It really depends on the individuals in whose possession the wealth is concentrated.

What does this mean? If a wealthy individual blows their wad they stimulate the economy as well as x number of others (however many it takes to equal their wad blowing capability) they stimulate through consumption. If they invest they stimulate in another way. There is nothing inherently better about dividing money among many versus a few in economic terms.

What does this mean? If a wealthy individual blows their wad they stimulate the economy as well as x number of others (however many it takes to equal their wad blowing capability) they stimulate through consumption. If they invest they stimulate in another way. There is nothing inherently better about dividing money among many versus a few in economic terms.

What does this mean? If a wealthy individual blows their wad they stimulate the economy as well as x number of others (however many it takes to equal their wad blowing capability) they stimulate through consumption. If they invest they stimulate in another way. There is nothing inherently better about dividing money among many versus a few in economic terms.

Ok. You are speaking In terms of power not economics, which is a related though different thing.

The use of the pejorative “obscene” is interesting as it’s impossible to define in a collective sense. That is why, many years ago, in establishing the “community standards” approach to defining obscenity in pornography the Supreme Court gave up. Obscenity is likely in the eye of the beholder with respect to riches as well. Personally, I don’t see any amount of wealth as obscene.

And, as a witness to evil for decades now, I don’t see that riches are necessarily the progenitor of more evil acts or even intent. Certainly, riches can enable more intensity or number of bad acts but in my observation, and extensive study of history, quantity of money isn’t the issue. It is the desire for it at times that creates bad acts much more than the having of it.

Is life asymmetrical? Yes. We agree. Where would you draw the line? Who decides when you have enough? And when that’s been decided what happens?Do we expect those who are now prevented from further economic activity to stop participating in wealth creation or merely to do it for eleemosynary reasons. If the latter that’s naive. If the former it cuts off all other participants from the good produced in the creation of a robust economy.

The solution is not confiscation (which is the only practical means of wealth limitation) but insistence on adherence to community standards and moreys (translated into law). Find ways to enforce those standards rather than confiscate. To do otherwise is to undermine the engine of economic progress (in other words kill the proverbial golden goose).

Ok. You are speaking In terms of power not economics, which is a related though different thing.

Think George Soros

Tony,
So well said in the last few posts. There are Indians and Chiefs in this world. Some people want power, some money, some both. Some just keep score with $. Many don’t care at all about either. So many types of power. So many good things that can be done with both or either. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results though. “Equity” as defined recently is too political to talk about.

Stupidest thing the government ever did, doubtful, is to create the death tax. The effort that has been wasted finding ways to “Not” pay taxes over the years could have been spent on consumption or investment. My opinion is that without the death tax what “rich” or more accurately wealthy people, leave in trusts etc that keep it out of the IRS’s hands for years or forever often keep it so tied up that is is not used for investments or consumption. Decades pass. IE the $ would have been back in circulation must faster without the death tax which has been shown time after time. While not always true the old wealth advisor adage has truth to it “the first generation earns it, the 2nd spends it and the 3rd loses it”.

Seldom does that desire or ability to make or add to wealth follow in one family from generation to generation. That is OK. Much of success is working hard, being lucky with timing and that your skills matched the needs of the many.

Who would have ever believed Sam Walton would out perform K Mart at their own game with the lead they had? If you researched it back when the inheritance tax was only an idea some of the richest families got in front of that train wreck and protected their assets for years and years. Left to our own devices the world is a zero sum game over time, unless or until politicians get involved.

There is no such thing as a “death tax”. Estate taxes should be just short of confiscatory.
There is no green font here.

Jg

Taxes: It has never seemed reasonable to me that we are required to pull down our financial pants to our government every year. I have never understood why anyone should pay more than most everyone else to live here. I support a sales tax, or some other anonymous way (and the only way) of raising the money we need for government, which by my lights is a fraction of what we spend. Despise property tax, the ongoing rental of your home from the state.

I suspect if the US federal/state/local sales tax was 40%, WTP would become a lot more civic minded. As it is, with everything taxes at every stage, visible and invisible, it's easy to fall asleep on that one.

John, I agree with the first statement but certainly do not with the second. It is possible that I don’t understand what you mean and would welcome the opportunity to.

