place, there are no elections and you simply do what you're told like a cog in a machine.
Communism is indeed stateless, according to Marx and Engels, with their theory known as "The Withering Away Of The State":

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't agree with Marx and Engels, I think that humanity will always need states and to pretend otherwise is naive and impractical. The state in the socialism that I subscribe to, is a social apparatus organized by the people to manage their largescale socioeconomic affairs and projects. That which an individual or small group of people can't achieve, a state institution with all of its resources can. It's that simple. The state isn't inherently evil, or good, it's whatever we want it to be. That's the bottom line.

Socialism and later when technology permits, communism, are inevitable due to the advancement of automation. artificial intelligence, high computing power, and the miniaturization of machines and devices. The transition from for-profit, market capitalism, to non-profit marketless socialism might take another 25 years, or maybe 200 years, but eventually, it will happen. Communism is the final stage of socialism when the individual consumer has complete control over the machinery of production. When you and I can produce everything in our homes or wherever we might live, free of a government or a corporation, that is the ultimate objective of communism.

You sure can waste the bandwidth.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The term "communist state" that you used, given the Marxist definition of communism, is an oxymoron, that has never existed and will never exist.
(Rest of screed deleted.)

Marx was a trust-fund parasite who never worked a day in his life.

 

[BluesLegend]

That's the stupidest thing ever posted in the internet.

Just some indoctrinated left winger who thinks he's entitled to other people's wealth. Obama convinced these idiots that they were somehow entitled to ownership of the companies that employ them.

 

[BluesLegend]

The US was also quite authoritarian for a considerably long period of its history, with a political system that only allowed white, male property owners to vote, and legalized chattel slavery. It was a society plagued with plenty of misogynistic sexism and violence towards women, including the brutal exploitation of factory labor, even to the extent of employing children as young as five years old. That was the capitalism of the 1800s until we began to civilize ourselves.

Wow the liberal arts college seriously messed you up. Here's a dose of reality youngster, government is not going to come save you. So get up off your ass and start earning your own wealth before you end up on a Dem party plantation for life.

 

[Oldestyle]

The term "communist state" that you used, given the Marxist definition of communism, is an oxymoron, that has never existed and will never exist. What has existed in the past and still exists today are nations with socialist economies not communist ones. Most of them have markets and the ones that don't are sanctioned economically by the United States, Capitalist-run Empire, into obscurity and hardship. That's the reality that you conveniently choose to ignore pretending socialism just "fails on its own", no it doesn't. It needs PLENTY of help to fail from superpowers like the US and its crony allies.
The USSR was in a state of war from its founding in October 1917 to the day it died in December 1991. Despite that, it still had a certain degree of representation and held elections. It was far from perfect but it wasn't as authoritarian as what anti-socialist polemicist-propagandist like you assert.

The US was also quite authoritarian for a considerably long period of its history, with a political system that only allowed white, male property owners to vote, and legalized chattel slavery. It was a society plagued with plenty of misogynistic sexism and violence towards women, including the brutal exploitation of factory labor, even to the extent of employing children as young as five years old. That was the capitalism of the 1800s until we began to civilize ourselves.

Capitalism is also "all about the state" (assuming communism is what you claim), the only difference is that private corporations take the place of the authoritarian state. In most cases, businesses aren't run as worker-owned and run cooperatives they're run like little fiefdoms. At least with a democratic socialist government, we can elect our representatives through an electoral process. Not the case in the place where most Americans spend most of their waking hours toiling for a living, namely the capitalist-run, privately owned workplace. In that place, there are no elections and you simply do what you're told like a cog in a machine.
Communism is indeed stateless, according to Marx and Engels, with their theory known as "The Withering Away Of The State":

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't agree with Marx and Engels, I think that humanity will always need states and to pretend otherwise is naive and impractical. The state in the socialism that I subscribe to, is a social apparatus organized by the people to manage their largescale socioeconomic affairs and projects. That which an individual or small group of people can't achieve, a state institution with all of its resources can. It's that simple. The state isn't inherently evil, or good, it's whatever we want it to be. That's the bottom line.

