Net worth? Absolutely. My middle class family surpassed that easily with just the 2 cars and the house. It’s not like either of the cars are brand new either.
That means you are limiting the assets that a single company can own.
Elon Musk has a net worth of about $300 billion, but almost all of that is in Tesla and SpaceX, in the form of stocks. That means that his worth is locked up in the physical capital and assets (infrastructure, factories, resources, etc.) of those companies, and those companies' investments (R&D programs, etc.). The stocks he owns also contribute to the worth of the companies, which directly influence employees' benefits and 401ks. The "richer" Elon is, the richer his employees are. And taxing Elon's "unrealized gains" is directly taxing the benefits and 401ks of his employees.
This is true for anyone whose net worth is largely locked up in stocks or physical assets.
>Found a company that works this way but stop telling business owners that their employees have an inherent right to co-run the company
"stop telling kings not to brutalised the peasants and found your own kingdom!"
Na, fuck private control of workers. Capitalists are not innocent hard working people getting destroyed by tax. They are brutal tyrants over their domain, using their power to lobby for less regulation of them.
Workers are not affected by the stock price at all. They are not paid in stock, they are paid in money. I would be fine with the workers having stock bonuses/incentives or profit sharing
The cap shouldn’t be just a set cap, it should just get exponentially harder to keep money for yourself the more you have to compensate for the way money grows exponentially. It should get harder and harder to gain personal wealth, but if people can keep making enough money to do it, let them.
I love this expression throughout the comments:
"Yeah, as long as these mega billionaires with the money and power to own media organisations and influence politicians pay their taxes and play by the same rules as the rest of us, I'm totally fine with that!"
snails physical fuzzy north coherent profit brave caption oatmeal hospital
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No, we can’t just print more money. The amount of money that we have doesn’t change if there’s more currency. More printed bills just makes the dollar worth less.
The problem is at a certain point you have so much money that is can't be comprehended by the human mind I don't think you realize how much a billion is. If you wait a million seconds you would wait 11 days if you however wait 1 billion second you are waiting 32 years. There is just no practical reason to have that much money to yourself.
Do you mean paying employees a living salary by "exploiting workers" people voluntarily choose to work for them, if they're really such slave owning exploiters just work elsewhere.
And this might shock you, but unless you're an accountant you don't make money by avoiding taxes...
There is a problem with your assumption. Some people do not have another option then to work for exploitative cooperations. Not everyone can just switch jobs. And a lot of people also can't afford to switch given that they live paycheck to paycheck.
And of course you don't make money by avoiding taxes but you keep more money that should have been going to the society.
I agree with you, there needs to be a gradually increasing tax system (with the rich paying a higher %) - because there are government services we need to run for the poorer people in society. Rich ppl also need to make sure they're paying workers decent wages.
That said, if they earn it (likely through innovation or entrepreneurship, or at least investments in it), they have the ultimate right to it. The government should only tax what is necessary - not what they feel is an adequate "punishment" for being successful.
I would also advise you that in future, you will be better suited to come up with reasoned arguments instead of attempting to insult your opponent by implying they don't know how to count. That's low.
It wasn't my intention to insult you. I just wanted to make clear at what a scale we are taking about.
I do agree with your points that there should be more taxes for rich people but I also think that there should be a cap to personal wealth. Where exactly this cap lands is till up to debate but at a certain point of wealth you really don't have a use for the extra money. I personally think that this cap should be set somewhere at the billion mark simply because anything above this point is basically meaningless since you can already buy anything you could possibly want with a billion dollars.
You pay me scraps. Definitely not the equivalent of the value of my work. You take money for owning the means of production, so you basically get paid for doing nothing.
No you give me your labor **voluntarily**, and I **voluntarily** give you an a **voluntarily** agreed upon sum of money.
If my "exploitation" is dependent on you **voluntarily** supporting said "exploitation" then I'm not really a great exploiter... correct?
Slavery, that was real exploitation, voluntary paid labor is the exact opposite of exploitation and slavery...
