To play Devil’s Advocate, that kind of money gets you connections you’d never have access to otherwise. If your goal is to improve the world, having a direct line to the people in charge could let you do more good, and nothing is stopping you from donating it all posthumously anyway.
A retiree that invests well and owns a home can easily end up with well over 10 million.
I’m fine with a billion but I find it gets tricky below that. Since a billiion is a very large magnitude above the mean.
I’d rather push for philanthropic efforts rather than force people to do weird things like setup trusts for every heir that sits just below some limit but remain funds they still directly control by being the trustee.
If the goal is truely to prevent being able to possible accumulate those amounts then we’re looking for a different economic system which is fine but then just say that.
No human being can own more than the average insurance value of a human life. Raise the average value of a human life if you want more money. That’s my solution.
There isn’t an insurance value, only values awarded and liability coverages.
The latter it based on risk profiles with some people having very high coverages.
The former is literally based on earnings and ages so it would need to be a median not average.
And a side effect you’re going to run into is that by force this restriction you actually cap the punitive damages which in extreme cases can be well over 100 million so it ends up protecting billion dollar corporations which will continue to exist just spread among more investors.
Capitalists will find a way to exploit any solution you apply. Best way to think of capital is it is like gravity, it bends everything around it and pulls more towards itself.
Spreading the capital into a thin layer could work but will require continued and ever changing effort to prevent it from clumping.
We should in some way couple the amount of money retirees receive (don’t know how it is calculated in the US, here it is dependent of how much you earned in life and how many years you were working, with a minimum and maximum value) to the maximum amount a single person can directly and indirectly own. If your investments get over the limit, you can only spend, but not earn more money - in some cases this might result in you having to sell off something you own and donating what you get for it (and you can’t use your investments as collaterals for a credit line when over) until you are back below the max.
Yes, that’s why I keep saying America’s problem is the boomer class. By value of assets it’s 8 times bigger than even the billionaire class. And that’s just boomers, it gets worse when you include the older ones (silent or greatest or whatever).
If you have that kind of money and choose to keep it, you’re evil. Full stop.
To play Devil’s Advocate, that kind of money gets you connections you’d never have access to otherwise. If your goal is to improve the world, having a direct line to the people in charge could let you do more good, and nothing is stopping you from donating it all posthumously anyway.
If we don’t let anybody accumulate that kind of wealth, then that wealth can’t be used to buy access.
Where do you draw the line?
A retiree that invests well and owns a home can easily end up with well over 10 million.
I’m fine with a billion but I find it gets tricky below that. Since a billiion is a very large magnitude above the mean.
I’d rather push for philanthropic efforts rather than force people to do weird things like setup trusts for every heir that sits just below some limit but remain funds they still directly control by being the trustee.
If the goal is truely to prevent being able to possible accumulate those amounts then we’re looking for a different economic system which is fine but then just say that.
No human being can own more than the average insurance value of a human life. Raise the average value of a human life if you want more money. That’s my solution.
There isn’t an insurance value, only values awarded and liability coverages.
The latter it based on risk profiles with some people having very high coverages.
The former is literally based on earnings and ages so it would need to be a median not average.
And a side effect you’re going to run into is that by force this restriction you actually cap the punitive damages which in extreme cases can be well over 100 million so it ends up protecting billion dollar corporations which will continue to exist just spread among more investors.
Capitalists will find a way to exploit any solution you apply. Best way to think of capital is it is like gravity, it bends everything around it and pulls more towards itself.
Spreading the capital into a thin layer could work but will require continued and ever changing effort to prevent it from clumping.
We should in some way couple the amount of money retirees receive (don’t know how it is calculated in the US, here it is dependent of how much you earned in life and how many years you were working, with a minimum and maximum value) to the maximum amount a single person can directly and indirectly own. If your investments get over the limit, you can only spend, but not earn more money - in some cases this might result in you having to sell off something you own and donating what you get for it (and you can’t use your investments as collaterals for a credit line when over) until you are back below the max.
Yes, that’s why I keep saying America’s problem is the boomer class. By value of assets it’s 8 times bigger than even the billionaire class. And that’s just boomers, it gets worse when you include the older ones (silent or greatest or whatever).