Conversation

Jakeup
@yashkaf
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
The cap exists in practice, there's only so much one can consume in a lifetime. The rest of it gets consumed over time by children etc. If we put a cap the same exact thing would happen, except billionaires would control the investments for fewer years before passing it on.
1
4
Show replies
Sientir 🌮🥰
@Sientir
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
Wealth is composed of too much random, hard to measure or fluctuating stuff for something like this to make sense in my mind. What happens if someone owns a bunch of stock in a company that suddenly gains a ton of value? Do they have to sell off ownership or something?
1
2
Improv
@dachte
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
I think it's bad policy to have a hard cap. Soft caps make a lot of sense, but retaining the possibility of earning more (even with great difficulty) provides incentives.
1
2
Eason - @easoncxz@mastodon.online
@easoncxz
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
I voted "no", but I'd be a fan of increasingly-aggressive tax as income increases. It should be ok as long as the post-tax income, as a function of pre-tax income, does not converge to a constant (but is rather, always monotonously increasing).
1
5
Roy Hernandez
@roisbelh
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
If History teaches us something is that compromising in economic freedom always results in poverty, death and starvation. Taxes are a necessary evil, but a wealth cap stagnates the economy and stops innovation.
5
7