War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[RKMBrown]

so if I build a company from the ground up and it's net worth grows to 41mil in the first year I have to "divest" my company in the first year by firing everyone and selling it for parts or I have to "give" ownership of my company away either to donations or the federal government.

One does not build a $41million enterprise as easily as starting a successful delicatessen. The remote possibility that you build such an enterprise on your own leaves you free to sell it and to give the excess away, or to invest in another business (no limit on corporate assets). But if you have a junior partner, you wish him well as you retire to your leisurely life.

Why don't you start a country like that and see how many people join up to be loosers.

 

[HenryBHough]

The openly socialist president of France tried to implement a wealth tax.

Within hours anyone with any wealth left the country.

But he did something unexpected. I figured he would just redefine "wealth" to mean any holdings worth more than the equivalent of about ten bucks.

Instead?

He caved, possibly preventing French Revolution II.

 

[MikeK]

The openly socialist president of France tried to implement a wealth tax.

Within hours anyone with any wealth left the country.

I can't comment on this because this is the first I've heard about it and I know nothing of the circumstances. But it is relevant to mention that a major component of FDR's New Deal was imposition of a ninety-one percent tax rate on the rich as one means of redistributing hoarded wealth. And because of existing proscriptions (since repealed) I don't believe too many of them left the Country.

What you've posted is an important concern. Imposing a $20million limit on accumulated wealth is of course an extremely radical, in fact revolutionary, political action. One which must necessarily be supported by a number of equally radical facilitative actions -- such as a substantial "exit tax." (An "expatriation tax" presently exists. But while its rate is relatively moderate it could and should be substantially increased.)

One very serious problem in this area is the existence of substantial wealth which is hidden in off-shore accounts. Super Rich Hide 21 Trillion Offshore Study Says - Forbes

The main reason for this problem is the appalling lack of attention to it (political cronyism) by the IRS and the Justice Department. This problem needs to be the focus of intensely motivated investigations, serious extradition efforts and severe criminal penalties applied to those who expatriate with hidden wealth.

 

[Boss]

What fucking part of FREE are you not comprehending here? You do not have the right to impose limits on how much wealth someone can obtain in a FREE market system.

[...]

Perhaps I should have mentioned early in that message, like you, I am an ordinary citizen, not the emperor, and what I proposed was a suggestion, not a mandate. So relax. And above all keep in mind that as a free American citizen, like you, I have a right to express my wishes for political change.

With regard to the purpose of our Constitution, FREEdom does not mean or imply unconstrained license. The rules governing the operation and order of our society exist to ensure the best interests of the Nation. This is why there are speed limits on our roads and highways. So if the public debate via its representatives determines that a limit on individual accumulation of the Nation's wealth resources is in the best interest of the Nation's overall political health, the question would then be who are you to say it isn't.

At this point the issue is up for debate. I've proposed it and I am interested in reading opposing views and knowing what they are based on.

No the issue is certainly NOT up for debate. When you have a supermajority of Americans who want to suspend the Constitution and become a Communist nation, THEN it will be up for debate. It is certainly NOT in our best interest to shred the Constitution and become a Communist nation.

And YES... Make no mistake whatsoever, what you are proposing is outright Communism. Not socialism, not Marxism, but outright Communism.

FREEdom does not mean or imply unconstrained license.

That is EXACTLY what freedom means when it comes to the acquisition of wealth, sans unethical and illegal behavior. There is nothing unethical or illegal about honestly acquiring wealth through the free market capitalist system.

As was mentioned earlier, this was tried in France and we know what happens. The wealthy simply move to another country. So are you going to construct a WALL to keep the rich people here, Chairman Mike? How about we just line them up in front of an open ditch and execute them? That way, we could simply confiscate ALL their wealth!

 

[Boss]

[...]

Because of the authoritarian totalitarian Marxist socialist COMMUNISM you propose!

What functional communist entity are you aware of in which its subjects are (or were) permitted to accumulate extraordinary amounts of personal wealth?

Do you not consider twenty million dollars to be an extraordinary net worth by contemporary American standards? Presuming you do, please explain how you manage to define a recommendation which allows individual accumulation of such exceptional wealth as communist or Marxist?

Well I say that it's Communist because that's what it is, you fucking idiot. You are drawing an arbitrary limit on the amount of property (wealth) people can own. There is nothing whatsoever "extraordinary" about $20 million. It is simply an arbitrary amount that sounds extraordinary to your stupid ass. There are people in America who lose $20 million on a bad investment and never even flinch. ...Well, maybe they flinch, but it doesn't effect their lifestyle.

When you find the rare individuals who are able to accumulate $20 million in wealth and more, these people are valuable assets because they are smart people who are successful at providing something society needs and wants, which in turn has made them wealthy. If they are dishonestly or unethically earning this wealth, then $0 should be their limit and they should be doing time in prison. But if you devise a ceiling and tell them they can't earn more than your arbitrary amount pulled from your ass, then what do you think they are going to do? Continue to provide things society wants and needs out of the goodness of their hearts?