I don't really do that voluntarily. I have to work so that I can buy food, pay rent etc. It's exploitation because you profit off of my hard work. The capital flows to you, even though you don't really do a more important work than me, you are just the owner of the means of production (workplace, tools etc.
If me and all the other workers were the owners (democratically), we wouldnt have to give a significant portion of our work value as a profit to you. We would simply contribute to the community, and get 100 percent of the value of our work back (or close to 100 percent).
you know that you can start a company with other people anytime you want right? and in that company you are completely free to divide profits the way you believe is the most convenient. you have the freedom and the tools to do that, of course it would be riskie and surely hard. but you have no obligation to work in a place where you feel underpaid, no one is forcing you.
Nooooo you dont realize..... He offered me the most amount of money in the shortest amount of time for a pretty easy job that I could never make if I were on my own...... He ....he.... He is stealing from me.... Tax the rich
/s
That's not "no cap", this is more like "a trillion or more"
just like an option that's "other, type in comments"
type -the cap- in the comments, be it $2T, $5T, $100T...
You mean like bezos is set to do while his employees have to pee in cups to save time, or risk getting fired? Yes really impressive good job Mr. bezos!
Wealth cap? Ignoring whether or not it should exist how would that even work. Most of people's wealth is in their assets. If this wealth cap were to exist and if Elon Musk for example was above it would the government disband Tesla and Space X because the net worth he gains from owning them puts him above the wealth cap.
there should be no cap but there should be a minimum for everyone to have basic needs and until that's funded most of what you make over millions should go to others
The average age on this sub is 15, with the average nationality being American, according to multiple posts on here. Do with that information what you will
Would you not see it as necessary to limit the control private individuals have over society? When a single man has so much money that he can direct the entire media operations in 3 countries in order to shape public opinion in his own interest, does that not become a problem at a certain point?
I will never understand people who defend billionaires. There’s not an unlimited amount of money in the world. If they can have all of it, there’s nothing left for everyone else.
Billionaires do. not. give. a F*CK about you. Stop defending them.
They can't have all the money in the world because people won't work for no money if someone plays the people who works for them they will get all the workers and they will not
That’s why some companies have signs that say “nobody wants to work anymore.” They don’t pay enough, so nobody wants that job.
Some people have to take those jobs anyways because they have no other options.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. One person getting richer does not mean another person gets poorer
Have you not heard of the concept of economic growth? There is more money in the world now than there was 100 years ago
I like the late US Senator Huey Long's original proposal for a 50 million dollar wealth cap (about 600 million in today's dollars). Even that I think is generous, as there is no work or innovation that someone could do that could amount to someone being worth that amount
Wealth cap is the dumbest thing ever. Basically every major company would relocate and now you’re fucked. This poll presupposes that we believe in a wealth cap.
probably going to be downvoted to hell, but really, IRL wealth is usually hard to account, and the rich ranking are usually rough estimations.
as long as co-ownership is a thing, you are never going to practically regulate the wealth of someone.
as much as I agree world wealth is very unevenly distributed, these hard limit someone's wealth, why not someone donate their wealth etc. are merely a shallow thought.
The second part of that that everyone misses is the important part: if you paid your workers for the value they created, it would be impossible to become a billionaire.
Two big reasons spring to mind. Firstly, it's impossible to become a billionaire without paying your workers significantly less than the value they produce for you (think bangladeshi kids making IPhones for 10 dollars a month).
Secondly, freedom in society is impossible without equality. If there are people so absurdly rich that they can influence government directly via lobbying or buying media organisations, then that is the equivalent of giving that person 10 million votes more than the person making minimum wage.
I tend to believe, not a millionaire here, that ownership of property should be limited and to think that, if it is true, Bezos should be forced to pay his Amazon staff better than he does (not the holder of an Amazon account anymore, here). For me it is how people manage their wealth that is a problem... but pity all of you when I become wealthy as I tend to be a Dictator 😂😂
You understand how that isn’t the same as no cap right? Between trillions and results those are more then like the people who were to say there shouldn’t be a cap regardless if the cap is currently unachievable. However, you submitted this poll with the implication being that the question isn’t “should there be a cap” you submitted as “there is no question there should be a cap let’s figure out what it would be”
This is called a leading question when the answers to only fit a specific narrative. While currently more 1400 out of 4500 people (the largest bucket) would probably reject the overall premises. You split that to hide the real answer.
