Should having more than one billion dollars be illegal?

Discuss.

Doesn't destroying money increase the value of the U.S. Currency. (IDK)

If it does Bill Gates should burn all his money when he passes.

No but it'd be nice if the way people made a billion dollars were better regulated.

No. Lol. That'd be pretty stupid.

I think we should build a system with higher taxes for richer people through which we would make it exponentially harder to get richer the more money you have.

Heck no.

If people are worried that there are too many rich people, then try to support for a huge tax on them. That would be easier than making 1 billion plus illegal and that is saying something.

I'd like to hear an argument saying that it should be illegal.

Doesn't most other first world countries have this or a similar system?

It is interesting idea.

@maccyd only officialy. I dont think that anybody believes it works in most of the countries in the world.

No.

@penderor: Are you referring to tax evasion (foreign bank accounts etc), corruption or just that it isn't strict enough as the cause of the problem?

Some do, but not to the extent I'm proposing.

We should build a system in which virtually no one reaches a billion dollars, simply because it gets exponentially harder to get richer with each dollar you acquire.

Naw.

@mortein: So, make the variable taxing on income sizes stricter.

In a way you're indirectly making a billion dollar illegal, since you increase the taxation up so much until it gets nearly impossible to gain anymore. It'd be a nicer way of doing it.

I'd be worried if it'd have an effect on a country's economy though. It might dissuade from corporate expansion, persuade business owners to move elsewhere or such.

It'd be a great source of revenue for the government. Since they've to "confiscate" every dollar over a billion, it pretty much acts as an ultra tax.

No, when it comes to personal wealth.

In terms of a company that makes a profit in the billion dollar range (especially whose shares are publicly traded) my answer would be more nuanced towards fair wealth dispersement amongst its employees and shareholders.

People who have billions earn there money so no.

This model would probably have to be accepted on a global scale to work properly, otherwise if only a few countries adopted it, they could be at disadvantage.

No one works million times harder than I do.

No one is million times smarter than I am.

Yet there are people who are million times richer than I am.

If we want a system in which we have billionaires than those people should be scientists, engineers, doctors, firefighters not entertainers and businessmen or rich successors.

@maccyd: Corruption.

@ms-lola: Are you talking about equally distributing their shares or dividends/profits?

@maccyd: I think I'd shy away from using the word "equal", but definitely would use the word "fair" with actual legislation with teeth to make this happen. I think employees should receive shares into a company, free of it being considered a "bonus" and more of a matter of course. It would help offset the top tier from rewarding itself with golden parachutes when they retire and income evasive reporting of supposed bonuses in the millions.

@ms-lola: So companies should be made to give away free shares of their company to employees? Interesting.

@maccyd: Absolutely.

@mortein said:

@chillxpill said:

People who have billions earn there money so no.

No one works million times harder than I do.

No one is million times smarter than I am.

Yet there are people who are million times richer than I am.

If we want a system in which we have billionaires than those people should be scientists, engineers, doctors, firefighters not entertainers and businessmen or rich successors.

I'm stealing this.

@ms-lola: I wonder how this'd affect areas of business, positively or negatively, especially investment.

@maccyd: It would need to be adopted by every company of a certain bracket, and it would entail private companies going public once they become profitable within a certain margin. Investment by private shareholders would plummet, but I think that's a good thing if you take into consideration the amount of shares being given to employees and the portion of . Should the employee leave the company (willingly or not), their shares should be bought back so the company's best interests would safe guarded as much as possible, all the while a segment of its profits are automatically being reinvested through the shares being distributed to its employees

No, that is a stupid idea.

@mortein: If you work hard you work hard no matter what you do. If you have that much money because you've worked hard in what you do then you've earned it.

If you don't like it, stop entertainment or boycott if not then idk what to tell you.

No.

Beata

The problem is that most billionaires don't actually have a billion dollars sitting in a bank account. Its usually being held in other assets which can fluctuate in value. What I find strange is how upset some people will get when a billionaire does something like buy a $100 million yacht when him spending that money does a lot more for the economy than it would him just having it sit doing nothing.

people are already taxed to much. Most of the U.S's debt is in bonds that it ows to the people. then about 1 trillion of it is to china.

@hylian: I'm not sure how still being allowed to keep a billion at time would make a person "not well off". This doesn't affect the people who are actually crippled by tax and gives the government a great source of income to help pay off those debts.

Lolz, no.

@maccyd: if the person got all of this money then they should be allowed to keep it. The U.S is a capatilist country. so those people have a right to their money.

@hylian: You asked for the devil's advocate, I gave it to you. I will add, that the question wasn't exclusive to US and that it's the only country left with true "Capitalist" beliefs.

No.

@maccyd: good point

No. That's absolutely stupid.

Is this the knew Progressive party motto?

@mortein said:

@maccyd said:

@mortein: So, make the taxing on income sizes stricter.

In a way you're indirectly making a billion dollar illegal, since you increase the taxation up so much until it gets nearly impossible to gain anymore. It'd be a nicer way of doing it.

I'd be worried if it'd have an effect on a country's economy though. It might dissuade from corporate expansion, persuade business owners to move elsewhere or such.

This model would probably have to be accepted on a global scale to work properly, otherwise if only a few countries adopted it, they could be at disadvantage.

@chillxpill said:

People who have billions earn there money so no.

No one works million times harder than I do.

No one is million times smarter than I am.

Yet there are people who are million times richer than I am.

If we want a system in which we have billionaires than those people should be scientists, engineers, doctors, firefighters not entertainers and businessmen or rich successors.

1) Rich people already pay more in taxes then most will make in your life

2) Wealth is NOT the inevitable result of hard work. Never has been. It's supply and demand. If a billion people want to pay $100 for Windows 8 then Bill gates will make more then a hard working woman who makes a product or supplies a service that few wants.

@pooty: Wealth doesn't just fall out of the sky and pick a lucky winner and say "here ya go"

Rich people in America already pay more than half the taxes and you guys still wanna tax them? Now, who are actually greedy, the capitalists or you the socialists?

@edamame: Other people would replace them.