General Discussion

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)

85. That's it exactly. Huge fortunes are a severe drain on the economy. Ours

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:44 PM

Nov 2012

is big and robust enough to accommodate them for a time, but once a fortune reaches the critical mass and becomes self-perpetuating it must be expire with the person that accumulated it. This applies to companies as well.

I think Carnegie is a good example. He was the richest man in the world (and a world class bastard as well) and rather than pass his fortune on, he spent the majority of it building free public libraries across the nation, a legacy that still benefits the nation today. Now, he did it to buy his way into heaven, but the motivation is irrelevant. If someone doesn't want to give almost all of their fortune to the government they hate, let them go an a building spree, have a philanthropic orgy, adopt a city, whatever, as long as most of that money goes back into the pool.

Eliminate all differentiation of income, make companies/corporations mortal with an expiration date, institute a confiscatory inheritance tax for great fortunes, and force Wall Street back into an investment model. Take these steps and we can begin to realize the ideals that we claim to aspire to.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DU POLL: Do you think there should be a cap on how much wealth one individual can accumulate? [View all] RKP5637 Nov 2012 OP

yes, absolutely bowens43 Nov 2012 #1

I think taxation would probably be best. If we continue to allow the RKP5637 Nov 2012 #2

I couldn't agree more RoccoR5955 Nov 2012 #3

Yep, I recall it as being more balanced back then, and there were lots of extremely wealthy RKP5637 Nov 2012 #5

Not quite. HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #51

‘The people do not own the land. The people do not control the land.’ NT MichaelMcGuire Nov 2012 #4

Accumulation of wealth, no. Income, yes. Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #6

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head as to what I was trying to state. I too have no RKP5637 Nov 2012 #8

And the corporate boards who approve those insane salaries? Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #11

And, the elite at Hostess want bonuses too. A reward for destroying RKP5637 Nov 2012 #13

Yup. 90% tax on income over, say, $50M Doctor_J Nov 2012 #32

We don't lack the resources... Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #37

True Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2012 #78

word XemaSab Nov 2012 #39

Does that include lottery winners? n/t guardian Nov 2012 #73

YES! If the value of your house rises beyond a certain level, the Government should confiscate it! Nye Bevan Nov 2012 #7

It would need to be refined ... speaking more of rigged manipulative wealth, those gaming the system RKP5637 Nov 2012 #12

Depends How Wealth is Accumulated dynasaw Nov 2012 #9

Yes!!! Excellent point! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #10

The cap should be on how much can be passed on to relatives MNBrewer Nov 2012 #14

Yes, definitely for outrageous wealth building useless aristocratic empires that RKP5637 Nov 2012 #16

How anyone can say no is beyond my comprehension madokie Nov 2012 #15

I was surprised too! Basically a no is saying we like the rigged system for the 1% and the RKP5637 Nov 2012 #19

Your sig line says all that needs be said madokie Nov 2012 #24

Not capped. Properly taxed. LiberalEsto Nov 2012 #17

Yes!!! If I were to do this poll again I should have said taxed rather than capped. n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #20

+1 gollygee Nov 2012 #23

+1000! nt Javaman Nov 2012 #25

+1001. Faygo Kid Nov 2012 #29

Absoutely! I lean to the left and I believe in a 100/1 earnings ratio. Walk away Nov 2012 #33

Yes - the "job creators" need the shit taxed out of them. It's way past time to end the free ride! Initech Nov 2012 #81

Yep!!! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #88

Yep... WillyT Nov 2012 #83

Taxing wealth would lead to even more concentration of wealth into fewer hands. ieoeja Nov 2012 #109

Dynastic wealth is the problem.. 99Forever Nov 2012 #18

+++ 1,000 +++ n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #21

Attempting to cap wealth accumulation would be a slippery slope slackmaster Nov 2012 #22

I would suggest it is done via taxation, much as it used to be? n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #26

It's like the alarming call of many on DU of late advocating Puzzledtraveller Nov 2012 #36

The government already has the power to confiscate assets RoccoR5955 Nov 2012 #63

No, but it should be fairly taxed. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2012 #27

Agree! Capped was a wrong word choice by me. n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #28

No limits, but income tax rates should increase in proportion to wealth. geckosfeet Nov 2012 #30

Yes! This is the way to do it IMO! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #31

Yes but we lack a good way to determine the cap IDoMath Nov 2012 #34

Well said. Also, rather than cap. I should have said taxation. n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #49

An effective tax would prevent anyone from exceeding the cap but that is even harder to craft IDoMath Nov 2012 #68

We could do modeling for it with effective systems, computing power and 'what if' scenarios. The RKP5637 Nov 2012 #104

If you can find the research funds I'm in IDoMath Nov 2012 #108

Exactly!!! This can be solved! In the big picture, this is a very solvable problem. It's RKP5637 Nov 2012 #110

No PD Turk Nov 2012 #35

I see that as a root cause for many of the problems today, as you said, ""an "anything goes" RKP5637 Nov 2012 #53