With that said I don’t believe concentrations of wealth are destructive to the economy. At least not in a macro sense (certainly, some personal economics change with wealth concentration). When wealth is concentrated it must be invested to maintain its value or time will degrade its value with inflation. This investment leads to economic growth not destruction. When wealth isn’t concentrated it is used for consumption. The consumption itself creates demand which stimulate the economy. So, from my understanding of economics both are valuable. Sucking money out of the economy to pay for bureaucratic regulation, beyond that required to create stable markets (and internal order and self defense which insure the survival of the economy), are destructive to economies.

We need both investment (concentration) and consumption to make economic growth happen. I’d argue that free markets do this better than other mechanisms (though many have tried, and continue to try, other methods based on attempts to control human behavior rather than allowing natural human behavior to express itself).

I think what your trying to say here is that socialism sucks.

Concentration of wealth is a sign of an honest and open economy, a natural outcome of differing abilities, ambitions and circumstances.

That some are able to buy politicians and guide policy is a separate matter altogether. The legislative process has been left wide open for influence and abuse. There should have been an armed citizen militia guarding over what gets done in the state houses since day one, reminding the elected of why they are there and why they are not there. And all tax legislation has to pass by Don F first.

There are now more than Ten Million words in the U.S. tax code and regulations. 90% of those words have been carefully drafted at the behest of lawyers and lobbyist working for the special interest groups of our society and paid for by the contributions to the PACs of our congress.

The abuses are not the exception, they are the norm, and fully supported by those flag waving capitalist supporters of our economic system because of their myopic view of the real consequences.

I applied for, and received, financing for a 515 apartment project 40 years ago. I got it "straight up" without paying off anyone. That market got hot and I could not get my second application to move forward. I contacted the head of the Mississippi Republican party as I thought there might be some "politics" in my way. I was directed to a gathering for a U.S. Senator where I could "talk" to him.

The gathering, held in the beautiful back yard/terrace of a Republican active, had about fifty in attendance. I came to find out that every one there was a 515 applicant. Without going into detail, I saw hundreds of thousands of dollars go directly into the hands, then coat pockets, of that senator. He would, every few minutes, disappear through a patio door into a bed room to empty his pockets.
Unlike some, I see the unbridled accumulation of wealth as the greatest threat to this country or any other. We have the best government money can buy. The inherited royalty of England destroyed that country. The accumulated wealth royalty of the U.S. will destroy us.

Jg

I'm with you in principle. That's why I've always been against inheritance tax, as it's confiscations of previous generations hard work. There should never be a limit on how much you can make and complete confiscation should never be even part of it. That's not freedom, and doesn't belong in the free market system. How are you expected to give it your all, if at a certain amount, it just gets taken? I can see no bigger dis-incentive to work hard.

But we do have a problem in just how much the management has pulled ahead of the worker here in the US. We have now eliminated the middle class. This is a huge problem and we're seeing already the cracks in the seams with all these workers simply stopping to work. I mean, here in LA, there is no minimum wage job that would ever cover your rent, let alone a living or a family. And what is the result of that - disillusion. They give up, they don't want to participate anymore. The solution to "work harder" only goes to 10 - it doesn't go to 11. There's gotta be a chance in there and if you remove that, you lose hope. I see it everywhere. We are at that crossroads right now.

So, hear me out for perhaps one solution - the thought of having a society without a stock market. Imagine if all companies had to have private funding and private owners - they'd be much more inclined in investing in things they care about, rather than just being faceless owners in it for one thing only. This, I suspect, would build companies slower, but perhaps with a smaller gap between worker and management, and with owners that are in it for the long run. More humane companies. More organic capitalism, like maybe it was 50 years ago. Yes, you couldn't get things like Amazon and Tesla that way (or maybe it would take avery long time), but is society really improved by having one flash-in-the-pan major player blow up in less than 2 years time? I don't think so. It's like steroids - it kills the host eventually.

I've often heard you can't finance companies without a stock market . But for every IPO, there's always a company going private each year, so obviously there is enough money even privately. I don't buy that.

The argument that a stock market is more democratized and allows the little investor to participate at the big guys table is really the only thin speaking for an open stock market. That is a strong argument.