What is the Ethical Limit to Personal Wealth?

rcanfiel · Oct 30, 2007

Quote from Martin Gale:

It is unjust for 99% of all wealth to go to one person.
A limit to inequality implies a limit to wealth.

Assuming the above, how should society determine the limit to personal wealth?

Easy. Stop raising stupid questions. Society has no right to limit an individual's wealth. This is not a socialist or communist state, so why are you trying to interfere with someone elses's activity?

Do you have any idea how many jobs would NOT be created if capitalists, inventors, investors, visionaries and others were limited by do gooders?

Martin Gale · Oct 30, 2007

Quote from rcanfiel:

Easy. Stop raising stupid questions. Society has no right to limit an individual's wealth. This is not a socialist or communist state, so why are you trying to interfere with someone elses's activity?

Do you have any idea how many jobs would NOT be created if capitalists, inventors, investors, visionaries and others were limited by do gooders?

I've been waiting for the ideologue to rear his head.
Do you agree that 99% in the hands of one person is too much?
If so, then how should the cutoff be determined?
If not, why not?

Martin Gale · Oct 30, 2007

Quote from heidegger:

I thought you were looking for some sort of rational way of putting a ceiling on wealth (Impossible, of course, but a noble idea).

I am. And I don't think it's irrational. Government redistributes wealth through taxes for this reason. For example, should government provide universal health care? Could that be one criterion by which wealth disparity is adjusted? Does the Swedish model work better than the American?

FerdinandAlx · Oct 30, 2007

Society has every right to limit an individuals wealth. Property rights are determined and enforced by society, therefore it is allowed to define property.

Now that being said, individuals have every right to transfer their wealth to a jurisdiction that offers them better terms. In fact, property rights should be seen as a business deal. In exchange for management fees like taxation the right to your property is enforced and secured. If a competing jurisdiction offers better terms, let's say a Carribean tax haven, it is not unethical to take the better deal.

heidegger · Oct 30, 2007

Quote from Martin Gale:

I am. And I don't think it's irrational. Government redistributes wealth through taxes for this reason. For example, should government provide universal health care? Could that be one criterion by which wealth disparity is adjusted? Does the Swedish model work better than the American?

Swedes I've met complain that they're restricted from expressing their capabilities to the max in the socialist context, but compare this complaint to those arising out of the savagery of the American economic system.

Health care is a biggie. God help the aged and infirm in America if they haven't saved a million bucks. And the notion that everybody has sufficient opportunity in the U.S. to prepare for that time when they are less able to care for themselves is unmitigated horseshit.

FerdinandAlx · Oct 30, 2007

Quote from heidegger:

Swedes I've met complain that they're restricted from expressing their capabilities to the max in the socialist context, but compare this complaint to those arising out of the savagery of the American economic system.

Health care is a biggie. God help the aged and infirm in America if they haven't saved a million bucks. And the notion that everybody has sufficient opportunity in the U.S. to prepare for that time when they are less able to care for themselves is unmitigated horseshit.

I don't think the most prosperous economy on earth should be labeled savagery. If it were, why would thousands of Cubans risk their lives every year on rafts and leaky boats to join in on your proclaimed "savagery". I don't see any Americans going the opposite way to enjoy Castro's free health care.

If society wishes to burden creative and productive individuals it can do so, but don't be suprised to find them voting with their feet. I hear that swedish farm land can be bought for a nickel and a dime because most young people have begun to look for better opportunities abroad.

FightTheFuture · Oct 30, 2007

Quote from Martin Gale:

It is unjust for 99% of all wealth to go to one person.
A limit to inequality implies a limit to wealth.

Assuming the above, how should society determine the limit to personal wealth?

Suppose you inherited excellent genetics and or undertook the responsibility of creating your own excellent health. (Suppose you inherited wealth and or created an excellent work ethic and undertook the responsibility of creating a vast amount of wealth.)

-----It is unjust for 99% of all Health to go to one person.

A limit to inequality implies a limit to Health.

Assuming the above, how should society determine the limit to personal Health? -----

It truly is unfair and hurts all me feelies to see someone with 99% of the total world's health. That person should be sickened down to my level.

That would not make me healthier (wealthier) by taking the health (wealth) of someone else and redistributing it amongst all, but it would make me feel better, 'cause feelings are what it's all about.

It would not create a healthier society by making the healthiest sicker. (It would not create a wealthier society by making the wealthiest poorer.)

K-Rock · Oct 30, 2007

Gates is giving now because he realized that if he doesn't others (including governments) will be motivated to take it away by any means necessary.

Quote from Martin Gale:

Wealth is created by productivity. Capitalism exploits means of production (labor, resources) to create wealth. Is it ethical for capitalists to control means of production?

Gates and Buffett are giving away most of their wealth to society. They would seem to agree with my thesis that there is a limit to personal wealth.

Martin Gale · Oct 30, 2007

FF-

I assume you're joking. You can't distribute health, but you can distribute health care. Society should be judged, not on the welfare of the wealthiest / healthiest individuals, but on the welfare of the poorest / sickest. If too many get too miserable, they will eventually get desperate enough to take what you think you've responsibly earned by exploiting a flawed system.

Quote from FightTheFuture:

Suppose you inherited excellent genetics and or undertook the responsibility of creating your own excellent health. (Suppose you inherited wealth and or created an excellent work ethic and undertook the responsibility of creating a vast amount of wealth.)

-----It is unjust for 99% of all Health to go to one person.

A limit to inequality implies a limit to Health.

Assuming the above, how should society determine the limit to personal Health? -----

It truly is unfair and hurts all me feelies to see someone with 99% of the total world's health. That person should be sickened down to my level.

That would not make me healthier (wealthier) by taking the health (wealth) of someone else and redistributing it amongst all, but it would make me feel better, 'cause feelings are what it's all about.

It would not create a healthier society by making the healthiest sicker. (It would not create a wealthier society by making the wealthiest poorer.)

nutmeg · Oct 30, 2007

"Society should be judged,"

Who are the judges, since it is my wealth you want.

"If too many get too miserable, they will eventually get desperate enough to take what you think you've responsibly earned by exploiting a flawed system."

You will tell them --"it is a flawed system". They are now victims.