One idea I really want to see percolate into the Zeitgeist? A national wealth cap. We can have a world without billionaires. Though, they did kill the last guy who tried it.
My justification for it is simple. We do not own people own nuclear weapons. We don’t care how intelligent or moral a person is. We don’t make them take a bunch of classes or earn a difficult-to-obtain license. We simply accept that no individual, however sane and moral, should have access to that level of power. It is simply too great a risk. Yet people like Bezos or Musk have so much wealth that they can, all on their own, cause a level of damage comparable to a nuclear weapon. Hell, those two have built actual privately owned machines with the explosive capability of modest nuclear devices. There is such a thing as a strategically dangerous level of wealth, where the wealth of a single individual makes them a national security risk. No one should have level wealth and power, period. The only way to obtain such power should be through democratic elections.
I would set such a cap at 1000x the median household income. That way it automatically grows with inflation, and it’s a simple enough rule that it can be explained to anyone. Someone with an 8th grade education can understand what such a cap means. 1000x is not only a nice round number, but it also represents a nice break between wealth earned through working and wealth earned through labor arbitrage and hoarding. 1000x the median household income is about $80 million today. If a neurosurgeon or other members of our highest paid, most educationally-demanding fields were to work their entire life, live like a pauper, and invest every penny? They would still struggle to reach that 1000x cap. The only way to reach that level of wealth is to be born rich, to make your business arbitraging the labor of others, or to be a CEO of some sort. It’s the kind of wealth that even the most frugal and well paid of workers would struggle to ever get near.
1000x the median household income. Everything beyond that is taxed at 100%. The ultra wealthy can either pay the tax, spend all their extra dollars, or get really into philanthropy. (Oh, and if you donate funds to a charity that you or your heirs control, that charity’s assets counts towards the 1000x cap.) It really doesn’t matter what they do with the extra money. The goal is to prevent the accumulation of strategically dangerous fortunes.
Tax the billionaires out of existence. And if they flee the country? So be it. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out. And while they can leave, their wealth is largely in ownership of businesses that can’t so easily be moved. The Waltons can leave the country if they want, but they can’t take Walmart with them.
I have been thinking on an absolute wealth cap on income and savings. It should be for both individuals and corporations. The corporations can have their cap increased by hiring employees, based on the wage of the employee. Employees themselves have income ranks, so someone like a CEO is capped at $100,000 a year, while a waitress is at $40,000. UBI for someone who doesn’t work is at $10,000 annually. This forces the economy to control inflation and price goods according to what income levels that companies want to reach. UBI can also supply generic items, shelter, and services, so that money is used solely for luxury items or lifestyle upgrades. This gives workers the ability to strike or protest, since society isn’t holding their wellbeing hostage.
Also, companies can sponsor an income lotto to increase their caps, that gives individuals increased income ranks without having to work. This helps address the workers that are replaced by AI. We need that sort of mechanism for an automated society, else many people will suffer terribly.
You’re suffering from what I might call liberal disease or the wonkish fallacy. If you’re going to propose some policy that would radically transform society, you need to KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Forget the Everything Bagel Liberalism. Don’t try to solve every social ill with one policy. Don’t try to make it perfect. Don’t add a bunch of provisos and loopholes, even if those loopholes are made with good intentions. People lose track of your goals, and they become understandably suspect that you’re trying to pull a con on them with all this fine print.
That’s why I propose a 1000x median household income cap. It’s simple, clear, and understandable by anyone. If the basic outline of your policy cannot be understood by someone with an 8th grade education, then you are failing at writing policy.
I disagree. It IS simple, especially compared to what we have now as a society. We are so used to traditional capitalism, steeped in it for decades of our entire lives, that rules that depict a different way are strange and foreign. Also, merely raising 1,000x income by cap alone is bad, because it undoubtedly leaves room for exploitation, nor does it address it the snowball effect of capitalism.
We need a means to dictate the everyday wellbeing of people, ensure that they can obtain prosperity, and never have their wealth become a toxic substance. That means rules and engineering.
One idea I really want to see percolate into the Zeitgeist? A national wealth cap. We can have a world without billionaires. Though, they did kill the last guy who tried it.
