That's not true. You failed to consider people born with an appreciable level of mental illness/disorder:

Companies take those profits and give it to their CEOs and Shareholders with a middle finger to workers and customers.

I'm not sure why you all look after the rich when history has proven the rich do not care about average joes. It's right there in the books. Hell, if companies could, they'd hire cheap foreign engineers over Americans which some companies do. Google and ******** is notorious for this, I know because there's an Asian Youtuber who goes into detail how these greedy corporations operate.

Easiest neg of the year

Pointing out history isn't whining. Having a debate also isn't whining. Voicing my opinion isn't whining. And yes, I do vote.

I oppose misc ideals in that the wealthy looks after common folks, history proves this. Do people who work hard deserve to be wealthy? Of course, I'mnot against the rich. But we humans need to think as one functioning unit, and that means taxing the wealthy more so the common folk can have better lives. And a happy employee is a good employee.

Crony Capitalism is real and it's been in practice for years, every argument after that is just gullible.

How exactly is disagreeing and voicing my opinion on this topic whining?

Answer the question.

Debating isnt whining

The Wealthy elite and shareholders do not care. LOL at fighting so hard for their salaries. Tax them more and give all the workers from top to bottom a raise.

Maybe we could modify OP’s idea

You’re allowed to hold $50 mil of wealth and anything earned over it you must spend to benefit society in some way.

There can be a list of approved ways to spend the excess. This way it’s not being stolen from the ultra wealthy but it forces them to reinvest it into society for the better.

The excess is determined on a yearly basis (basically net worth is reported during tax time and whatever you are in excess of the $50 mil must be spent the following year on an approved method, with documentation).

It's absolutely true, you don't need that much money. Human beings should focus as one foundational tribe, not a few wealthy individuals holding all the power. It just boils down to being selfish. Tax the wealthy more, give every employee a raise. Engineers,

Actually yes I do need my smartphone to make calls, answer emails, take site pictures, look at drawings, etc. Smartphones are essential in a lot of career fields else we go back to being less efficient

Good idea, but

According to the misc, the wealthy already uses their wealth to benefit society(LOL)

Nobody is saying the wealthy don't deserve to be rich, so your troll post is invalid.

In on armchair economist thread.



At the end of the day 50 milly is arbitrary and at moneymogging levels it’s disincentivizing. If you want to make more money learn skills to do so but don’t come burning down our ivory towers because we built them.

Except nobody is saying you shouldn't be rich or the wealthy shouldn't be rich.

Yep, you're a retard.

You realize the CEOs of public companies aren't evil dictators that can just raise their salary magically right? The board of directors set their salary, and the board of directors are voted in by shareholders. And you realize shareholders are just common people that bought the stock? Many companies do not even issue a dividend, so they literally give ZERO profits to shareholders. It's not like shareholders are some evil entity hiding in the background scamming the "workers and customers". The shareholders simply want their shares to appreciate in value, and the company simply wants investors to provide a cash flow for their operations.

Take Amazon's financial statements for example:
https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NA...come-Statement
https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NA...-of-Cash-Flows

Amazon's net cash provided by operating activities is 66 billion, 21 billion of which is net income from sales.

Of that 66 billion, 59 billion is reinvested back into the company through property, equipment, other physical capital, business acquisitions, purchases of marketable securities (such as bonds and stocks), debt issuing and payments, with only 5 billion in "savings" to be added to their cash surplus.

According to this:https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...m#toc897711_28
The summated executives' salary barely adds up to 1 million. Most of their compensation is through stock, totaling at about 110 million over the past 3 years. 110 million out of 66 billion, or 0.167%. Does that sound like hoarding and "giving a middle finger to workers and customers"? Sure it's a lot, but the total is not even 1% of total cash inflow and these people have to manage such a large company. Surely you believe in paying workers what they deserve?

I never made a claim that money is getting passed on to the working class. In practical terms what OP is proposing is the government robbing rich people in form of taxation. For that to be a net benefit to the economy you have to make the claim that government is more efficient with that money than the wealthy are.

Are you going to make that claim? if not, don't quote me like you are refuting my statement.

This x10

^^^ Yup

A massive infusion of $$$ won’t fix the issues that make poor people poor, it only temporarily alleviates them.

wtf makes you think what other people have is your business? Just be thankful they spend it on yachts instead of buying you to use as a human toilet.

Tell me you voted for Biden without telling me you voted for Biden.