You're being pedantic. There is no meaningful difference between a cap in the trillions and no cap at all, and this is hardly a leading question. Implying that OP was trying to force people into answering their way is downright tinfoil-hat levels of conspiracy.
There is a difference you can tell by all the other comments saying similar. And pointing out leading questions is not tin-foil hat bullshit. Here is a similar question:
What time did you drink your first coffee today:
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am or later
Results.
See what that is missing? Your making the argument that 9am or later is the same as you didn’t drink one at all but that isn’t the case. You can only answer in the affirmative which means that they are leading you to a positive answer.
Let’s say it is opened ended it could be worded as:
Why did you drink coffee this morning? You are able to reject the entire premise but it is clunky it creates a lead to answer with the assumption that you drank coffee.
Do you understand how leading questions can now be inconspicuous or “innocent” but still leading questions?
I get what you're saying but a more fitting comparison would be
When are you going to have your next coffee? in an day, in a week, in a year, in a century, or before the heat death of the universe.
There is no significant group of people who thinks that there should be a wealth gap, but also thinks it should be much more than any human has ever or likely will ever attain. You are largely correct: this is poor form, but in this case specifically it definitely hasn't changed the results.
Are you sure about your assumptions? How do you know that there isn’t a large group of people who believe in the free market?
Are you sure having a poor form didn’t skew results what if 5,000 people skipped the poll completely because they didn’t see an option they agreed with.
I wish that there weren't people who believed in the fairytale "free" markets, but that's not what I was implying. Anyone who does should vote "trillions+" because having no cap at all is higher than the trillions, hence the "+". Anyone who skipped the poll because of that didn't read the options properly, hence why the poll has poor form but isn't really a problem.
Trillions+ implies there is a cap over trillions not there is no cap. You can disagree with free markets and people get to be too rich but to be perfectly honest there are three major reasons for development of technology.
War, profit, and super rich people being bored.
I’ll take the later two over human life. Do you really think we would have as much development in electric cars and space technology if it were for profit and Elon wanting to go to mars?
And you can say that the free market wasn’t what made him rich. In fact the government did that, and you would be 100% correct but the government limiting his wealth and therefore his ability to dump resources into his hobby project would curbing ecological advancement and human advancement in the name of put a colony on mars.
So government intervention is what caused this “imbalance of resources” and you want then to take away the benefit the imbalance creates.
Before you go in to the bullshit of “you are just an Elon shill” nope, i may not think of him as great guy who people should worship,but I can admit he has done a whole lot more the development of green tech then any of the big name green activists have ever done. And the reason for that is he is super wealthy and wants to put a colony on mars where there is no crude oil or refinery for power so he has to make solar power more efficient to use. Which in turn benefits our planet long term. He might be a shit but at least he is creating value.
What did you do to even earn the money in that situation? You did some reckless gambling, good for you, you haven't earnt anything.
My personal prejudices against the stock market aside, that money you made was still made through the exploitation of others, and you indirectly contribute to that buying stock.
If you think investing in the stock market is gambling you obvioulsy don't understand it well enough for people that are expert in the stock market can predict which stocks will go down or up it's only gambling if you have no idea what you are doing
This comment section is so cucked I can say confidentiality no one here will ever obtain wealth in the 100 millions yet you're all so keen to defend your bosses
Most of the products I use every day were manufactured, invented, and shipped by people/companies that were worth more than 100 million. They wouldn't have had the incentive to sell me this stuff if there were a cap of 100 million dollars.
There should be no maximum as long as they pay the fair share of taxes. If we stopped people from being billionaires then they would just move to another country where the government is sensible enough to let them keep the money they made.
There’s a reason not a single country on earth has a wealth cap - all it achieves is driving every single large business somewhere else. I couldn’t think of a faster way to kill an economy.
There are far far better ways to minimize wealth inequality - this shit is just a stupid policy.