My justification for it is simple. We do not own people own nuclear weapons. We don’t care how intelligent or moral a person is. We don’t make them take a bunch of classes or earn a difficult-to-obtain license. We simply accept that no individual, however sane and moral, should have access to that level of power. It is simply too great a risk. Yet people like Bezos or Musk have so much wealth that they can, all on their own, cause a level of damage comparable to a nuclear weapon. Hell, those two have built actual privately owned machines with the explosive capability of modest nuclear devices. There is such a thing as a strategically dangerous level of wealth, where the wealth of a single individual makes them a national security risk. No one should have level wealth and power, period. The only way to obtain such power should be through democratic elections.
I would set such a cap at 1000x the median household income. That way it automatically grows with inflation, and it’s a simple enough rule that it can be explained to anyone. Someone with an 8th grade education can understand what such a cap means. 1000x is not only a nice round number, but it also represents a nice break between wealth earned through working and wealth earned through labor arbitrage and hoarding. 1000x the median household income is about $80 million today. If a neurosurgeon or other members of our highest paid, most educationally-demanding fields were to work their entire life, live like a pauper, and invest every penny? They would still struggle to reach that 1000x cap. The only way to reach that level of wealth is to be born rich, to make your business arbitraging the labor of others, or to be a CEO of some sort. It’s the kind of wealth that even the most frugal and well paid of workers would struggle to ever get near.
1000x the median household income. Everything beyond that is taxed at 100%. The ultra wealthy can either pay the tax, spend all their extra dollars, or get really into philanthropy. (Oh, and if you donate funds to a charity that you or your heirs control, that charity’s assets counts towards the 1000x cap.) It really doesn’t matter what they do with the extra money. The goal is to prevent the accumulation of strategically dangerous fortunes.
Tax the billionaires out of existence. And if they flee the country? So be it. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out. And while they can leave, their wealth is largely in ownership of businesses that can’t so easily be moved. The Waltons can leave the country if they want, but they can’t take Walmart with them.
I have been thinking on an absolute wealth cap on income and savings. It should be for both individuals and corporations. The corporations can have their cap increased by hiring employees, based on the wage of the employee. Employees themselves have income ranks, so someone like a CEO is capped at $100,000 a year, while a waitress is at $40,000. UBI for someone who doesn’t work is at $10,000 annually. This forces the economy to control inflation and price goods according to what income levels that companies want to reach. UBI can also supply generic items, shelter, and services, so that money is used solely for luxury items or lifestyle upgrades. This gives workers the ability to strike or protest, since society isn’t holding their wellbeing hostage.
Also, companies can sponsor an income lotto to increase their caps, that gives individuals increased income ranks without having to work. This helps address the workers that are replaced by AI. We need that sort of mechanism for an automated society, else many people will suffer terribly.
You’re suffering from what I might call liberal disease or the wonkish fallacy. If you’re going to propose some policy that would radically transform society, you need to KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Forget the Everything Bagel Liberalism. Don’t try to solve every social ill with one policy. Don’t try to make it perfect. Don’t add a bunch of provisos and loopholes, even if those loopholes are made with good intentions. People lose track of your goals, and they become understandably suspect that you’re trying to pull a con on them with all this fine print.
That’s why I propose a 1000x median household income cap. It’s simple, clear, and understandable by anyone. If the basic outline of your policy cannot be understood by someone with an 8th grade education, then you are failing at writing policy.
I disagree. It IS simple, especially compared to what we have now as a society. We are so used to traditional capitalism, steeped in it for decades of our entire lives, that rules that depict a different way are strange and foreign. Also, merely raising 1,000x income by cap alone is bad, because it undoubtedly leaves room for exploitation, nor does it address it the snowball effect of capitalism.
We need a means to dictate the everyday wellbeing of people, ensure that they can obtain prosperity, and never have their wealth become a toxic substance. That means rules and engineering.
Anyhow, some slides of what I have in mind.
UNIVERSAL RANKED INCOME
Me: “if your policy isn’t understandable by someone with an 8th grade education, you’re doing it wrong.”
You: “Here’s my slide deck.”
The biggest problem is, according to our current laws, investments aren’t income. Thus musk and besos are likely already under that 1000x number.
You’re confused. I didn’t say maximum income, I said maximum wealth.
“I would set such a cap at 1000X average household income”
The other option is the billionaires.