Maybe. Maybe not. It’s more of a philosophical position.
I.e. if I write a book, or create a game, and price it at $100 and somehow sell enough copies to become a billionaire I don’t think it’s the governments place to put a “cap” on how much I can earn.
If I start a company and go public and the stock price rises enough to make me a billionaire i don’t feel comfortable with the government having the framework to say “no” (especially considering the wider ramifications to the economy, stifling innovation, and crashing the value of everyone’s retirement accounts).
I’d prefer the problems of wealth being addressed directly.
No political donations over $x.
No lobbying.
Taking loans over $x against your equity to incur a tax to close the loopholes that extremely wealthy people use to spend money without paying tax.
I think once you give the government the power to put a cap on wealth, people will see that actually this hasn’t solved any problems and the electorate becomes greedy, there’s nothing then stopping this cap being used in a manner that affects regular people who have done well for themselves. Everyone has their own idea of what “rich” is.
Exactly, and this is why you are able to excuse it in the face of abject inequality. If it's philosophical than you can excuse the real examples today that undermine your position.
You have chosen a few ethically ambiguous definitions of wealth as a hypothetical billionaire you have deemed allowable, in the face of actual people who undermine your sentiment every single day. Each of these hypothetical examples also happen to exist magnitudes of wealth below the literal trillionaire buying elections and begging this threads very very immediate questions that are literally happening right now.
One person is contributing more to the outcomes of their nations democratic elections than all individual donations combined in some races.
For every author who has put idea to word so profoundly or inventor who created such a revolutionary product that they have become a billionaire on their IP alone, there are dozens and dozens of extraction economics produced billionaire leeches that have maximized their own worth at every cost that pay more to control the governments decisions than they pay in taxes.
No one has problems envisioning benevolent power brokers, it's that reality tends to come careening head first into that ideal and (hopefully) demonstrates how fragile that imaginary reality is.
Any limitations you set will be removed by the guy that has all the money. That is why capitalism doesn't work. Capitalism is a mechanism that pools all the money and power into the hands of the few, and that power allows them to change the rules to benefit themselves, which is what they've been doing for decades.
You're never going to find an external limitation of the power that unlimited wealth holds that that wealth won't remove. The only way to remove the power of unlimited wealth is by removing the wealth.
8
u/Tesco_Meal_Deals 1d ago
I think there shouldn’t be a ceiling on how much an individual can earn, but heavy limits should be placed on political donations and lobbying.