Because who would decide what is allowed? What would keep them from lowering that level? Why should someone not be allowed to keep what is theirs?

Negged

there comes a point in time when humanity needs to step back and say, we've done well, food is plentiful. technology is great, civilizations are thriving, it's time to stop progressing and just plateau which means ******* billionaires are pass their expiry date and net wealth should be capped at 5million for everyone, btw it's funny how the most die hard capitalists are always uglycels, capitalism or wealth hoarding is their equalizer to the chad problem, it's pointless trying to reason with these motherfukers, look at what all the billionaires look like, not a single chad was seen that day

Why should anyone be allowed to have more than $100k dollars?
Surely there's a point where having more money makes no functional difference, other than to mogg your fellow moneymoggers.

Allowing people to have up to $100k would incentivize success while preventing disgusting amounts of wealth and power from accumulating in the hands of people who weren't even elected.

hilariously, idiotically wrong on every level

how many tax dollars do Walmart etc subsidise their low paid employees wages with? Look that up, we'll talk

life isnt fair lol

50m isn't a huge sum of money

Ussually the people that acquire that sort of wealth are far better at deciding how to distribute/spend money so that wagies like op can afford a half decent lifestyle

OP, sorry, wrong answer.

Net wealth isn't exactly what's messing us over. It contributes by giving a small group of people an overly large amount of political power though.Yes. The role of governmentshouldbe to act as the referee maintaining a state of play that is advantageous to the largest possible amount of its citizenry and therefore to the economic stability and health of the nation.False. If the odds were that good [and the game wasn't rigged] we would have much fewer poor people. Absolutely a certain number of people wreck themselves through poor decisions.
And here is a big part of what's up.

over politically powerful wealthy + our central bank = too many people wage slaving or straight up falling into dependence or homelessness

I don't know exactly what the natural rate of "broke" is, but I think 40% of workers being broke is too much. Maybe 10% to 20% of workers being unable to afford decent housing wouldn't be a big deal since you kind of expect people to struggle when they are young students and a certain number of people may not be able to produce enough work [for whatever reason] to make a good living.

Based on about 40% of people not being able to qualify to rent an apartment in most areas.



Those are people who are working. Not people that are straight up non-productive when it comes to paid employment.

If work doesn't pay enough to have a decent life then it seems plain that more people will check out, by choice or by necessity. And we have that many fewer people able to purchase significant goods and services and pay taxes [sales tax, property tax, gas tax, etc.].

Wages that are too low put us into a situation of ballooning debt as government taxes are collected mostly on income that is earned as wages. Government has less money coming in + more people in need of government support. And then the increasing debt devalues the currency.

When you say "I want to vote for the candidate that will lower taxes [without cutting spending]." you are voting for your US$ to have less purchasing power.



And US over spending doesn't have too much to do with welfare programs [aka social spending].



Compared to other countries our most out-sized expenditure is our military.



What works better in the US?

Prior to Reagan we had higher wages, higher taxes on upper level earners, and some actual regulation of monopolies and cartels. US debt levels had been dropping.





And now our dollars are worth a lot less.



Democrats who promise "free gives" and Republicans who promise "low taxes" are equally lying. It is true that a national debt isn't the same as a family checkbook. Partly because we have things like our huge military to extend our credit.

Still, spending more than what is collected in taxation just grows the debt and makes each dollar less valuable and at some point I think we are bound to hit the wall.

Can we get rid of all socialists plz? Asking for a friend

To play devil's advocate. A lot of innovation does come from high worth people, which most people would agree that is a good thing.
I also think one could argue we're innovating too quickly and innovating in a lot of ways that are questionable. Look at fracking, for example, innovated into a new way of extracting resources, but pump chemicals back into the ground and cause unnatural earthquakes. Look at the internet/social media/personal devices. Plenty of people use these as a resourceful tool, but the majority of people have gambling like addictions using them. There's plenty of examples of this.

I don't think it's right to cap people's earnings or net worth.Perhaps looking at people's contributions to society is more important than how much money they have.I know people with money that do plenty of good with it, but on average I'd say the typical person doesn't contribute much to society or their fellow people and I think there should be a greater reward for that, more than just a benefit on your taxes.

I think what's more important is realizing how we got to this point in the first place and it's everything katya442 pointed out. The dollar continues to inflate with no end in sight. And wages have been stagnant for a long time.

"we"