the ability to earn average income without working, is reward enough, and wanting more is filthy greed.
I think approaches the same mistake about money that your more hardcore libertarians make about property. Your money and my money are connected by the economic flow just like Fred's land and Barney's land are connected by the flow of wind, water, game, traffic, etc. Taking away 90% the wealth of a guy who has 10,000 servants will put people out of work, starting with 9000 of those servants. But Bill Gates has more like 200,000 highly educated minions so he's obviously doing something more than sybaritism with his wealth.
Gates is also a pioneer in deniable ownership; he gifted billions in assets to his foundation, but retains important controls including voting rights for stocks either explicitly or through his oversight of the foundation's high-level administration. Any cap is going to encourage more of this nominal divestiture, off-shoring, and more family business structures like the Walton Family, doubtless with membership agreements to let the others buy Sis out if she goes off the reservation.
This can be prevented with enough govt intervention but that costs money, which generally means the enforcement arm becomes a seizure-funded tool to be turned against interests who are less than supportive of the seizers and their masters. I think a much more productive use of political capital would be to increase transparency and visibility into the dealings of gigawealthy interests with each other, with their employees, with all levels of domestic government, and with all foreign interests that are beyond domestic law enforcement.
But realistically, this will require a collapse of government first, because fabulously wealthy people are almost completely secure in their ongoing process of regulatory capture. The mice can't even vote to bell the cat, because the cat has been round to the parliamentarian's nest with an offer he couldn't refuse.
no subject
the ability to earn average income without working, is reward enough, and wanting more is filthy greed.
I think approaches the same mistake about money that your more hardcore libertarians make about property. Your money and my money are connected by the economic flow just like Fred's land and Barney's land are connected by the flow of wind, water, game, traffic, etc. Taking away 90% the wealth of a guy who has 10,000 servants will put people out of work, starting with 9000 of those servants. But Bill Gates has more like 200,000 highly educated minions so he's obviously doing something more than sybaritism with his wealth.
Gates is also a pioneer in deniable ownership; he gifted billions in assets to his foundation, but retains important controls including voting rights for stocks either explicitly or through his oversight of the foundation's high-level administration. Any cap is going to encourage more of this nominal divestiture, off-shoring, and more family business structures like the Walton Family, doubtless with membership agreements to let the others buy Sis out if she goes off the reservation.
This can be prevented with enough govt intervention but that costs money, which generally means the enforcement arm becomes a seizure-funded tool to be turned against interests who are less than supportive of the seizers and their masters. I think a much more productive use of political capital would be to increase transparency and visibility into the dealings of gigawealthy interests with each other, with their employees, with all levels of domestic government, and with all foreign interests that are beyond domestic law enforcement.
But realistically, this will require a collapse of government first, because fabulously wealthy people are almost completely secure in their ongoing process of regulatory capture. The mice can't even vote to bell the cat, because the cat has been round to the parliamentarian's nest with an offer he couldn't refuse.