No. kossp Nov 2012 #38

Yep!!! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #50

As long as someone made their wealth fairly gravity Nov 2012 #40

Wealth is power. redqueen Nov 2012 #41

Uh Oh! Sorry, 404 Page Not Found PETRUS Nov 2012 #45

Dang. It is an essay called 'Capitalism: A Ghost Story' by Arundhati Roy redqueen Nov 2012 #47

That link gets me to the piece. PETRUS Nov 2012 #52

Very interesting essay! Thanks! Here's one paragraph I took with me ... RKP5637 Nov 2012 #59

Don't think there should be a cap, but a wealth tax might make sense. Hoyt Nov 2012 #42

no, but there should be much higher tax brackets for much higher income levels Motown_Johnny Nov 2012 #43

Yep! Definitely!!! RKP5637 Nov 2012 #102

Nope, no cap on anything RomneyLies Nov 2012 #44

The Minimum Wage is a cap on working class wealth leftstreet Nov 2012 #46

It's not a cap. A HERETIC I AM Nov 2012 #48

Yep. And I don't believe in a floor without a ceiling. nt Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #56

What.... You never seen a patio? A HERETIC I AM Nov 2012 #65

Minimum wage is a floor and not a cap Kaleva Nov 2012 #57

Minimum wage is not a cap. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #86

Progressive taxes and estate taxes are the answers Cary Nov 2012 #54

Definitely!!! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #60

Yes. Concentrated wealth causes less freedom... Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #55

Comrade indeed. n/t Stand and Fight Nov 2012 #80

Not as such. As has been pointed out previously, the key is to severely restrict the capacity to Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #58

What I see is that formula has been broken, in past decades it worked quite well, but now RKP5637 Nov 2012 #61

The formula is fine, it's the system that's broken. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #62

Today, the tentacles run deep, and somehow, sometimes, those with nothing are led to believe they RKP5637 Nov 2012 #66

Right again. I've read here on DU that $9.75 is a good job. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #75

I often think some are so disillusioned, even if they don't realize it, that they need to turn to RKP5637 Nov 2012 #87

Talk about the founding fathers - Many in favor of a severe estate tax BlueStreak Nov 2012 #77

That's it exactly. Huge fortunes are a severe drain on the economy. Ours Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #85

Yep, allowing endless inherited wealth contributes to empire building often those empires having RKP5637 Nov 2012 #100

there is a cap to being poor - you die Whisp Nov 2012 #64

Those in desperation are often not seen in this country, the media paves over them for the most RKP5637 Nov 2012 #69

No. But income and income from accumulated wealth should be taxed fairly with no loopholes. nt bluestate10 Nov 2012 #67

I think that's the best way to approach it, through fair taxation that benefits all. And riddance of RKP5637 Nov 2012 #97

No, just bring back progressive taxation. Eisenhower closeupready Nov 2012 #70

Exactly!!! RKP5637 Nov 2012 #95

Wealth should be taxed and at a pretty high rate, JDPriestly Nov 2012 #71

I would be happy with a fair tax system that treated all income the same with Wall St gambling yurbud Nov 2012 #72

Here is an interesting take from Thomas Jefferson that is relevant to this topic. Zorra Nov 2012 #74

Very relevant!!! Thanks!!! RKP5637 Nov 2012 #93

Let's not cap taxes....that's the issue, these days. nt MADem Nov 2012 #76

K&R !!! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #92

No, but neither should there be a cap on how much the wealthy must repay.... Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #79

I really like your last sentence!!!!!!!! RKP5637 Nov 2012 #91

No. Stand and Fight Nov 2012 #82

Yep!!! RKP5637 Nov 2012 #90

No. NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #84

Minimum wage / Maximum wage . . Makes sense B Calm Nov 2012 #89

Redressing this problem is what the tax code should be for, among other things n/t eridani Nov 2012 #94

Yes, it should be ... one of the problems often is the wealthy worm their way into positions RKP5637 Nov 2012 #99

Where would the cap be set? mainer Nov 2012 #96

I think what is required is a review/modification of the entire tax code. It's complicated, so RKP5637 Nov 2012 #98

Personally, I don't see a problem with incomes being capped. Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #101

A lot of people have discussed that progressive taxation is really a RKP5637 Nov 2012 #103

What if you're an inventor or author and you sell too many products to consumers? mainer Nov 2012 #105

No, you don't give away your product B Calm Nov 2012 #112

What if you have no employees? You're, say, an author? mainer Nov 2012 #113

You can "WHAT IF" all day long, but B Calm Dec 2012 #115

wealth goes to your kids, splitting up the pot. Tax yes, do not cap wealth. larkrake Nov 2012 #106

Yep, I think taxation is the way to go too! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2012 #107

I am not comfortable with the wording of the choices because arely staircase Nov 2012 #111

I agree, it's a slippery slope! In retrospect, I should have worded it differently, more RKP5637 Nov 2012 #114