How much money should a person be allowed to have?

[WillowTree]

I've seen a number of comments, mostly fairly snide in nature, about people who are not terribly concerned about their retirement because they are well-off or have "healthy portfolios".

I'm wondering if people think that there ought to be a cap or some sort of limitation placed on how much money a person ought to be allowed to amass in the course of a lifetime and if so, what figure should that limit be placed at. Should it be doubled in the case of a married couple and should any other adjustments be made if that person or couple has children?

And, if that figure is reached, what happens then? If the magic number is made by, say, age 35, should that person then not be allowed to work any longer so that the job will be available for someone who is unemployed? Or should he or she be required to continue working and being productive, but not be paid because they have "enough"?

What if that person owns a business and employs others? Should the business be confiscated and either turned over to someone else, or should the government take it over? Or should the owner be allowed to continue running it, but not be allowed to benefit any more from any success it might achieve? In either case, what would happen to the income generated and who would decide how much would be put back into the business and what would happen to what's left?

I'm just curious because it seems as though the prevailing wisdom is that anyone who is in possession of a substantial amount of money must be inherently bad or some kind of robber baron, certainly greedy, and unworthy of whatever financial comfort they have.

And yes, I'm really looking for honest answers.

[leftyandproud]

1. how bout 2 million

I don't have all of the answers but it seems to me $2 million is plenty for anyone to have. At 5% interest, you would be drawing an income of $100k a year without ever touching the principal. Nobody needs more than that...and yes, it should be taxed and distributed to those who need a helping hand. Use the billions and billions of surplus cash to raise everyone above the poverty line to create a truly fair society.

[DistantWind88]

18. Nice of you to declare

that "no body needs more than that." You don't know WHAT I need.

[ima_sinnic]

24. it's safe to assume you don't "need" more than 2 mil

what you might "want" is a different story.

[DistantWind88]

27. Really?

What if I have a daughter and son with catastrophic medical problems?

[punpirate]

2. I'm not sure what your point is here...

... because you seem to ascribe the qualities of the very rich to almost everyone.

Most interesting is your comment that "the prevailing wisdom is that anyone who is in possession of a substantial amount of money must be inherently bad or some kind of robber baron, certainly greedy, and unworthy of whatever financial comfort they have."

If you look at the very wealthy throughout the country's history, very few of them came by the money honestly, or were utterly honest about their self-descriptions as self-made men, and that is as true today as it was at the beginning of the country. There's little difference between the founders of the "Trusts" at the end of the nineteenth century and the modern CEO.

As for some of your suggestions about restricting the transfer of wealth from generation to generation, there have been tax laws in place to prevent same, and those tax laws have been steadily eroded over the years. The founders, particularly Jefferson and Madison, feared the establishment of political power in a faux aristocracy of the wealthy, and using tax law to prevent that is a good thing for democracy, in general. Even so, the estate tax system was quite generous to the wealthy. It didn't strip them of all their wealth, but did (until the devising of new schemes to circumvent the law) prevent the establishment of absolute dynasties.

If you're looking for honest answers, I would recommend two books by Kevin Phillips, both of which should be in your local library by now:
Wealth and Democracy and American Dynasty. The two together should give you a picture of why accumulated wealth (and not the sort of wealth to which you are alluding) is destructive of the country's core principles.

Cheers.

[w13rd0]

3. Ten million...

...when you've got that much, you've won, and get to advance to the next level of the game. Yeah, that's the ticket. Sorry, you might get a couple serious responses, but not many. It's not the money, but the desire for amassment of money, that is the root of all evil. It's all in how it's used, and aquired.

[applegrove]

4. I don't think you can set a limit. Some people like Bill Gates are very

good at what they do and why would you want him to stop making money (now that he gives so much of it away). It is a huge thing for the world to have that much money for drug studies in the third world etc.

The real question is how much should the top earners get taxed every year? That is a way to ensure that they give back a little every year they make money in the US. If they don't pay income tax, but only sales tax - then they may end up spending lots of money on homes outside the US. And then the US is not getting much in the way from them.

Bill Gates would be a wonderful example. Compare what he would pay if the tax reform replaces income tax vs. what he pays today.

[jdots]

5. I have no clue,what do you think ?

I would rather produce than consume.

[MrSlayer]

6. The only reason I'm pissed at the rich is because I'm not rich.

You should be able to have as much money as you can make.

[Dark]

7. A person can only earn 20 times more than the employees under him.

Seems fair. Want to make more money? Pay your workers more, and you can make more.

Want to make money in the stock? If you take 100 shares of your company, your employees get at least 5.

There is no limit on how much you can make, just on how much you can make by screwing other people.

[imenja]

8. not in this country

The Constitution protects property. You might discuss such an idea in the abstract, but no such restrictions can be legally imposed in the United States. The idea of limiting the amount of money anyone can earn in his lifetime is antithetical to American capitalism and the liberal, foundational texts our nation rests upon.
The idea of the inheritance tax was to keep the US from developing an inherited aristocracy. The Republicans are now determined to remove such taxes and thus increase the power of inherited, rather than self-made, wealth.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. As much as me...