Socialism and later when technology permits, communism, are inevitable due to the advancement of automation. artificial intelligence, high computing power, and the miniaturization of machines and devices. The transition from for-profit, market capitalism, to non-profit marketless socialism might take another 25 years, or maybe 200 years, but eventually, it will happen. Communism is the final stage of socialism when the individual consumer has complete control over the machinery of production. When you and I can produce everything in our homes or wherever we might live, free of a government or a corporation, that is the ultimate objective of communism.

I'm always amused by those who laud the virtues of communism, Christian because almost without fail when it's pointed out to them that communism destroys people's lives, they immediately claim that what took place in the Soviet Union...in Cuba...in China...in Cambodia...wasn't "true" communism! That under "true" communism all of the bad things that happened in real life WOULDN'T have happened!

I don't even know what you're babbling about when you start talking about all of us producing everything we need in our own homes! One of the tenets of the development of civilization is specialization. It's obvious that everyone can't be an expert car mechanic...that it's much more practical to have someone who specializes in repairing cars do the job. I'm an expert at teaching people how to play golf. I do that better than most of the population. I'm not an expert at fixing my car. Attempting to do so is going to probably be a disaster...just as having my mechanic teach my golf lessons will ALSO be a disaster!

 

[TruthNotBS]

That analogy would be apt if every employee in this country did not have the liberty to find another job, learn a trade or otherwise try to better their financial situation. But alas, that is not the case.


What institution, making money?


Are you a slave?


This still begs the question: What about those who do not abuse that power?

This is purely opinion on your part. But it does beg another question: At what point, exactly, does one's income constitute "some type of mental and emotional disturbance"?

That analogy would be apt if every employee in this country did not have the liberty to find another job, learn a trade, or otherwise try to better their financial situation. But alas, that is not the case.

Firstly, the notion that workers have the freedom to easily move between jobs is a gross oversimplification. For tens of millions, especially those living paycheck to paycheck (About 60% of the workforce), the risks associated with leaving a job are immense. It's not about moving a towel on a beach; it's about risking your livelihood, your family's well-being, and your ability to meet basic needs. This isn't liberty; it's a form of coercion.

Moreover, your argument ignores the power imbalance inherent in the employer-employee relationship under capitalism. Workers often face conditions that are authoritarian, dehumanizing, and sometimes even hazardous. The 'choice' to endure such conditions or risk unemployment is no choice at all. This is not freedom; it's exploitation and control, a modern serfdom where the lords are private corporate interests.
Furthermore, I should mention that moving to different jobs frequently can be detrimental to one's future earning potential and employability. The job market punishes those who appear to lack stability, creating a catch-22 situation for many workers. They are condemned for remaining employed under bad conditions and equally condemned for trying to escape them.

Your point about education and training also falls flat. The reality is that not everyone has the capacity (i.e. luxury of time, money, energy, intelligence, or even means of transportation), to pursue further education or training at a local college or a vocational school. The systemic barriers to education and skill acquisition are real and significant, especially for those already struggling to make ends meet. America needs to develop the infrastructure and programs to help people acquire an education and skills, facilitating their school attendance, without burdening them with loans or unaffordable tuition fees. We should all support this program:

Job Corps | Careers Begin Here

Job Corps is the largest free residential education and job training program for young adults ages 16-24. We connect you with the skills and education you need to get the career you want!

www.jobcorps.gov

​

Unfortunately, GOP politicians are constantly trying to defund Job Corps, for some other half-baked, privately owned alternative or nothing at all.