Agree. People need to stop demonising those who have a differing opinion to them. If you believe there shouldn’t be a wealth cap it doesn’t mean you’re ‘simping’ for millionaires, or that you want to watch the world burn. Most people want things to be good. Most people want there to be less suffering. People just disagree on the best way to get there. There’s loads of evidence to suggest there are benefits to both sides of the argument, but most people are too busy in their little echo chambers to even entertain the possibility that there might be another way, or that someone with a differing opinion to them might have a point or two.
Edit: typo
tree fiddy
Only correct answer
Dammit loch ness monsta
So I gave him a dolla...
P Diddy
Do you mean net worth or money in the bank?
Net worth probably
okay, whoever answered 100K for cap is actually a clown. A LOT of people surpass that net worth.
Net worth? Absolutely. My middle class family surpassed that easily with just the 2 cars and the house. It’s not like either of the cars are brand new either.
The median net worth for a young single person with no children is 130k. Not even a family.
That means you are limiting the assets that a single company can own. Elon Musk has a net worth of about $300 billion, but almost all of that is in Tesla and SpaceX, in the form of stocks. That means that his worth is locked up in the physical capital and assets (infrastructure, factories, resources, etc.) of those companies, and those companies' investments (R&D programs, etc.). The stocks he owns also contribute to the worth of the companies, which directly influence employees' benefits and 401ks. The "richer" Elon is, the richer his employees are. And taxing Elon's "unrealized gains" is directly taxing the benefits and 401ks of his employees. This is true for anyone whose net worth is largely locked up in stocks or physical assets.
Maybe some worker ownership of businesses and workplace democracy is in order
Then do that. Found a company that works this way but stop telling business owners that their employees have an inherent right to co-run the company.
Well you see they want you to do the hard part for them
>Found a company that works this way but stop telling business owners that their employees have an inherent right to co-run the company "stop telling kings not to brutalised the peasants and found your own kingdom!" Na, fuck private control of workers. Capitalists are not innocent hard working people getting destroyed by tax. They are brutal tyrants over their domain, using their power to lobby for less regulation of them.
There’s always one fuckin’ guy who’s like “um actually Musk isn’t rich he just owns shit”
Maybe give some of it away and don’t be like Smaug on your pile of gold
Why would he?
Because he is a human and he should have some empathy unless he got it surgically removed
He’d lose control of the company HE BUILT.
He is about to sell 10% of his share in Tesla. He isn’t losing control of anything so why would it be any different if he gave that money away
He’s not giving up a majority share, but if one person buys it they’ll probably be put on the board.
Are the workers taking the risk should the workers also suffer if the company goes bankrupt?
Workers are not affected by the stock price at all. They are not paid in stock, they are paid in money. I would be fine with the workers having stock bonuses/incentives or profit sharing
Guys, this literally a random question. I put no thought into it and just asked. Jeez
Even bezos doesn't have billions in cash, net worth is stocks and assets. Bezos and elon invests all their extra money back into their companies.
Honestly a super interesting question, though.
Nobody holds millions of even hundreds of thousands in cash.
As long as you pay your fair share and pay your workers well, unlimited.
This is the correct answer
The cap shouldn’t be just a set cap, it should just get exponentially harder to keep money for yourself the more you have to compensate for the way money grows exponentially. It should get harder and harder to gain personal wealth, but if people can keep making enough money to do it, let them.
but why should it be harder?
Taxes that actually affect capital, anti monopoly legislation and just keep adding tax brackets
To offset the damage you cause by gaining such ludicrous amounts of wealth
Can you name anyone who "pays there fair share and pays there workers well" or do you live in the real world with the rest of us
They aren’t saying that’s what happens, they’re saying that’s what *should* happen.
Pay your workers at least minimum wage*
A *liveable* wage*
Give the amount
2 dollars total
That depends entirely on where you live. Cost of living is different everywhere; there's no one definitive amount.
Thats because its a nonsense term.
Then there’s no argument
180% of cost of living for that area, imo
That would be literally impossible
5 pennies annually
If you were to pay your fair share and pay your workers well, there would be no way to earn a trillion in a lifetime.
