At what level would you support a maximum income?

Your comparing "Inheritance" to illegal acts, which is disgusting. If I worked a farm/business for 40 years, possibly just getting by most of them and want to leave a willing child or two my land or business property, that's none of any bodies business, especially in a free society.

 

Also from the same article:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Z-Social%20Justice-Code%20for%20Communism.htm

 

That's got to be uncomfortable. The bible likens envy to being infested with worms. I hope you get better.

 

First, learn the definition of "comparing". I wasn't comparing or equating anything, so save your high horse for a later time.

Second, while I agree with you to an extent, inheritance is not earned. It is simply a gift to you from someone else who did the earning. As something that isn't earned, I think it's understandable that people have the right to make assumptions on your character based on how you spend it. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with a society being free or not.

That said, I was forming my thoughts quickly on this topic, and "evil" is a strong word, so inheritance can safely be retracted from that I think. Stupid, misguided, wasteful, negligent, would be more apt adjectives. At the end of the day, no one has the right to take your property from you, and that, ultimately, is what I care about.

- - - Updated - - -

Please point out how and where you think I'm being envious, or do you simply need to read something more times than once to understand it?

 

Wealth and income are not interchangeable. You use graphs about who has the most wealth but ask about income.

To answer your question - I support no cap on income of our citizens. The idea behind such an idea is flawed - it is the idea that there is a fixed amount to be earned. The concept underlying your proposal is that if earn a million dollars more this year than last year, the rest of society earns a million less. Winners don't make losers.

 

Your purchasing power.

If we burned the money then yes, your money would become more valuable. Though we would have to burn other rich peoples money also in order make a significant difference.

All else being equal then the answer is yes. This should be obvious, with less money chasing the same amount of goods prices must fall.

Again, your purchasing power.

 

I know this one. The banks duplicate it and make new money out of thin air … which dilutes the value of everyone else's money and wages.

"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

 

Actually the Keynesian economic model states that if you remove a large portion of money from an economy whether it be to offshore hiding spots, savings accounts, or by burning it that it reduces the demand for goods and will stall the economy which leads to unemployment, failed businesses, increases in entitlement spending and all that fun stuff.

Simply burning all the rich people's money would have a negative effect, not a positive one.

 

Do you consider yourself to be logical and reasoning? If so, what is the objective limit to the value of a person's effort? That would be the maximum income. Otherwise, any number you think it might be is purely subjective, and it is no more valid than any religious reckoning of good vs. evil.

 

An excellent further expounding of my post. Thanks.

 

Why should there be a ceiling? Attempting to suppress another person's growth is the very definition of anti-American. And there is no reason to do it other than pure envy.

 

None.

It's my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing money and I can have as much as I want.

 

I guess that is sort of true with a debt based money system. If we burned the rich peoples money then those with debt (much of the population) would never be able to repay their loans, and their purchasing power would fall dramatically. I don't have any debt so I would be better off. I'm also shorting the stock market so a stalled out economy would definitely put more cash in my pocket.

 

Money leaving the country is a good thing. That is why we want foreigners to save our money, because with the money setting over there (in another country), it reduces domestic inflation.

 

I support no cap on earned income … but a lot of income in our economy isn't earned, it is captured via economic rents. I would even go so far as to exempt all earned income from taxation of any sort. But when it comes to economic rents, then I would cap that at anything over $1.

 

Inheritance, in many cases is earned, taking care of that farm, business or just the person with something they earned and aging, but that's not my problem. Since we are still a free and open society, every person has equal rights to achieve and no government should determine what those limits are even if by regulation of taxes.

I've known several business folks, that died with family members being taxed to the point their business was sold and in some cases didn't even cover the taxes, much less the lost income to the person's family.

Then what people do in life, buying that tenth Rolex, or by owning a couple homes or more car's than they need, are not Government's business or the people in government to determine some limit. Obama feels that limit is $200,000, but the next president or maybe the head of IRS may feel the limit should be $100.00 to cover transfer cost.

 

You lost it there.

Nothing to back that "most people agree" claim..... and how is the income of Bill Gates hurting me ?

People look for problems where there aren't any.

Like I always say....stop falling for the BS the liberal leaders feed you, earn your keep and stop worrying about everyone else's.

Common sense, right ?

But then... I'm a Righty.

 

Power doesn't guarantee you get everything you want. If you are suggesting that the Koch Brothers don't have more political power than you or me, then you are talking nonsense.

 

If people would quit worrying about what the next person makes and start focusing on themselves, there would be less envy and hatred and more personal motivation and happiness.

Anyone who believes the federal government can help them by taking more money from the wealthy are either lazy or stupid.

50 years ago we had a liberal vision from a far left president who started the "war on poverty"
We currently have a liberal/progressive president who's had over 6 years in office to bring the poor out of poverty.

Both have miserably failed yet the government has continued to grow and grow.
Don't be a fool, government is not in the business of helping the poor, they're in the business of growing government.

 

I just heard today, that Detroit has hit an all-time high with a staggering 59% of it's children living in poverty.
So, it's getting much worse.... not better.

Yet people keep falling for those campaign lies.

Absolutely.

 

Um...what do you think will happen with all that money that is no longer in the banks of the super-rich? It will be spent for the common good. Higher minimum wage, better health care, better schools, better criminal justice system. It's rather obtuse to suggest that the government raking in a whole bunch of money would not affect you.

Ken

 

If America did it, others would follow. The super-wealthy can run, but they can't hide. America has enough political clout to seize accounts and to use economic sanctions to bring other nations to their knees, and you think they'd be helpless against individual wealthy individuals?

Who cares if billionaires flee the country, just how does this affect you, how would this worsen the country?

Ken

 

It would if that means all those they employ lose their jobs.

(You really should think these things through).

 

That's a lengthy commentary, so it's obviously important to you. The bottom line is this. As long as we have the rule of law, and the rich are not exploiting the poor, and the poor do have sustenance; I don't see any reason to cap earnings. My main concern is for the middle class, because many poor people in American either have made poor choices or lack the virtue necessary for financial independence. In other words, they made their own beds.

You could confiscate all the wealth of the entire 1% and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket of our national debt. There isn't a cumulative $18 trillion among them.

 

Be careful what you ask for someday these trillions of dollars of imaginary money will not be enough to feed the machine. The German mark started out at about 5 to the dollar by 1923 it was up to 4 trillion to the dollar. When the economic morons figure out that taking all of the money from the rich isn't enough all that will be left are the printing presses and absolute despotism.