How much Wealth (and hence Power) should one person/family be ALLOWED to accumulate?

[Junkdrawer]

If you say "No limits", then how do you handle the most obvious contradiction at the heart of Capitalism:

The more money you have, the more power you have, the more money you have, the more power you have, ad infinitum.

Today, the top 400 families in America have over half of the wealth. Should we wait until 10 families control 90% of the wealth?

I think the Trust Busting efforts of the early 20th Century is what gave us the quasi-democratic reprieve of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.

When Reagan stopped enforcing Anti-Trust laws, democracy began it's current slide.

Taxing WEALTH as opposed to INCOME is probably the most radical idea I can think of short of armed revolution. It's also LONG overdue.

[hifiguy]

1. No preordained limits on what someone can amass IF

they invent something or build up the fortune themselves. For the sake of argument I am thinking of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet here. If you're working for a pre-existing company, 40 times the lowest paid employee's wage for a salary cap. No golden parachutes or sweetheart severance/retirement deals.

Confiscatory estate taxes, however. 99.5% if necessary.

[Iggy]

2. There's Really Several Pertinent

questions..

Your question can be answered: unlimited wealth/power.

The questions then for any serious government (I use the term "serious" loosely, as I don't think our government
can be taken seriously any longer) is

1.) Limiting the influence of the wealthy class on government (clearly this is not happening)

2.) Stopping the tax breaks, deferrments, off shoring, etc. for the wealthy class. existing wealthy people are NOT
entitled to government largesse-- but if you read Zinn's book, you'll learn that's exactly how our system was set
up from the get go. obviously nothing much has changed.

recent SCOTUS decisions indicate their tacit support for entitlement and privilege for the wealthy class

[Junkdrawer]

5. We all want to say "No Limits"....

Now we see "No Limits" = Plutocracy. We fought this for a while with the idea of Regulated Capitalism. But, meanwhile, wealth and power accumulated until Regulated Capitalism was torn down.

We keep whistling pass the grave, pretending it's not the problem it is.

[Iggy]

7. Oh I agree it's a Problem

a BIG problem.

but I don't agree heavily regulated capitalism is the answer. first of all, we don't even enforce the laws we have NOW.
look at how the SEC farted around and did nothing while Madoff ran his scam for decades.

enforcement is key, or forget it.

basically what we have now is anarchy for the wealthy class. it's mostly the fault of congress-- that's why you see
me bitching about them alot

second, not all wealthy people are arseholes-- tho' that's the way it looks now.

FDR as an example... a wealthy man who was labeled a "traitor to his class".

[RKP5637]

3. Agree so much. The greatest fallacy of capitalism, or most 'isms' is not

having control mechanisms on the endless creation of wealth and power. Given it's current track, the US will be short lived. It's already failing as a democracy, and at some point the endless accumulation of wealth and power by fewer and fewer must be stopped, the survival of the US in any form of fairness requires this to occur.

The problem is, how will this be accomplished. Taxing WEALTH is a solution, but I don't think the politicians are going to make it happen. Too many are on the take.

[Junkdrawer]

6. I really want to keep the baby and toss the bath water....

Seems almost everyone feels a collapse on the way. Almost nobody has any idea what it will look like.

My read of History is that if you wait until things are SO bad that the lower classes LEAD the revolution, bad things follow because too many important social institutions are torn down in the revolution and THEIR REPLACEMENTS ARE WORSE.

[RKP5637]

11. Yep, people are often power and wealth hungry. There are many in the

lower classes that would give us far worse given the chance. Greed and power hunger extends across all classes IMO. We just see it more obviously when it's in the upper classes. I would like to save the baby too and throw out the dirty bath water.

[meaculpa2011]

4. 10% wealth tax every year on all net worth...

above $1 million.

95% tax on all estates above $5 million, retroactive to 1913.

Watch their heads explode!

[badtoworse]

8. Where is the federal government given the power to do this?

Read the 5th Amendment - what you are suggesting would be a taking.

[kelly1mm]

9. Also an ex post facto law, unconstitutional as well. nt

[meaculpa2011]

12. The last part was a joke.

Under the taxing authority a wealth tax is not a taking.

[badtoworse]

14. So why was the 16th Amendment needed?

I'm not aware of such a tax ever being imposed in the US. Am I wrong? If not, why not?

[Junkdrawer]

16. Does this mean my real estate taxes are unconstitutional?

Hot damn. That'll save ME a fortune.

[badtoworse]

20. I believe the power to tax real estate is reserved for the states...

...Under the 10th Amendment. The federal government's powers are enumerated and taxing real estate is not on the list.

[stevenleser]

21. Nah, 2% wealth tax on net worth above $13 million (the 1%) until the wealth curve is flatter, then

the progressive tax on income would be enough, assuming that dividends are taxed at the same rate as regular income.

[HopeHoops]

10. Unlimited as long as they pay taxes at the same rate as the rest of us - including SS.

[PETRUS]

13. Huge fortunes

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Well, I don't think "free market" outcomes are moral or even logical. Nor am I comfortable with slavery, military conquest, divine right or any of the causes or justifications for massive inequality that preceded (and accompany) the current system. In other words, these huge fortunes are not legitimate.

People are answering this question in different ways. I think we need to reorganize ourselves significantly along political/economic lines, eventually. In the short run, I support treating all income the same with and setting a very high top marginal rate (maybe 80%). That wouldn't put any upper limit on accumulation within any one lifetime but it would slow it down. And I also support very steep inheritance taxes (maybe 70%-90%) on estate values over a certain amount - probably in the $10 - $50 million range.

[TheKentuckian]

15. I don't think such a restriction is required IF

The bottom pay of a worker is indexed to both top pay and top dividend payout, we add upper tax brackets, the preference for unearned income is reduced or eliminated, and serious inheritance taxes are in place to prevent the generational stacking.

It will take a couple of generations to restore balance but keeps everything out of the confiscation zone.

[Cal Carpenter]

17. Asking the wrong question, imo

How *little* should anyone have to live with in this extremely rich and supposedly modern and civilized society?

Appropriate and redistribute. They aren't passively 'accumulating' wealth. They are stealing it from everyone else.

I realize this is a rather different question but maybe if we started approaching economic topics from our own angle rather than from the angle of the uber-wealthy, we could see more clearly.

[MrSlayer]

18. No limit. Just add some more brackets in the tax code.

Bring back the Ike levels and everything is fine.

[Ikonoklast]

19. Inherited wealth will be the downfall of Democracy if left unchecked.

Thomas Jefferson understood this.

Instead of a feudal aristocracy based on land holdings, we have an aristocracy based on massive wealth and the politicians bought with that wealth.

[Junkdrawer]

22. Everybody sing: "We Did It Before and We Can Do It Again"....

Time for a new wave of Trust Busting....

[Junkdrawer]

23. "Taxing WEALTH ... is the most radical idea I can think of short of armed revolution"....

You see, I understand just how radical taxing wealth is. I read John Locke in college too.

[reformist2]

24. It's not so radical...we already tax property, which is half of all wealth.

Taxing financial assets as well seems quite easy to do, actually, especially when compared to the craziness that is involved when figuring out "income."