Ask HN: Should there be a cap on an individual's net worth? - bizdiz
======
vezycash
Sounds nice but unfair & would destroy the economy.

Unfair - Who takes the extra wealth? Politicians? Because they are honest and
aren't wasting public funds.

Wasting another person's money is the easiest thing in the world. If you're
married and are the bread winner, you'd understand.

It'll kill the economy because innovators, entrepreneurs will simply move
elsewhere.

Or worse, they'll limit their efforts to match the cap.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive)

Also see: The cobra effect

~~~
bizdiz
>> Sounds nice but unfair & would destroy the economy.

This is one of the possibility but not definite.

>> Unfair - Who takes the extra wealth? Politicians? Because they are honest
and aren't wasting public funds.

The maker of the wealth can still keep the extra wealth but not as his own net
worth or personal wealth and is not supposed to use it for his own benefits.
Like even 1% of the wealth beyond cap should not go for his own benefit and
instead should be forced to be used for the benefit of others.

LOL, no definitely not politicians, that would lead to the cobra effect.

Not suggesting simply one should hand over money above cap to others and
forget but just not simply keep benefiting from the wealth beyond cap. Like
making $1M and buy one home and then make $1B and then buy 25 homes. That
sounds unfair at a global scale for a small amount of unfair at individual
level.

>> Or worse, they'll limit their efforts to match the cap.

I don't think those who reach the cap would be narrow minded to limit below
cap and i think they would simply keep going beyond cap for the greater good
at least as they seem to project their image.

Why would they limit from cap, if they can find a way to make money they can
still keep making money. Only thing is they cant simply use it for their
personal benefit and all the money they make beyond cap should be used for
other's benefits, its not unfair because they did not make all their wealth on
their own individually, so many people bought products in amazon and supported
their business for example.

Even now the wealthy individuals seem to be making such investment for others
benefits in terms of charity but it seem to be a very personal choice which
they can deny at will or very less to make any meaningful impact or goes in a
skewed direction.

If such a rule is accepted globally, what would be a right number to set as
cap?

~~~
vezycash
>>Even now the wealthy individuals seem to be making such investment for
others benefits in terms of charity

You know charity is tax deductible right?

>Why would they limit from cap

This happened when France taxed people in higher income bracket

>This is one of the possibility but not definite

France's richest guy left the country. And France found it hard to attract
managerial talent.

>they cant simply use it for their personal benefit and all the money they
make beyond cap should be used for other's benefits

Sure. My cousin who doesn't bear my surname counts as "others" right. This
would be a nightmare to track if self administered. If the wealth is collected
by some TRUSTED party, same issue as I mentioned earlier - corruption.

------
CDCollier
Absolutely! Socialism, however, has its caveats and would destroy our current
expectations of an economy.

We should instead be teaching the populace to abandon self, and be providing
every single individual with sufficient means of survival for absolutely free:
clean housing, nutritious food, purified water, and abundant electricity.

The extras can then be earned by performing extra civil duties.

"There is no such thing as a free lunch" ... as long as individuals are
attached to their greed.

