Jason, from what is seen we can easily determine that human beings
aren't capable of handling much wealth responsibly beyond a few million
dollars. And that's still plenty incentive if you ask me.
Billionairism is a disease.
On 09/18/2013 06:33 AM, Jason wrote:
Bhairitu, the basic strategy of any capitalistic-egalitarian
system is to have a Tax-strategy that generates wealth, but
at the same time prevents them from spending it.
In other words, the strategy should be to force people to
put their money in banks, in order to minimise their taxes.
A tax system primarily based on consumption of resources is
a much superior model, than a plain model that is based on
just income.
The more resources you consume, the more tax you pay. It
prevents millionares from spulrging on yet another yacht, or
yet another jet, or yet another Rolls Royce.
If he pays 10 million for a mansion, he has to pay another
10 million as 'progressive consumption tax'. This will jack
his expense to 20 million. He would decide to put that
money in bank, rather that spulrge it on that mansion.
--- Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote:
>
> The United Selfish of America is what we call it. There are dummies
> here who think they're going to win the lottery "any day now" and don't
> want to pay high taxes on that money. Those idiots make it difficult to
> tax the rich. I want to see the progressive taxes like we had during
> the Eisenhower era. We didn't have billionaires back then. And that tax
> was not meant to be a gold mine for the government. It was meant to
> discourage people accumulating more wealth than they need.
>
> Harvard did a study a number of years ago which was reported on "60
> Minutes". They concluded there was no formula for getting wealth. It
> was just "luck". We might call that "karma."
>
>
> On 09/17/2013 10:13 AM, s3raphita@... wrote:
> >
> > Re Bhairitu: I just love to hear them say that someone like Bill
Gates
> > "worked hard for his money" :
> >
> > That's my pet peeve. Yes, Gates was at the right place at the right
> > time, and he put in some effort and had some original ideas so he
> > deserves success and a comfortable life, but $72 billion? Do me a
favour.
> >
> > It is not just that you have to wonder quite how many yachts a rich
> > man could buy before getting bored; it's more that $72 billion can
buy
> > a lot of influence - and I mean a lot. Such huge disparities of
wealth
> > are essentially undemocratic.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- <noozguru@> wrote:
> >
> > Seraphita wrote one yesterday on the Forbes report of the richest
> > Americans. I spotted it on the web site but it has never arrived here
> > and I even checked the Yahoo Email site. You know me, I'll discuss
> > the topic of the excessively rich at the drop of a hat. I was even
> > going to comment on a similar article on CNET but didn't have time.
> > Over their you get a bunch of Sillyconned Valley geeks who worship
the
> > wealthy "tech gods" and it is fun to fling some mud at them. I just
> > love to hear them say that someone like Bill Gates "worked hard for
> > his money" when his wealth like Zuckerberg's was "accidental".
> >
> >