This is precisely WHY Communism has FAILED every single time it has been tried... It does not work!

 

[Boss]

When you start proposing arbitrary limits, then whatever limit you select becomes the top... so what happens when $20 million is equivalent to $30k? Then everyone is working for your limit and thankful they have that much. Meanwhile... there will STILL be a wealthiest 1% who control most of the wealth! You've merely chopped off your hands and feet and have no way of ever obtaining such status.

The hypothetical prospect of such devastating inflation as you've suggested notwithstanding, the difference would be transition from vertical to horizontal distribution of the Nation's wealth resources. In other words there would be many more millionaires but no billionaires.

Because of the imposed limit on individual accumulation there could not be a controlling One Percent.

There's not a "controlling" one percent now. And YES, there would still be a Top 1% who held most of the wealth. In the usual course of Communism, it becomes the Ruling Class who you've bestowed the authority upon to confiscate this wealth. So now, you have a non-free closed Communist system where we have rulers.

Inflation WOULD happen, and it CAN happen rapidly. It happened to the Yen in Japan in less than a year. Whenever you've established a maximum wealth, everything scales accordingly. You have no more incentive to gain wealth because, what would be the purpose of it? Again, it's why Communism fails.

 

[Boss]

...the difference would be transition from vertical to horizontal distribution of the Nation's wealth resources.

This presumes that wealth resources are FINITE! They are NOT! We create and generate wealth! Wealth is distributed to those who earn it through free market capitalist enterprise. They provide a good or service (or talent) the people want or need and they successfully prosper in the process.

In your idiotic system, wealth resources WOULD be finite because you've destroyed the possibility of them being anything else. Now... The DEMAND for wealth would still be there, you've simply diminished the SUPPLY... So I'll let you figure out what is going to happen to that plan.

 

[Boss]

Good morning zeke, I assure you, I am fine. I am not the least bit worried about you or Mikey stealing my wealth. All you have been able to do so far is make me more money. In fact, today I am depositing a check for $77,653 from good old Uncle Sam for my "green energy" efforts! Hey... together, we are saving the planet! Thank you SO much! ...Can we do more????

As long as your bottom line does not exceed $20million I sincerely wish you all the happiness and comfort such exceptional wealth can provide. But if you're hiding more under your mattress, what is your need for all that money?

If you think my $20million limit is too constraining and should be expanded, tell us why. And tell us what you think a more appropriate limit would be -- and why.

There should NEVER be ANY limit on the amount of wealth one can obtain through honest free market capitalist ventures. To the complete contrary, we should ENCOURAGE all people to obtain as much wealth as they can through their ingenuity, skills and talents. We should do things to make that EASIER and not harder. And we damn sure shouldn't set arbitrary limits on it.

I do not owe you or anyone an explanation on why I "need" my property. That is MY business! You don't get to determine if I am worthy of keeping what I own. This illustrates beautifully the problem I have with you people, you're little fucking tin horn dictators who want to impose your will on people. Little Mussolinis!

 

[Boss]

Hell no, I just don't want to live in a country that caps wealth.

But if the change in economic policy results in a vast improvement in the general standard of living and the virtual elimination of poverty, why not. Unless you now have more than $20 million, in which case you might be happier living in another country.

Which country would you prefer to live in, and why?

But your plan wouldn't elimante poverty. Your plan would ensure equal poverty for all. You would relegate everyone to the same standard of living. No one could climb higher because you're not going to permit it. There is no more incentive to invent and create, because what is the use? There are no more smart successful capitalists providing us with cheap and reliable solutions to our wants and needs... what's the purpose? There is no more capitalist investment, it becomes totally obsolete in your system.

 

[Boss]

Why is there no possible benefit? Give it to children, relatives, less fortunate friends, donate to charities or causes, etc. Invest it in a growing business (no limit on corporate assets).

Corporate assets are part of your wealth you miserable fucktard. So already, you are establishing a loophole where people can exceed the arbitrary limitation you've established by claiming "corporate assets" instead. You don't see a problem there? You're dumber than you look.

Why the hell do I want to risk my wealth and assets in order to give any benefit of that risk away? That makes NO sense whatsoever to me. It's like, if I opened a casino and said... Mike, you can come here and gamble as much as you like, when you lose you lose, but when you win, you have to donate all your winnings to charity! What would be your incentive to gamble at my casino?

 

[Boss]

Keep in mind the main objective here is horizontal distribution. Spread it around.

COMMUNISM! That is what you are preaching!

Wealth is NOT FINITE! Try to get that through the concrete-like skull of yours. We do not have a limited amount of wealth that needs "equally distributed." We create and generate wealth every single hour of every single day in America. Billions and trillions of dollars worth, every single year!

