What if "share your wealth" was applied?

Gukpard

Gukpard

Those are the main points of the share your wealth movement:

  1. No person would be allowed to accumulate a personal net worth of more than 300 times the average family fortune, which would limit personal assets to between $5 million and $8 million. A graduated capital levy tax would be assessed on all persons with a net worth exceeding $1 million.
  2. Annual incomes would be limited to $1 million and inheritances would be capped at $5.1 million.
  3. Every family was to be furnished with a homestead allowance of not less than one-third the average family wealth of the country. Every family was to be guaranteed an annual family income of at least $2,000 to $2,500, or not less than one-third of the average annual family income in the United States. Yearly income, however, cannot exceed more than 300 times the size of the average family income.
  4. An old-age pension would be made available for all persons over 60.
  5. To balance agricultural production, the government would preserve/store surplus goods, abolishing the practice of destroying surplus food and other necessities due to lack of purchasing power.
  6. Veterans would be paid what they were owed (a pension and healthcare benefits).
  7. Free education and training for all students to have equal opportunities in all schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions for training in the professions and vocations of life.
  8. The raising of revenue and taxes for the support of this program was to come from the reduction of swollen fortunes from the top, as well as for the support of public works to give employment whenever there may be any slackening necessary in private enterprise.
The PoD is any date after the share your wealth speech in 1934 to the american entry in world war II
 

MichiganNationalist1837

Complete economic disaster. Limiting the net worth of people to 8 million would cause a worse economic collapse than any other in US history. First of all, nobody would have an incentive to make any more money once they reach $8 million with a healthy income to keep it that way. Why work if 100% of the money made is taken by the government? This would reduce the taxes taken in from the rich, as every rich person would either stop working, flee the country, or evade the taxes. Due to the wealth cap, many of the nation's brightest people who drive economic growth would flee. In addition, the stock market would completely collapse. Rich people would buy far fewer stocks, making it much harder for businesses to achieve the capital that they need to succeed, leading to a terrible business environment. This kind of massive, drastic change would completely shock and destroy the economy.
 

Petros >Peter Fergus<

The criticisms of this seem to assume that everyone is making the right amount right now, and we can only reduce how much people will make. If people were limited to eight million dollars, I think we'd find far more people with eight million dollars, not simply everyone who 'ought' to have more having 'only' eight.

I don't actually support a flat limit. But the criticisms posed to it, that people would no longer want massive amounts of money if they could never get exceptionally massive amounts of money, seem weak.

Would, random example, Trump have just quit, give away his money, and live on welfare if he knew he could never, ever, ever have a trillion dollars?
 

Petros >Peter Fergus<

The Gunslinger said:
No, but he might cash out his assets along with thousands of other millionaires and move to the UK/Canada/Australia.
Click to expand...

Anaxagoras said:
This is exactly what would happen, enriching the other nations and inflicting terrible economic damage on the United States.
Click to expand...

Possibly. He can't bring his assets with him, though. Are the assets economically important by themselves when managed correctly, or is Trumps, or any extremely wealthy individuals, particular management of them even more economically important?

You're right if they'd destroy or took their assets on the way out. If they sell at fire-sale prices, a greater variety of smaller businesses who owe virtually nothing may be a more dynamic economy than the one it preceded. As a believer in the free market, I think more competition will be best overall.
 

The Gunslinger

The capital flight would cause astronomical damage. Billions of dollars would vanish from the economy as soon as the bill starts to gain traction. Billions more once it looked like it was going to get passed.

Thousands of lawsuits ensue over vast tracts of luxury property and farmland.

A massive drop in investment ensues because projects have a hard time attracting mass capital to begin.

It would be shocking to behold.
 

Theoretical_TJ

8 Million is about $143 Million in today's money.

This is so easy to get around, and if you think today's tax loopholes are something, these would be unconscionably kleptocratic. Alternatively, you'd see the currency manipulated in an amazingly deflationary way, or alternately to be indexed to some asinine price index like that of Zimbabwe to where it's meaningless.
 

