this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1191 points (99.6% liked)

Political Memes

8579 readers
3086 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 277 points 3 months ago (35 children)

We need a maximum wealth cap. I want to see a world where you are literally not allowed to have a net worth over a certain amount. I believe capitalism has its place, but unconstrained capitalism leads to innumerable social ills. You want to let people get rich enough to provide an incentive to get educated, work hard, start businesses, and innovate. But you do not want enough wealth that individuals or small groups of individuals can become a threat to society. We don't allow individuals to own nuclear weapons, regardless of how virtuous they may be. We decided long ago that private ownership of nuclear weapons is simply too much power in the hands of one individual.

Yet with enough wealth, an individual can create human misery equivalent to a nuclear weapon. For example, Elon Musk has a net worth of $400 billion. If he chose to, could spend his fortune on destroying the lives of 400,000 people. He could select his victims based on whatever criteria he chose. And he could spend $1 million per person simply hiring lawyers to make their lives Hell. Target them with frivolous lawsuits. Even if he never won a case, he could drive them into bankruptcy through legal fees alone. Or, he could pick a city of a million people and dedicate his fortune to just ruining that city. He could deliberately fund the campaigns of the worst candidates imaginable, and offer them enormous fortunes to deliberately destroy that city. Wealth is power, and power is wealth. They are equivalent and interchangeable. If you want to have a democracy, you cannot have unrestricted wealth.

I would set the wealth cap for any nation at 1000x the median household income of that nation, averaged over a certain number of years. In the US, that would be at this time about $80 million. That is a level of wealth even the most skilled and high-paid of lawyers or physicians, if they worked til the grave, lived like a pauper, and invested everything else, would still struggle to reach by the time of their death. The only way people reach that level of wealth is by leveraging the labor of others. And it is a level of wealth far, far above the level where increasing wealth continues to meaningfully increase happiness. That level of wealth is only useful to a person if that person seeks to manipulate and control other human beings.

We need a maximum wealth cap. Beyond a certain level of wealth, everything is taxed at 100%. I think 1000x the median household income is a good place to set that level. And I think that is extremely generous. I don't care what the former billionaires do with their extra income that would put them above this level. They could simply retire when they hit the cap. They could donate it to charity. They could give it all to their extended families. They could give it to their employees. They could hold grand parties in their home city every year that rivaled the excesses of ancient Rome. They could spend it all on giant yachts. Ultimately, I don't care. The core problem is the concentration of wealth and power in a small number of individuals. Any method of spreading out that wealth will avoid this problem. Even if they just give it all to their extended families, it would still be for the best. If Elon Musk wants to divvy up his fortune to his 5,000 closest family and friends, so be it. Even if every one of them was as much of a bastard as he was, at least they'll have conflicting interests, and few of them will want to see anyone appointed dictator.

We need a maximum wealth cap. Forget taxing incomes. Forget a wealth tax. We need to drive a dagger into the heart of the evil that haunts our society. The world does not need billionaires. We can have the benefits of efficiency and innovation that come with a free market without letting wealth concentrate to the point of farce. We can provide an incentive for people to work and discover without allowing individuals to become a threat to nation states. Even if you believe in the myth of visionary capitalist geniuses, we don't need billionaires. If Musk is already capped out on wealth, the board of SpaceX can still hire him as CEO. He can still enjoy the social status as influence of being the CEO of SpaceX, he just has to dispose of that wealth each year however he chooses.

1000x the median household income. No one should be able to have a fortune larger than this.

[–] SabinStargem 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think that making a whole new system would be the way: there are too many loopholes and inconsistencies with legacy economics and rules that are not fit for a UBIfied society.

The first thing is to write up a sort of Constitution, that lays out economic rights. After that, I think using an Universal Ranked Income would be key to having the best of socialism with a dash of highly controlled capitalism. That latter bit is used for guiding the pricing of goods and services, but socialism should define the income of people, plus their minimum and maximum wealth. Capitalism should be driven by the circumstances of the everyday person, not the other way around.

I am thinking there can be five or so central "Obligate" ranks, which determines the income of a person, but the default rank everyone has gives a number of benefits that they will always have access to. By ensuring the survival and wellbeing of everyone, the role of money itself transforms - it isn't for survival, but rather to upgrade a lifestyle. If money is optional, that means that workers can freely strike or protest.

Further, the problem of inflation can be addressed by making income brackets absolute. A waiter on the East Coast makes just as much as her male counterpart on the West Coast. Everyone within a job class gets the same income, no matter their personal skill or connections. Everyone can be subject to a $100,000 income cap from all combined sources, so it would be relatively easy to keep millionaires and the like from existing. By having everyone relatively equal in the economy, prices should naturally reflect reality.

[–] Branch_Ranch@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, i appreciate your effort in compiling this post. I generally agree with you and will revert back to this post to help myself gain more insight into this topic.

[–] SabinStargem 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

An idea that I didn't cover here, is the concept of an asset/wealth cap for corporations themselves. It could be based on how many employees they have, worth half of a rank's income. So a clerk adds $20,000 to a company's asset cap, while an head researcher grants $50k. I figure something like this would help a company's usefulness to society dictate how much money it can have stockpiled. We don't want any given organization to get too powerful.

Additionally, I am thinking corporations who don't need employees, but an increased cap, can sponsor income brackets. These can be given out in a lotto for workers that are being replaced by AI. This would allow society to transition into AI workflows, without disruption that can ruin people's lives.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have a stupider solution. Let's get individual blue states to pass laws making it a serious felony for anyone with a net worth over 10,000x the median national income to set foot in state lines. It is literally a felony to have a net worth over a certain amount. Like, Elon Musk sets foot in California? Bam! Instant 20 year mandatory minimum prison sentence.

We'll get blue states to pass laws effectively banishing the billionaires from our lands, like cockroaches fleeing from the light!

[–] SabinStargem 1 points 3 months ago

I wouldn't mind that being part of the solution. Far as I can tell, people who are too wealthy go insane. A very blunt method like yours has merit, especially if it were terminal.

That said, what I put forward is more about preventing the existence of bad bosses, political corruption, and so forth. We shouldn't just eliminate the wealthy, but also eradicate poverty and give people the means to live a full life. That would be key to preventing the shit that brought American society to this point. Americans cannot afford the time and education needed to have political agency, with unfettered Capitalism being the culprit.

load more comments (32 replies)