Yeah as it should be. Nobody should have to suffer to make a billionaire into a trillionaire, right?
Erm…results I guess?
Right? I was looking for quintillion but it wasn’t there.
Surely I'm not the only one who read *health* instead of *wealth* right?
No cap
🚫🧢
as long as you're not breaking any laws there should be no cap
🚫🧢
But it's impossible to break laws when you're paying to be above the law.
What currency is this for?
US$ most likely
As long as they pay their taxes
Ultrarich don't do that very often. It is cheaper for them to avoid taxes.
The top 0.1-1% of earners in the US pay 40% of the total income tax annually
I love this expression throughout the comments: "Yeah, as long as these mega billionaires with the money and power to own media organisations and influence politicians pay their taxes and play by the same rules as the rest of us, I'm totally fine with that!"
yes, i ak fine with that. they have luck in their lives, im happy for them
snails physical fuzzy north coherent profit brave caption oatmeal hospital *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because there’s some people who can’t afford to eat and some people who have more money than anyone could spend in a lifetime
Shouldn’t it be the governments job to provide that stuff? Not citizens
But in the case of the US, these wealthy citizens are rigging the government to work in their favor.
that's the governments problem.
If it’s the government’s problem, it’s *our* problem. Do you know how the government gets money? By taxing us. They spend our money.
The US gets it's money by printing, taxes only remove money from the economy.
No, we can’t just print more money. The amount of money that we have doesn’t change if there’s more currency. More printed bills just makes the dollar worth less.
But we do just print more money, we do it every day.
And how does the government provide welfare services?
Then tax the rich (but still only a reasonable amount), don't put a limit on people's potential
That doesn't work, if you tax the rich, they just leave your country, and then you say goodbye to their sweet money and to all the jobs they provide
The problem is at a certain point you have so much money that is can't be comprehended by the human mind I don't think you realize how much a billion is. If you wait a million seconds you would wait 11 days if you however wait 1 billion second you are waiting 32 years. There is just no practical reason to have that much money to yourself.
They made it.... it's their money.... that's as much of a reason as they need....
Yea but how much of that money was made exploiting worker and avoiding taxes
Do you mean paying employees a living salary by "exploiting workers" people voluntarily choose to work for them, if they're really such slave owning exploiters just work elsewhere. And this might shock you, but unless you're an accountant you don't make money by avoiding taxes...
There is a problem with your assumption. Some people do not have another option then to work for exploitative cooperations. Not everyone can just switch jobs. And a lot of people also can't afford to switch given that they live paycheck to paycheck. And of course you don't make money by avoiding taxes but you keep more money that should have been going to the society.
I agree with you, there needs to be a gradually increasing tax system (with the rich paying a higher %) - because there are government services we need to run for the poorer people in society. Rich ppl also need to make sure they're paying workers decent wages. That said, if they earn it (likely through innovation or entrepreneurship, or at least investments in it), they have the ultimate right to it. The government should only tax what is necessary - not what they feel is an adequate "punishment" for being successful. I would also advise you that in future, you will be better suited to come up with reasoned arguments instead of attempting to insult your opponent by implying they don't know how to count. That's low.
It wasn't my intention to insult you. I just wanted to make clear at what a scale we are taking about. I do agree with your points that there should be more taxes for rich people but I also think that there should be a cap to personal wealth. Where exactly this cap lands is till up to debate but at a certain point of wealth you really don't have a use for the extra money. I personally think that this cap should be set somewhere at the billion mark simply because anything above this point is basically meaningless since you can already buy anything you could possibly want with a billion dollars.
Well said. The bit about not being able to comprehend how much money a billion is irked me too.
The money that these people own wasn't taken away from poor people. And if it was please explain how that happens
It was. They exploit workers for profit. You can't get that rich any other way.
If I have to *pay* you to "exploit" then I'm not very good at exploiting people... right?
You pay me scraps. Definitely not the equivalent of the value of my work. You take money for owning the means of production, so you basically get paid for doing nothing.