:-)

And that isn't much...

[ComerPerro]

10. As much as they can legall and ethically make

A common misconception is that we hate the rich.

That, of course, is not true.

At least, for me.

I don't despise people because they have money. I despise them for what they do with it.

And, the solution isn't really capping income. It comes with addressing issues that should be basic morality.

Some examples would include going after CEO's who make millions in salary while their company is losing money, or who lay off thousands of people without batting an eye just to make their stock go up.

[bdot]

11. I say 1 mil

Once you have 1 million, you are set for life... and then some.

[BearClaws]

14. Wait a Minute...

Here in the SF Bay area the median home price is about $500,000!
I think your premise of 1 mill. is based on a much different economy.
These days a million ain't much!

[KG]

12. about eleventy hundred dollars.

actually this isn't a bad question. it's an ethics issue so it would be damn near impossible to come up with consesus.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. It's Eleventeen Hundred, KG

Not eleventy. There's no such number as eleventy! Everyone knows that!

Sorry, i had to say something after laughing over your title. Thanks for the chuckle.
The Professor

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. As much as they can honestly acquire.

I'm a small business owner and a law student, and as long as I commit no crime or ethical breach to enrich myself, how much money I should be 'allowed' to have should be limited only by my own efforts.

[HughBeaumont]

15. I definitely think there should be a personal wealth cap

No more of this "whoever dies with the most wins" bullshit. Every bad practice in business today is a direct result of having to account for the mammonic greed of it's elite.

[katinmn]

16. They can acquire as much as they want. But taxed in the

neighborhood of 75% after $200,000.

That would create a decent society for all of us.

[William Bloode]

17. I don't have a dollar amount..

But my feelings have always been, if you can spend 2-3,000 bux on a pair of shoes while others go hungry, you have to much money. If you can afford to waste 2-300,000 on a car while someone is homeless, you have to much money.

[annabanana]

19. the difference is money EARNED and money BESTOWED

I would tax the inheritance and capital gains at the EXACT SAME RATE as earned income. And I would stop calling corporations "people".

[DistantWind88]

20. I'll agree with you on that.

[tcoursen]

21. I disagree

I disagree on inheritences.

It isn't only the ultra rich that leave assets. many people leave more modest estates and it isn't right to tax stuff that has already been taxed all along.

My wife's grandmother died more than a year ago. She was not a wealthy woman. She didn't really have much savings and the only real asset she had was her home. That went to my mother-in-law and her brother. Why should they have to pay tax on that? Sure it was all profit to them, but what if one of them really needed that house to live in? You would tax them to take over a house that their mother had left them?

My parent's have worked all their lives to save up whatever it is that they have saved. Why shouldn't they be allowed to pass it on. Same goes for me and my children.

[Bridget Burke]

22. Inheritance tax kicks in with large estates....

Larger than the ones you're describing.

And--stuff that's already been taxed gets taxed again & again. Taxes are taken out of my paycheck before it's deposited--I get the statement twice a month. If I withdraw any money to go shopping--I'll probably have to pay sales tax on that SAME money! Already taxed!

Your parents need to have sufficient money to take care of themselves. Even if they've got medical insurance, it won't generally cover in-home nursing care. Or institutional care, if it comes to that. And--what if they want to take a trip--or use some of that money on themselves instead of leaving it to you?

Estate planning is recommended.

[tcoursen]

23. I know that

I know all that. The person I responded to said inheritence should be taxed, not inheritence on only large estates like we have now. So I thought they were looking to make a change and tax ALL inheritence.

I still think it is wrong to tax large estates. I would rather see them remove the loopholes that the wealthy use when they are making the money. Don't tax the transfer in an estate. If the tax system didn't have all the loopholes I don't think they would have to have the estate tax. You could tax it when it is being earned by the original person, and then once the new person gets it and starts earning interest and such, it could be taxed again.

[flobee1kenobi]

26. No limit/no cap

But if all your wealth comes at the expense of the lower and middle class, you are too rich!

The wealthiest 1% of this country does nothing to drive this economy. Its the lower and middle class that keep this economy rolling, and if they have no money to spend, the economy dies

[tcoursen]

29. In some cases

Sure, in some cases this may be true, but not in all.

Does Bill Gates do nothing to contribute to the economy?

They may sit on the money once they get to the top, but they do drive the economy on the way to the top.

Guys like Trump with all their building contribute no?

And even ones that don't contribute in terms of building a company and/or hiring tons of people, still consume a lot.

In any given segment there are going to be good apples and bad apples so it is probably unfair to say that the top 1% do no contribute to the economy.

And even if they are only consuming and spending their money that is still going to keep others employed, etc. What exactly do the poorest of the poor bottom 1% of the economy contribute? They aren't paying taxes and they aren't consuming. It certainly is not a nice way to look at it, but isn't that exactly how you are judging the top 1%? You're Paris Hiltons of the world with all their spending are contributing to the economy are they not?

[Toucano]

25. None.

Money should be abolished.