You're missing the core issue, artificial or not its incredibly dangerous having that much concentrated power in so few hands. Instead if people needed to stop accumulating wealth at say 50 million like I said, they would need to collaborate with 200 people to wield the same sort of influence as 1 Bill Gates, that removes much of the authoritarian danger.
Also like I said, you cant build a nuke in your garage because of the damage it could do to society. This is exactly the same. Your argument amounts to "it's not fair that everyone doesnt get their own nuclear power plants just because some peoples would meltdown and destroy the earth.
I feel like you fancy yourself a down on his luck future billionaire or something. This wouldn't ever effect you.
I am not disagreeing with your assertion that it is dangerous to have that much wealth in so few hands. I'm saying your "solution" of limiting the wealth of everyone to solve said problem, sucks.
And I'm asking why it sucks? It will affect almost No One! Like 1 person per state will be forced to stop cut throat grinding and go do something else or volunteer at their current position.
Why does that suck if it would save our world? I think it would bring incredible FREEDOM to many people who arent strong enough to put their morals above their greed. These people should already be making this decision to stop, but 1 out of every 100000 is a psychopath and NEEDS to have the most power.
The Michael Jordan's can keep playing basketball if that's their passion, they just dont get 50 million an hour. They can choose where that money goes, a charity of their choice or no where and do it for free or even their children or other people.
It sucks for it would penalize those who earn their money honestly.
It would not save our world since it would never be implementable, even if it made sense to do so.
Not to mention such a plan would depends on "valuations". Heck, it's an exercise in futility already to place a monetary value on things that are ostensibly easy to value. Try valuing things such as artwork, for example, located in a warehouse in another country.
You'd be very hard pressed to find a reason for a person that wealthy to continuously subject themselves to that process for the privilege of what.. possessing a certain Country's passport?
I mean, it would have to be a worldwide plan to even get off the ground. But the wealthy in question are mobile and already employ the best people to specifically find strategies to minimize wealth losses and maximize their wealth earnings. Such people would simply hide their wealth offshore.
Who would govern such a plan and how would corruption be accounted for in such a case?
If I though for another 10 minutes, could come up with a zillion other issues but, I can;t be bothered.
You're missing the core issue, artificial or not its incredibly dangerous having that much concentrated power in so few hands. Instead if people needed to stop accumulating wealth at say 50 million like I said, they would need to collaborate with 200 people to wield the same sort of influence as 1 Bill Gates, that removes much of the authoritarian danger.
Also like I said, you cant build a nuke in your garage because of the damage it could do to society. This is exactly the same. Your argument amounts to "it's not fair that everyone doesnt get their own nuclear power plants just because some peoples would meltdown and destroy the earth.
I feel like you fancy yourself a down on his luck future billionaire or something. This wouldn't ever effect you.
I am not disagreeing with your assertion that it is dangerous to have that much wealth in so few hands. I'm saying your "solution" of limiting the wealth of everyone to solve said problem, sucks.
And I'm asking why it sucks? It will affect almost No One! Like 1 person per state will be forced to stop cut throat grinding and go do something else or volunteer at their current position.
Why does that suck if it would save our world? I think it would bring incredible FREEDOM to many people who arent strong enough to put their morals above their greed. These people should already be making this decision to stop, but 1 out of every 100000 is a psychopath and NEEDS to have the most power.
The Michael Jordan's can keep playing basketball if that's their passion, they just dont get 50 million an hour. They can choose where that money goes, a charity of their choice or no where and do it for free or even their children or other people.
It sucks for it would penalize those who earn their money honestly.
It would not save our world since it would never be implementable, even if it made sense to do so.
Not to mention such a plan would depends on "valuations". Heck, it's an exercise in futility already to place a monetary value on things that are ostensibly easy to value. Try valuing things such as artwork, for example, located in a warehouse in another country.
You'd be very hard pressed to find a reason for a person that wealthy to continuously subject themselves to that process for the privilege of what.. possessing a certain Country's passport?
I mean, it would have to be a worldwide plan to even get off the ground. But the wealthy in question are mobile and already employ the best people to specifically find strategies to minimize wealth losses and maximize their wealth earnings. Such people would simply hide their wealth offshore.
Who would govern such a plan and how would corruption be accounted for in such a case?
If I though for another 10 minutes, could come up with a zillion other issues but, I can;t be bothered.
Ok, that's a real answer and I understand my idea was naive. Thank you.