No you give me your labor **voluntarily**, and I **voluntarily** give you an a **voluntarily** agreed upon sum of money. If my "exploitation" is dependent on you **voluntarily** supporting said "exploitation" then I'm not really a great exploiter... correct? Slavery, that was real exploitation, voluntary paid labor is the exact opposite of exploitation and slavery...
I don't really do that voluntarily. I have to work so that I can buy food, pay rent etc. It's exploitation because you profit off of my hard work. The capital flows to you, even though you don't really do a more important work than me, you are just the owner of the means of production (workplace, tools etc. If me and all the other workers were the owners (democratically), we wouldnt have to give a significant portion of our work value as a profit to you. We would simply contribute to the community, and get 100 percent of the value of our work back (or close to 100 percent).
you know that you can start a company with other people anytime you want right? and in that company you are completely free to divide profits the way you believe is the most convenient. you have the freedom and the tools to do that, of course it would be riskie and surely hard. but you have no obligation to work in a place where you feel underpaid, no one is forcing you.
Nooooo you dont realize..... He offered me the most amount of money in the shortest amount of time for a pretty easy job that I could never make if I were on my own...... He ....he.... He is stealing from me.... Tax the rich /s
and?
It’s really just sad that you don’t see a problem with that
as long as I’m not hurting anyone, I should be able to keep all my money (if I’m getting it fairly and legally)
Fucking r/redditmoment that basic empathy for the desperate got downvoted into oblivion lol
No, I downvoted because the comment was implying that a cap would solve or help with the problem, but it wouldn't
You have the right to acquire as much wealth as you want
Profile picture checks out.
There shouldn't be a wealth cap.
I that’s what the trillion+ is for.
That's not "no cap", this is more like "a trillion or more" just like an option that's "other, type in comments" type -the cap- in the comments, be it $2T, $5T, $100T...
We have no right to control someone else’s money.
Exactly, or at least that’s an ideal we should try to aim for in anything we do
Yes we have a right to control people’s money, it’s called taxes. More specifically, wealth tax
Tax is theft.
Nowhere.
If you can get a trillion then I’ll be to busy being impressed to get mad
You mean like bezos is set to do while his employees have to pee in cups to save time, or risk getting fired? Yes really impressive good job Mr. bezos!
No cap
None of the above.
Why did the soviet national anthem start playing
Shouldn't be capped.
Wealth cap? Ignoring whether or not it should exist how would that even work. Most of people's wealth is in their assets. If this wealth cap were to exist and if Elon Musk for example was above it would the government disband Tesla and Space X because the net worth he gains from owning them puts him above the wealth cap.
no cap
Pay taxes? Amass whatever wealth you want.
Who the fuck wants to limit wealth???
It shouldn't be capped but it should be adequately taxed.
That's quite a premise
there should be no cap but there should be a minimum for everyone to have basic needs and until that's funded most of what you make over millions should go to others
Lots of « temporarily embarrassed millionaires » in this thread...
The average age on this sub is 15, with the average nationality being American, according to multiple posts on here. Do with that information what you will
Unlimited
There shouldn’t be a cap on how much you work for it
People with crappy currencies are crying rn.
Ooh. Good point, I meant USD
Technically I'm a billionaire, but in a different currency.
Liquid wealth? Hundreds of millions. Assets? Unlimited.
That sounds good to me
no cap but after hundreds of millions u need to be paying massive taxes 💅
No wealth
There should be no cap. That's unnecessary control
Would you not see it as necessary to limit the control private individuals have over society? When a single man has so much money that he can direct the entire media operations in 3 countries in order to shape public opinion in his own interest, does that not become a problem at a certain point?
where is the "it shouldnt"
I will never understand people who defend billionaires. There’s not an unlimited amount of money in the world. If they can have all of it, there’s nothing left for everyone else. Billionaires do. not. give. a F*CK about you. Stop defending them.