Petros >Peter Fergus<

The Gunslinger said:
No, but he might cash out his assets along with thousands of other millionaires and move to the UK/Canada/Australia.
Click to expand...

If he could only ever have the figure @Theoretical_TJ mentioned, ~150 million dollars. Would a person starting from nothing refuse to work, quit the game and go for maximizing free time not income, if that were the highest level of wealth they could ever reach? Would someone who started with ten million dollars?

I just don't believe it. And when it comes to people who are already over that level, they can't bring the physical components of the economy with them if they leave. They probably couldn't convince the managers to leave with them, not when they'll be the ones 'inheriting' the assets left behind.
 

Booster Gold

Anaxagoras said:
I'm talking about financial assets. Moving them to, say, London would be simply the matter of a bank transfer.
Click to expand...

Or they could just add an addendum to the law preventing this. Capital controls were a not-insignificant thing during the time when share the wealth was a possibility.

While they're at it, they could block foreign ownership of American property. Any assets owned by non-domiciled individuals are confiscated by the state and auctioned off. Foreign investment wasn't an economy breaking thing at this point in time.

And limiting inheritance would be a huge boon for meritocracy. Currently, the biggest determiner of your financial well being is your parents financial well being.
 

Riain

Banned
If this thing was implemented it would only last a few decades at most. Smart people will quickly learn the loopholes and after a while take control of the government to expand these loopholes until the law has no meaning, indeed if wealth was capped at 8 million political office would be the perfect outlet for someone who is capable enough to make 8 million with time and effort to spare.
 

Petros >Peter Fergus<

Booster Gold said:
Currently, the biggest determiner of your financial well being is your parents financial well being.
Click to expand...

I'm given to understand that this is where whites and people of color differ most in America. Not in income, where whites do tend to earn a fraction more than most minorities, but in inheritance, where whites tend to inherit many times more than most minorities.
 

Booster Gold

Petros >Peter Fergus< said:
I'm given to understand that this is where whites and people of color differ most in America. Not in income, where whites do tend to earn a fraction more than most minorities, but in inheritance, where whites tend to inherit many times more than most minorities.
Click to expand...

That's mostly because there's more to inherit. It's only the last generation or two where non-whites have been allowed to participate in the American economy in any meaningful way. As far as African Americans, most of the people who have benefited from civil rights protections are still alive so inheritance hasn't happened yet. If you were 18 in 1965, you'll not even be 70 yet.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
1. There will be attept to find loophole for bigger net worth. there will be political pressure, campaign donation, etc.

2. The Rich might create corporation/foundation as asset holding substitute. Trump might transfer asset to Trump foundation for example.

3. Income might be transferred to social signal goods. Donate lot of money to college in exchange to have building named after you. Donation to very exclusive swimming club. Donation to your children private school.
 

ppaul16

Petros >Peter Fergus< said:
If he could only ever have the figure @Theoretical_TJ mentioned, ~150 million dollars. Would a person starting from nothing refuse to work, quit the game and go for maximizing free time not income, if that were the highest level of wealth they could ever reach? Would someone who started with ten million dollars?
Click to expand...
Most people would work to a point, but then stop. For example; starting one successful store would be good since you would still reap the rewards, but opening a chain of stores would be pointless since you would lose most of them. So no Walmart, McDonald's, etc.
 

Petros >Peter Fergus<

ppaul16 said:
Most people would work to a point, but then stop. For example; starting one successful store would be good since you would still reap the rewards, but opening a chain of stores would be pointless since you would lose most of them. So no Walmart, McDonald's, etc.
Click to expand...

Virtually every single person would work just as much. Most people here is the fraction of a percent who have a shot at getting close to eight or a hundred and fifty million dollars. I honestly don't believe they'd stop working when they're at half a million dollars if the law were that the wealth cap were a hundred and fifty million dollars. I haven't been convinced they'd stop at half a million as a matter of principle, or at fifty million, or at a hundred and forty-five million dollars.

McDonalds and Walmarts would still exist, maybe the franchise is owned in corporation by the people who own the individual stores, rather than the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top