Lastly, addressing your point on freedom in the workplace, it's indeed a glaring contradiction in the capitalist system. Advocates of capitalism often proclaim the virtues of liberty and democracy, yet seem content to allow workplaces to operate as dictatorships. This hypocrisy is stark and telling. The workplace, where most adults spend the majority of their waking hours, is often devoid of democratic principles. Workers have little to no say in their conditions, pay, or treatment. This is not just an economic issue; it's a fundamental issue of freedom and human dignity.
The way to mitigate all of the above is with labor unions, but unfortunately, the Republicans and some Democrats as well, do everything possible to strip workers of their ability to unionize by passing bills that protect employers at the expense of their employees.

​

What institution, making money?


Market capitalism. As a socialist who recognizes the need for markets before technology forces production by necessity into non-profit, marketless socialism, I don't agree with capitalism's bottom line, namely, profits. For me, markets serve the higher purpose of providing the nation with goods and services, which is a necessity. People need food, clothing, housing..etc. The profit motive although important in an economic system with markets, doesn't take priority in market socialism. As socialists, our priority is the public good, not private capital accumulation or the pursuit of money. Mass production serves society best when it is centered on what's good for the public, not what is convenient or palatable for a billionaire or a few wealthy elites.

Are you a slave?

Relying on wages from an employer-owner, as an employee, is a form of slavery, so in a way yes, I am dependent upon my wages and employer. My employer in a way at a macroscale or at a higher level, is also dependent upon wages because workers like me take their money and purchase the products and services that capitalists like my employer sell. A market capitalist economy is similar to an ecosystem. There's a form of symbiosis between employers and their employees, but where the wheel meets the road, in the most apparent and visible way, workers like me are the slaves of this system of production, and dependent on wages and their employers.

I'm fortunate enough to be a unionized machinist, with a phenomenal salary. I've been coding CNC machines now for 12 years and before then I was a CNC machine operator. I've been training artificial intelligence to take my job for the last two and a half years. I'm training the system that is going to render me jobless, but hey that's how this system works. I'm getting a good pension, it's not that bad. I'm concerned for the young ones, in their 20s and 30s. I'm 51, and I've been doing this for almost 30 years, here in the US and in another country I used to live in.

This still begs the question: What about those who do not abuse that power?

My analogy answered that question. There are good masters but the institution itself is wrong or obsolete in the case of capitalism.

This is purely opinion on your part. But it does beg another question: At what point, exactly, does one's income constitute "some type of mental and emotional disturbance"?

It's an appeal to common sense and what is self-evident for most people. Are you being violated by society for not being allowed to hoard more than a million bucks monthly? Most reasonable people would say no after they reflect upon it a bit. For some of us, the answer is immediately apparent. No way! A million bucks monthly? Who could seriously complain?

A cap on personal wealth, such as a net income of a million dollars monthly or a maximum of $100 million in personal assets, can be justified on several grounds:

1. Redressing Extreme Inequality: Gross inequality is a significant issue in many societies. When a small minority accumulates vast fortunes while a significant portion of the population struggles for basic necessities, it creates an unjust and unstable society. A cap on personal wealth would help redistribute resources more equitably, ensuring that everyone has access to essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.
2. Democratic Integrity: Billionaires wield disproportionate political influence through campaign contributions, lobbying, and control over media narratives. This undermines democratic processes and often leads to policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Limiting personal wealth would help reduce this undue influence and restore balance to the democratic process.
3. Social Stability and Cohesion: Extreme wealth disparities can lead to social unrest, as people become increasingly disillusioned with a system that seems rigged against them. By capping personal wealth, society can promote greater social cohesion and stability.
4. Moral and Ethical Considerations: There's a moral argument that no individual needs billions of dollars to live a fulfilling life. Beyond a certain point, wealth accumulation becomes less about personal success and more about hoarding resources that could be used for the public good.

Regarding the specific limits, it's true that any cap on wealth is somewhat arbitrary. However, the exact figure is less important than the principle behind it. The limit should be set at a level that allows individuals to live comfortably and luxuriously, without amassing so much wealth that it disrupts economic balance and social equity. The proposed figures of $1 million monthly income and $100 million in assets strike a balance between individual reward for success and effort, and societal needs.

The determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" limit is indeed a societal decision. Like all laws and regulations, it reflects the values and priorities of the society that implements it.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Wow the liberal arts college seriously messed you up. Here's a dose of reality youngster, government is not going to come save you. So get up off your ass and start earning your own wealth before you end up on a Dem party plantation for life.

Stop projecting your persona and character on me. Not everyone is like you.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You sure can waste the bandwidth.

You have none, obviously. Duh.

 

[Nostra]

That analogy would be apt if every employee in this country did not have the liberty to find another job, learn a trade, or otherwise try to better their financial situation. But alas, that is not the case.

Firstly, the notion that workers have the freedom to easily move between jobs is a gross oversimplification. For tens of millions, especially those living paycheck to paycheck (About 60% of the workforce), the risks associated with leaving a job are immense. It's not about moving a towel on a beach; it's about risking your livelihood, your family's well-being, and your ability to meet basic needs. This isn't liberty; it's a form of coercion.

Moreover, your argument ignores the power imbalance inherent in the employer-employee relationship under capitalism. Workers often face conditions that are authoritarian, dehumanizing, and sometimes even hazardous. The 'choice' to endure such conditions or risk unemployment is no choice at all. This is not freedom; it's exploitation and control, a modern serfdom where the lords are private corporate interests.
Furthermore, I should mention that moving to different jobs frequently can be detrimental to one's future earning potential and employability. The job market punishes those who appear to lack stability, creating a catch-22 situation for many workers. They are condemned for remaining employed under bad conditions and equally condemned for trying to escape them.

Your point about education and training also falls flat. The reality is that not everyone has the capacity (i.e. luxury of time, money, energy, intelligence, or even means of transportation), to pursue further education or training at a local college or a vocational school. The systemic barriers to education and skill acquisition are real and significant, especially for those already struggling to make ends meet. America needs to develop the infrastructure and programs to help people acquire an education and skills, facilitating their school attendance, without burdening them with loans or unaffordable tuition fees. We should all support this program:

Job Corps | Careers Begin Here

Job Corps is the largest free residential education and job training program for young adults ages 16-24. We connect you with the skills and education you need to get the career you want!

www.jobcorps.gov

​

Unfortunately, GOP politicians are constantly trying to defund Job Corps, for some other half-baked, privately owned alternative or nothing at all.

Lastly, addressing your point on freedom in the workplace, it's indeed a glaring contradiction in the capitalist system. Advocates of capitalism often proclaim the virtues of liberty and democracy, yet seem content to allow workplaces to operate as dictatorships. This hypocrisy is stark and telling. The workplace, where most adults spend the majority of their waking hours, is often devoid of democratic principles. Workers have little to no say in their conditions, pay, or treatment. This is not just an economic issue; it's a fundamental issue of freedom and human dignity.
The way to mitigate all of the above is with labor unions, but unfortunately, the Republicans and some Democrats as well, do everything possible to strip workers of their ability to unionize by passing bills that protect employers at the expense of their employees.

​

What institution, making money?


Market capitalism. As a socialist who recognizes the need for markets before technology forces production by necessity into non-profit, marketless socialism, I don't agree with capitalism's bottom line, namely, profits. For me, markets serve the higher purpose of providing the nation with goods and services, which is a necessity. People need food, clothing, housing..etc. The profit motive although important in an economic system with markets, doesn't take priority in market socialism. As socialists, our priority is the public good, not private capital accumulation or the pursuit of money. Mass production serves society best when it is centered on what's good for the public, not what is convenient or palatable for a billionaire or a few wealthy elites.

Are you a slave?

