• Ddhuud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maximum Wealth should be set to 10 million. At that point you’ve won at wealth and every penny after that should go to someone else.

    • noodle@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a bit of an arbitrary figure. Also wealth isn’t really money as much as it is things.

      Take a house, for example. You only really need one. The monetary value of the house depends on a few factors, but it’s primary value is that it gives you shelter. It probably fluctuates in monetary value but the actual value doesn’t change. If you cap wealth based on monetary value, how do you deal with homes in different places that are valued differently? I think it’s going to be more complicated than it seels at first glance.

      Assuming you mean dollars, since everyone on the internet is American. 10mil seems like a lot all together. But if you had to feed your entire family for the rest of your life on 10mil you might struggle, depending on where you live.

      Maybe you mean 10mil income per year and not overall wealth. That’s different, but I can understand this. A progressive tax system could impose a cap of sorts but tax avoidance (the legal kind) would render it useless.

      I don’t have any answers, just felt like continuing the thought train.

      • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        1st, don’t read to deep into this, It’s not even a pipe dream is a barely thought that crossed my mind but ain’t smart enough to even process in any meaningful way, but thought it would be ok to vomit here.

        I mean total wealth including houses, cars, personal belongings, clothes, groceries, bank accounts, shares at some company, pocket change, everything. Yes, I was thinking dollars. It could be per person. And yes, it’s a VERY arbitrary number, but it could be adjusted.

        It would be like a rolling cap, if you’re at the limit, you could buy food, and after you eat it, that expended budget would be available for you to earn more money again.

    • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Root of the issue is that there is no way to achieve this. People with money hire an army, now what?

      • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do you mean “now what?” lol. Assuming an American-centric or Euro-centric point of view, they would use their extremely expensive military armaments that can’t be purchased in large quantities by private organizations, and crush the rebellion. The government is the government because they have a monopoly on violence.

        I mean, really. Their money is in banks subject to the oversight of the countries they’re trying to raise an army against. People may be relatively cheap, but they still need to be paid quite a bit to attempt to fight the military head on. Freeze their accounts and they’re screwed. Musk’s entire fortune isn’t even a single years worth of funding for the US military, and even if all the billionaires pooled their money it would take years to accumulate the excess hardware that is allowed to be sold and then train their PMCs on hardware. Years that they wouldn’t have if a bill was passed to cap wealth inequality.

        We may yet reach the corporate dystopia where businesses can directly challenge governments, but we’re not quite there yet. At least not in the first world. Russia may have shot itself in its confusion, but that’s because the rich already are the government there.

        • AlgeriaWorblebot@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who is in government with rank enough to authorise this violence, but doesn’t have the above-$10M to lose?

          • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            To authorize repelling a slowly gathering military coup? That’s an incredibly low bar to commit treason, since honestly, even at the highest levels military bureaucrats aren’t going to be much wealthier than 10 mil. Unlike Congress, there’s a much closer eye kept on the finances of military leaders because they’re paranoid about foreign nations bribing them. It’s physical national security, which is one of the few areas that money doesn’t hold absolute power.

            Even if they stood to lose a few million, there are plenty of genuine patriots, as well as people smart enough to realize that overthrowing the government by force does not mean the law instigating it gets repealed, but that the entire legal structure of the United States is no longer functioning. That’s fifty different militias reporting to states, Naval, Army, and Marine branches with hundreds of billions of dollars in ordinance that’s explicitly empowered to not follow unethical or illegal orders. It’d be a disaster for the coup throwers unless they managed a movie villain level simultaneous takeover of the Pentagon.

            I’m not saying a coup is impossible, but the idea of rich people successfully overthrowing the American government by “hiring an army” is so cursed to failure that I almost don’t know where to even start. Could they cause unprecedented chaos and potentially kill a large portion of the government? Possibly. Could they succeed? Absolutely not.

            Also, this whole chain completely ignores the fact that Congress would never set the cap at 10 million. I doubt they’d set it at a hundred million. My bet would be one billion, where it wouldn’t actually affect any of them. Were they to actually pass a 10 million dollar cap, the world would be such a different place that we wouldn’t need to worry about a handful of grumpy generals inciting treason.