Why is anyone allowed to have more than 5 million dollars? No one needs that much.

I think $5M is too much. $1.5M tops!

I'd put it at a million, really who needs that? We need to put together a commission on this to decide how much is too much! And why stop there, we can have a commission for other things too, like how much bread you can have, we can just have a central point for pickup and everyone can go there to pick up their allotment! This central planning idea sounds great, why haven't humans tried this before?

If you want to,buy up a bunch of american companies, fire all the employees and move the company overseas, you have to have at least 5 million dollars to do that.

My Lear Jet cost more than that!!!

I don't have 5 million but 5 million isn't that much money if you live in a big city.

House could easily cost 1.5 million for a nice house but not anything spectacular.

Then you have 3.5 million. Live off about 4% withdrawals and you will be living off $140,000. That is a nice income but you won't be killing it if you live in a nicer area in a big city and have kids and a family to support.

fall for it? wrote:

I don't have 5 million but 5 million isn't that much money if you live in a big city.

House could easily cost 1.5 million for a nice house but not anything spectacular.

Then you have 3.5 million. Live off about 4% withdrawals and you will be living off $140,000. That is a nice income but you won't be killing it if you live in a nicer area in a big city and have kids and a family to support.

Not to mention, if you live in a big city and have more than one child, school will take nearly half of that yearly income (and lets not forget taxes).

As someone who works hard and makes a lot of money, one of the driving factors is to take my children and grandchildren to another level financially. Too many people like to think that so-and-so doesn't need that much money, but maybe they are earning it to support future generations.

In addition, when you disparage people for getting an inheritance, try thinking about it from another angle. Maybe someone worked really hard to earn that money so that their children or grandchildren could have an inheritance. By taking it all away, you are nullifying the fruit of all their hard work.

I couldn't care less about fancy crap for myself, but I would like my children to have the opportunity to attend better schools and travel more than I was able. Not something to scoff at.

The estate tax does not remove anywhere near all of those very large estates of the top 0.1%, but it does provide something like $270 billion in revenue for the gov't to provide the kind of society that the top 0.1% like to have, e.g. one with roads, bridges, sewer systems, police, schools, libraries, a military, an SEC, and so forth. The estate tax also has the very laudatory mission of slightly, slightly undermining the existence of hereditary aristocracies, and thus enlivening our economy and decreasing the domination of gov't by the wealthy.

In some parts of the country where it's warm enough to sleep outside you only need to eat to stay alive . If we assume around 2000 calories per day, then I think you could easily get that for $10 per day.

So strictly speaking you only NEED about $3,500 per year. If you keep anything more than that, then you are taking food out of the mouths of the poor and you are failing in your duty to society to help out those less fortunate than you.

You only say that because you don't have $5 million

Interesting thoughts here, jjjjjjj.

I think that there should perhaps be some type of income or salary cap, or perhaps some type of asset cap, as the OP is suggesting. Deciding upon an amount, though, would be difficult. I agree with the spirit of what is being illustrated here: who really needs these loads of money?...and I would say the same in regard to these large tracts of land that the wealthy gobble up.

We are ruled by the plutocrats. The world is their oyster. Well, at least we have our running.

outsiderunner wrote:

Interesting thoughts here, jjjjjjj.

I think that there should perhaps be some type of income or salary cap, or perhaps some type of asset cap, as the OP is suggesting. Deciding upon an amount, though, would be difficult. I agree with the spirit of what is being illustrated here: who really needs these loads of money?...and I would say the same in regard to these large tracts of land that the wealthy gobble up.

We are ruled by the plutocrats. The world is their oyster. Well, at least we have our running.

I don't see the problem. I already suggested a $3,500 maximum per year, but to make it all legal we will need to add an amendment to the Constitution:

No one shall be allowed to make more money than their neighbor. All salaries shall be fixed at the minimum amount needed. No one shall be able to keep any money or assets beyond what they need. Congress shall determine the amount of money is needed.

I think that captures the spirit of the thing! Perfect equality, perfect charity, no excesses, a completely powerless populace... Utopia.

The concept of "need" presupposes some purpose. If your purpose is to buy a house that costs at least $5 million, you do in fact need that much. Perhaps you really meant that you don't need that amount just to survive. Men are by nature not content with just bare survival; they are driven to continue aspiring to greater heights. If they are not free to do that by competing for a market share, they will do it by competing for control over the machinery of government. Man absolutely does NEED freedom in order to survive. The day the government starts razing all wealth over some arbitrary figure, you will see a complete shutdown of the economy.

Libtard Educator wrote:

The concept of "need" presupposes some purpose. If your purpose is to buy a house that costs at least $5 million, you do in fact need that much. Perhaps you really meant that you don't need that amount just to survive. Men are by nature not content with just bare survival; they are driven to continue aspiring to greater heights. If they are not free to do that by competing for a market share, they will do it by competing for control over the machinery of government. Man absolutely does NEED freedom in order to survive. The day the government starts razing all wealth over some arbitrary figure, you will see a complete shutdown of the economy.

You won't trap me with that freedom talk. That's the propaganda of the plutocrats.

The government's role is not to protect your freedom, it's to provide for everyone's needs, right? Therefore, freedoms are a luxury, and needs are rights. After all, if you deny someone something they need, by definition they die! You will have killed them! Therefore, a responsible government will provide for the needs of all it's citizens.

In a freedom based economy you are allowed to keep what you earn. In a "needs" based economy you must give all your excess earnings to those who need it more than you do. It is a reverse meritocracy, where the least productive among us have the strongest claim on others' property.

I doubt many people have $5 million. Even if you're extremely wealthy, why would you keep that kind of cash on hand?

DAMN YOU OBAMA!!!!!

I have no problem with people having more than 5 million. It doesn't matter if they "need" it. If it is their money, then they should be allowed to keep.

I only have a problem with people who are physically/mentally able to work, but either don't work or expect others to supplement their low wage job. If education and hard work aren't important to someone, the rest of society shouldn't have to foot the bill for a lazy person's healthcare, food, housing, children, etc. The country today reminds of the folk tale "The Little Red Hen". While the hen did all the work to plant the seed, tend to it, harvest it, and make it into bread, the other farm animals lounged around. The farm animals were outraged the hen refused to share the bread. Morale of the story was, if you don't contribute, you don't deserve to have the bread.

BHL wrote:

Society could use it.

Allowed? It's always the useless masses with nothing to offer society, other than being a replaceable cog in the machine, that feel they deserve more and the wealthy should get less.

A surgeon should get the same pay as a dishwasher etc. etc. And in this Utopian altruistic world, those with ability will volunteer to work harder, longer and accomplish more, but be paid the same as some lazy useless Walmart greeter just because we should all sacrifice ourselves for others. Oh wait, correction, only those with skill, ability and work ethic need sacrifice themselves for those who really would prefer to stay home get high and play video games.

So the collective masses should get together, enslave those with ability and put them to work so the mostly useless can sit at home eating Cheetos. yeah, society can use it.

Society could use dropping the sense of entitlement and learn that hard work is a good thing, not a bad thing.

BHL wrote:

Society could use it.

Better yet, let's all work for nothing and let "Society" have it all. We can all be one happy altruistic family. Society can have everything and we can sing songs to the public servants who get to decide for us what's fair and reasonable to have. Sound good?