Relying on wages from an employer-owner, as an employee, is a form of slavery, so in a way yes, I am dependent upon my wages and employer. My employer in a way at a macroscale or at a higher level, is also dependent upon wages because workers like me take their money and purchase the products and services that people like my employer sell. A market capitalist economy is similar to an ecosystem. There's a form of symbiosis between employers and their employees, but where the wheel meets the road, in the most apparent and visible way, workers like me are the slaves of this system of production, and dependent on wages and their employers.

I'm fortunate enough to be a unionized machinist, with a phenomenal salary. I've been coding CNC machines now for 12 years and before then I was a CNC machine operator. I've been training artificial intelligence to take my job for the last two and a half years. I'm training the system that is going to render me jobless, but hey that's how this system works. I'm getting a good pension, it's not that bad. I'm concerned for the young ones, in their 20s and 30s. I'm 51, and I've been doing this for almost 30 years, here in the US and in another country I used to live in.

This still begs the question: What about those who do not abuse that power?

My analogy answered that question. There are good masters but the institution itself is wrong or obsolete in the case of capitalism.

This is purely opinion on your part. But it does beg another question: At what point, exactly, does one's income constitute "some type of mental and emotional disturbance"?

It's an appeal to common sense and what is self-evident for most people. Are you being violated by society for not being allowed to hoard more than a million bucks monthly? Most reasonable people would say no after they reflect upon it a bit. For some of us, the answer is immediately apparent. No way! A million bucks monthly? Who could seriously complain?

A cap on personal wealth, such as a net income of a million dollars monthly or a maximum of $100 million in personal assets, can be justified on several grounds:

1. Redressing Extreme Inequality: Gross inequality is a significant issue in many societies. When a small minority accumulates vast fortunes while a significant portion of the population struggles for basic necessities, it creates an unjust and unstable society. A cap on personal wealth would help redistribute resources more equitably, ensuring that everyone has access to essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.
2. Democratic Integrity: Billionaires wield disproportionate political influence through campaign contributions, lobbying, and control over media narratives. This undermines democratic processes and often leads to policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Limiting personal wealth would help reduce this undue influence and restore balance to the democratic process.
3. Social Stability and Cohesion: Extreme wealth disparities can lead to social unrest, as people become increasingly disillusioned with a system that seems rigged against them. By capping personal wealth, society can promote greater social cohesion and stability.
4. Moral and Ethical Considerations: There's a moral argument that no individual needs billions of dollars to live a fulfilling life. Beyond a certain point, wealth accumulation becomes less about personal success and more about hoarding resources that could be used for the public good.

Regarding the specific limits, it's true that any cap on wealth is somewhat arbitrary. However, the exact figure is less important than the principle behind it. The limit should be set at a level that allows individuals to live comfortably and luxuriously, without amassing so much wealth that it disrupts economic balance and social equity. The proposed figures of $1 million monthly income and $100 million in assets strike a balance between individual reward for success and effort, and societal needs.

The determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" limit is indeed a societal decision. Like all laws and regulations, it reflects the values and priorities of the society that implements it.

Nobody bothers to read your longwinded mindless diatribes, even when 99% of your thoughts are just a cut and paste job, Simp.

 

[BluesLegend]

Stop projecting your persona and character on me. Not everyone is like you.

I smell CHINA communist

 

[TruthNotBS]

I smell CHINA communist

Hehehe you just smell your own poopoo. Wipe your butt.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hehehe you just smell your own poopoo. Wipe your butt.

^^^ and the faux outer shell breaks away revealing the hidden Demwit liberal inside. So predictable.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Nobody bothers to read your longwinded mindless diatribes, even when 99% of your thoughts are just a cut and paste job, Simp.

Just because you don't read them, doesn't imply others don't. I get plenty of private messages and "thanks" for my posts, so why would I care if someone like you refuses to read my posts? You're not even my target audience. I write to truth seekers, not brain-dead country bumpkins like you who don't even have enough sense to spit in the cup when they chew their tobacco. Your brain is rotting.