what if a law were passed that limited the amount of money people could have. lets say the limit is a million. no one needs more than a million. this way all the millionnaire (multi) and billionaires would have to spend their money or give it away thus putting it back into the economy. ther money would be dispenced more evenly. giving more people a greater chance of a happy life. because the prices of alot of things will go down bc there would be more money to go around. it wouldnt just be stuck in a rich guys pocket that got lucky and invented a microchip.



is this plausable?

__________________
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein-

No. Two words:

1 - Corporations

2 - Holding companies. Many of the ultra-rich own things thru holding companies. There is no way to find out exactly what they personally own.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Er... they do spend most of their money. They buy property. Rare is the Scrooge McDuck vault full of cash.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

the money of millionaires and billionaires is in the economy already so this does not increase level of economic activity as you seem to claim but it does change distribution of course there are six billion people in the world many of them have no clean water to drink or basic food and medical needs so if money is transferred from rich people like baut membership to them then they can have better lives and this is good because why is it right for baut members to be rich only because they are lucky to be born in rich countries

so you can set the limit at five thousand dollars instead of one million this is a good idea dont you think

__________________
punctuation is a form of bourgeois oppression

Obviously not. It has been tried, with nefarious results.

As for the guy who invents a microchip, don´t you think he deserves the fruits of his ingenuity?

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

Also, you need to consider incentive. Sometimes, considering the risks or capital required, certain advances just aren't worth going after for a million bucks. The "american dream" provides the risk-takers that society needs.

Oh, and what about savings? I'd love to retire at 40, but I'd need to have way more than a million dollars to keep me economically safe for the rest of my life. I'm not exactly in a position to save up that much by then, but I was ten years ago had I chosen to. Why deny people that choice?

__________________
Nicholas Bostaph
http://NicholasBostaph.com
http://NightscapeCreations.com
http://FantasyMasterOnline.com

couldnt they add a foot note to the Bill before they sent it to congress?

they could point out the fact in which you stated. the footnote will say all corporations must give an envitory and taly(sp?) up the money. they could retain as much money that is needed to run the corporation but no individual shall retain more that a million dollars

with the holding companies...im not exactly sure what that is but i think i get the picture...

sence the Gov. got involved from passing this bill then the gov would have to keep tabs on the interaction between the CEO's of a company and its afilliants. any transaction that seems...Odd or outta place....then they should investigate.





sorry though i g2g. im at the library and my mom just came in here and told me come on...ill check when i can. peace everyone

__________________
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein-

are you rich

__________________
punctuation is a form of bourgeois oppression

Well, there goes the mega-millions jackpot lottery.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

That is the exact opposite of what would happen.

More money in circulation causes prices to go up (Inflation). That is because if everyone has more money, everyone is willing to pay more to get the limited resources.

__________________
Carl Matherly

Offical Battlestar Galactica Apologist

Named Time Magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year"

A Constitutional amendment of this sort was proposed some seventy years ago, as I recall. (My source is the Life commemorative issue about the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, which I no longer have on hand.) However, the limit at that time was also a million dollars. Now, I'm aware that adjusting for inflation is tricky and depends a lot on which factors you're using, but a million now is a lot less than a million then.

People like the word "million." It sounds nice and round. However, it's not remotely as much as it used to be--my mother's house and land probably values at three-quarters of a million dollars. A lot of property is worth even more. Limiting personal wealth to a million dollars is not possible, but it's also not a good idea, not least because inflation must be adjusted for.

And while vaults full of cash are rare, true, whether multimillionaires or billionaires "spend" most of their money depends greatly on your definition of "spend."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

And for the records, I really don´t think one million is too much of a money.

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

there are two different issues here if they do not spend it then it is available for investment and both of these activities have the effect of job creation so the argument that this increases the level of economic activity is not correct although if you are keynesian then maybe you can argue it has some temporary effect

the other issue is distribution of course to take money from rich people and to give it to poor people has effects on the lives of these people but it also reduces incentives to engage in wealth producing activities equality has its price it is trading off between two things like anything else you can have extreme equality with a larger reduction in average standard of living or you can have less equality with lower reduction in average standard of living take your pick

of course most people here are from rich countries who like to pretend they are poor so when they propose things like this they usually have the idea that everyone who is richer than they are will give money to them they do not like the idea that they are rich and should give their money to people like most in the world who are poorer than they are this is a rather convenient belief system is it not

__________________
punctuation is a form of bourgeois oppression

I actually use this argument commonly when people talk about proposing any kind of law or government action regarding 'the rich'. The word 'rich' is impossible to define in any kind of objective way, which means that everyone is going to have an equally valid subjective interpretation. So I generally like to ask if they would like to have whatever law they're proposing changed so it applied to them, because they are technically wealthier than a great deal of the world's population. It tends to really get people thinking.


You've also really got to wander: What would be the short-term effects of taking away the primary form of incentive from the world's wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations?

__________________
Nicholas Bostaph
http://NicholasBostaph.com
http://NightscapeCreations.com
http://FantasyMasterOnline.com

isn't Venezuela doing this right now? I think we call that a communistic dictatorship. It hasn't worked very well in the past.

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

A million dollars won't get you a house with enough money to pay the land taxes on it for the rest of your natural life, unless you're half dead already. Even me, with my rather austere tastes in living arrangements, would burn through that in about 5-10 years.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

This area has lower home prices than many other areas in California, but a pretty typical home is running in the half million range. Impressive homes on substantial land cost several million. Million dollar homes are nice, but not mansions.

You rent? If somebody owns their home and the rental property you live in, these days there is a good chance they'd be over that million dollar mark. Oops!

It's instructive to look where most of the income tax revenue is coming from in the U.S. Hint: It's those really wealthy guys. If you take away most of their wealth, you have a one time revenue glut. Next year, revenue would drop dramatically.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Do they no longer teach economics in school?? This thread makes me very very sad.

Sure it's possible! You just have to get the law passed by the people in charge of the system that makes them wealthy and... Oh, wait...