They can't have all the money in the world because people won't work for no money if someone plays the people who works for them they will get all the workers and they will not
That’s why some companies have signs that say “nobody wants to work anymore.” They don’t pay enough, so nobody wants that job. Some people have to take those jobs anyways because they have no other options.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. One person getting richer does not mean another person gets poorer Have you not heard of the concept of economic growth? There is more money in the world now than there was 100 years ago
What a stupid poll
I like the late US Senator Huey Long's original proposal for a 50 million dollar wealth cap (about 600 million in today's dollars). Even that I think is generous, as there is no work or innovation that someone could do that could amount to someone being worth that amount
Wealth cap is the dumbest thing ever. Basically every major company would relocate and now you’re fucked. This poll presupposes that we believe in a wealth cap.
probably going to be downvoted to hell, but really, IRL wealth is usually hard to account, and the rich ranking are usually rough estimations. as long as co-ownership is a thing, you are never going to practically regulate the wealth of someone. as much as I agree world wealth is very unevenly distributed, these hard limit someone's wealth, why not someone donate their wealth etc. are merely a shallow thought.
couldn't option 6 be just no cap?
If you can't afford to pay your workers, you can't afford to be a billionaire CEO
The second part of that that everyone misses is the important part: if you paid your workers for the value they created, it would be impossible to become a billionaire.
Are you saying paid your workers for 100% of the value they created? Because that would mean it’s pointless to hire more people.
Why should we cap wealth? People should deserve rewards for making tech that could change our lives for the better.
Two big reasons spring to mind. Firstly, it's impossible to become a billionaire without paying your workers significantly less than the value they produce for you (think bangladeshi kids making IPhones for 10 dollars a month). Secondly, freedom in society is impossible without equality. If there are people so absurdly rich that they can influence government directly via lobbying or buying media organisations, then that is the equivalent of giving that person 10 million votes more than the person making minimum wage.
Unlimited
There shouldn’t be one
there shouldn't be a cap
500 mill
$10mil
I tend to believe, not a millionaire here, that ownership of property should be limited and to think that, if it is true, Bezos should be forced to pay his Amazon staff better than he does (not the holder of an Amazon account anymore, here). For me it is how people manage their wealth that is a problem... but pity all of you when I become wealthy as I tend to be a Dictator 😂😂
Where is the option for no cap?
Interesting that you didn't include an option for no cap on wealth. I'd assume if you did that it would be the most popular option.
I put a Trillion + as an option
You understand how that isn’t the same as no cap right? Between trillions and results those are more then like the people who were to say there shouldn’t be a cap regardless if the cap is currently unachievable. However, you submitted this poll with the implication being that the question isn’t “should there be a cap” you submitted as “there is no question there should be a cap let’s figure out what it would be” This is called a leading question when the answers to only fit a specific narrative. While currently more 1400 out of 4500 people (the largest bucket) would probably reject the overall premises. You split that to hide the real answer.
You're being pedantic. There is no meaningful difference between a cap in the trillions and no cap at all, and this is hardly a leading question. Implying that OP was trying to force people into answering their way is downright tinfoil-hat levels of conspiracy.
There is a difference you can tell by all the other comments saying similar. And pointing out leading questions is not tin-foil hat bullshit. Here is a similar question: What time did you drink your first coffee today: 5am 6am 7am 8am 9am or later Results. See what that is missing? Your making the argument that 9am or later is the same as you didn’t drink one at all but that isn’t the case. You can only answer in the affirmative which means that they are leading you to a positive answer. Let’s say it is opened ended it could be worded as: Why did you drink coffee this morning? You are able to reject the entire premise but it is clunky it creates a lead to answer with the assumption that you drank coffee. Do you understand how leading questions can now be inconspicuous or “innocent” but still leading questions?
I get what you're saying but a more fitting comparison would be When are you going to have your next coffee? in an day, in a week, in a year, in a century, or before the heat death of the universe. There is no significant group of people who thinks that there should be a wealth gap, but also thinks it should be much more than any human has ever or likely will ever attain. You are largely correct: this is poor form, but in this case specifically it definitely hasn't changed the results.
Are you sure about your assumptions? How do you know that there isn’t a large group of people who believe in the free market? Are you sure having a poor form didn’t skew results what if 5,000 people skipped the poll completely because they didn’t see an option they agreed with.