This is not some pie that rich people have most of, and the poor people only have crumbs. You are FREE to go out there and make your own pie which you don't have to share with anyone else. No one is stopping you from creating wealth! Hell man, go write a book extolling the virtues of Communism in the 21st Century, you seem to think your ideas are so great, maybe others will buy your book and make you a wealthy man?

 

[zeke]

Boss. REALLY. Truly wealthy (such as myself) would never waste the time that you have wasted arguing AGAINST a proposal that never ever in a million years in this country is going anywhere.

You ain't looking good here Boss. As I mentioned yesterday, MikeK is jerking you around by the short hairs.
You sure you are as wealthy as you claim? You sound just like a few of these other demented middle classers on here.

What's up with that?

 

[Boss]

One does not build a $41million enterprise as easily as starting a successful delicatessen. The remote possibility that you build such an enterprise on your own leaves you free to sell it and to give the excess away, or to invest in another business (no limit on corporate assets). But if you have a junior partner, you wish him well as you retire to your leisurely life.

You don't know what "one" does, you're a fucking moron who doesn't have the sense God gave a jellyfish.

So now, Mr. Brilliant.. you sell your $41 million asset to someone... does the asset value suddenly become less? Are you selling it to a homeless person? How are they buying it if they don't have more than $20 million in wealth? What do you mean by wish your junior partner well as you retire? Are you going to take half the corporate assets with you and leave the husk of the company to him?

Oh, that's right... you've now constructed the caveat of "no limit on corporate assets" ...well Mr. Genius, just so you are aware, MOST people who's wealth is in excess of $20m, are already incorporated and most of that wealth is already "corporate assets."

 

[zeke]

You know what there Boss. I've seen you write over and over that wealth is not finite. And maybe I won't argue that, cause look at me.

What I will tell you IS finite is OPPORTUNITY and TIME. Fact boss there is a limited amount of opportunity to gather the resources to become truly wealthy like you and I. Fact. And there is a finite amount of time to bring all the things together to become truly wealthy.

People are limited by skills and abilities, by resources, by education, by access to money and credit. etc etc.

Some of those shortcoming can be mitigated. And by doing that some will become better off. Not infinitely wealthy, just better off than they were.

But there is a reason that there is a 1% group of extremely wealthy people in this country. And most of them did not start out with a long list of shortcoming to overcome. Matter of fact, there is a lot of inherited wealth in this country. What did the son or daughter of an extremely rich family DO to get as rich as they will be in the future?
They inherited wealth Boss. Not created it. You (as a rich man) should know this shit.

 

[Boss]

Nonsense zeke. Only about 2% of the current wealthiest 1% inherited their wealth. The rest earned every penny. Opportunity is not finite, it is limitless. Time is what you make of it, and has very little to do with obtaining wealth. I gave an example a while back... Peyton Manning created $80 million in wealth for himself in about 30 seconds as he took a sip of bottled water and signed a contract to play football for the Denver Broncos.

Now... You want better more available education, better paying jobs, more credit available and more access to money? Well... you have to start by declaring a cease fire on The Rich, and start encouraging those people to use their wealth for those purposes. Otherwise, you aren't going to have them because poor people don't build universities or make venture capital loans.

 

[zeke]

Only about 2% of the current wealthiest 1% inherited their wealth. The rest earned every penny.

You are dead wrong about this Boss. Let Google be your friend and teacher.


A 2011 study by Edward Wolff and Maury Gittleman found that the wealthiest 1 percent of families had inherited an average of $2.7 million from their parents.

 

[zeke]

And really Boss, you are going to use a talented athlete as your example of a wealth generator.
Because the top 10% of wealth holders want to pay exorbitant prices to be entertained and the players through their players union have manged to get the players a share, you want to use that as your wealth generator example?

That's just plain silly boss.

 

[zeke]

Next thing you know boss, you will be an advocate for everyone to have a union for wealth generation.

Of course that idea did work pretty well in the past.

 

[Boss]

And really Boss, you are going to use a talented athlete as your example of a wealth generator.
Because the top 10% of wealth holders want to pay exorbitant prices to be entertained and the players through their players union have manged to get the players a share, you want to use that as your wealth generator example?

That's just plain silly boss.

No, I used it as an example of how time has nothing to do with wealth acquisition. Peyton acquired $80 million in wealth in 30 seconds. And last I checked, football games in the NFL have an average attendance of 50k people or more, are you arguing that all those people are among the 10% of wealthiest Americans? What about the millions who watch on television? Are they among the upper 10% as well?

Wow... Free market capitalism is wonderful, ain't it?

 

[Boss]

Only about 2% of the current wealthiest 1% inherited their wealth. The rest earned every penny.

You are dead wrong about this Boss. Let Google be your friend and teacher.


A 2011 study by Edward Wolff and Maury Gittleman found that the wealthiest 1 percent of families had inherited an average of $2.7 million from their parents.

Does not disprove my statement.