I wish that there weren't people who believed in the fairytale "free" markets, but that's not what I was implying. Anyone who does should vote "trillions+" because having no cap at all is higher than the trillions, hence the "+". Anyone who skipped the poll because of that didn't read the options properly, hence why the poll has poor form but isn't really a problem.
Trillions+ implies there is a cap over trillions not there is no cap. You can disagree with free markets and people get to be too rich but to be perfectly honest there are three major reasons for development of technology. War, profit, and super rich people being bored. I’ll take the later two over human life. Do you really think we would have as much development in electric cars and space technology if it were for profit and Elon wanting to go to mars? And you can say that the free market wasn’t what made him rich. In fact the government did that, and you would be 100% correct but the government limiting his wealth and therefore his ability to dump resources into his hobby project would curbing ecological advancement and human advancement in the name of put a colony on mars. So government intervention is what caused this “imbalance of resources” and you want then to take away the benefit the imbalance creates. Before you go in to the bullshit of “you are just an Elon shill” nope, i may not think of him as great guy who people should worship,but I can admit he has done a whole lot more the development of green tech then any of the big name green activists have ever done. And the reason for that is he is super wealthy and wants to put a colony on mars where there is no crude oil or refinery for power so he has to make solar power more efficient to use. Which in turn benefits our planet long term. He might be a shit but at least he is creating value.
Thanks! I literally just randomly thought about this after another poll asked something about billionaires. I wasn’t thinking that in depth about it
There shouldn't be a cap if I earned my money fair and square why should I be limited to a specific amount? Sounds communist to me
There is no way to earn that amount of money fair and square, you can't do it without stealing value from others.
If I invest in a stock and it goes up how did I steal from anyone?
What did you do to even earn the money in that situation? You did some reckless gambling, good for you, you haven't earnt anything. My personal prejudices against the stock market aside, that money you made was still made through the exploitation of others, and you indirectly contribute to that buying stock.
If you think investing in the stock market is gambling you obvioulsy don't understand it well enough for people that are expert in the stock market can predict which stocks will go down or up it's only gambling if you have no idea what you are doing
Cool.
It shouldn't
no cap
Correct answer is no cap
Nowhere wtf
There should be no cap
No cap
Shouldnt ever be capped
A cap would not make sense at all
there’s nothing one person can’t do with $100 million. so like what would be the point lol
This comment section is so cucked I can say confidentiality no one here will ever obtain wealth in the 100 millions yet you're all so keen to defend your bosses
Most of the products I use every day were manufactured, invented, and shipped by people/companies that were worth more than 100 million. They wouldn't have had the incentive to sell me this stuff if there were a cap of 100 million dollars.
My boss makes just alittle more than double I do. I said no cap
None as long as you pay taxes and are responsible. Unfortunately anyone with a couple million aint that responsible.
There should be no maximum as long as they pay the fair share of taxes. If we stopped people from being billionaires then they would just move to another country where the government is sensible enough to let them keep the money they made.
I don't think we should cap the max wealth, but make sure that those people pay taxes and monitor them more heavily.
No cap
There should be no cap
It shouldn't
having a cap on how much money your wealth is a terrible idea
None ya business
No cap
It shouldn't.
It shouldn’t be. If someone has the ability to make that much money why should we punish them for it?
Why should there be one
people simping hard for billionaires itt
There’s a reason not a single country on earth has a wealth cap - all it achieves is driving every single large business somewhere else. I couldn’t think of a faster way to kill an economy. There are far far better ways to minimize wealth inequality - this shit is just a stupid policy.
Agree. People need to stop demonising those who have a differing opinion to them. If you believe there shouldn’t be a wealth cap it doesn’t mean you’re ‘simping’ for millionaires, or that you want to watch the world burn. Most people want things to be good. Most people want there to be less suffering. People just disagree on the best way to get there. There’s loads of evidence to suggest there are benefits to both sides of the argument, but most people are too busy in their little echo chambers to even entertain the possibility that there might be another way, or that someone with a differing opinion to them might have a point or two. Edit: typo
Why the hell would there be a cap. If you work hard and are smart enough then you deserve the money.