Impose A $20-million Limit On Accumulated Personal Assets!

[MikeK]

In the interest of preserving the strength and social integrity of the American Nation I propose that in addition to an equitably progressive tax rate a limit of $20,000,000 (twenty-million dollars) be imposed on all personal assets and that any assets in excess of that amount be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service. This would ensure the continued ability to acquire and retain reasonable personal wealth while eliminating the harmful potential of excessive wealth and the emergence of a financial aristocracy which could operate to undermine the nature of our democratic republic.

In addition to the above, I propose that laws be enacted to finance all federal and state elections with public money and that no candidate or elected official be permitted to accept any form of contribution or gift, whether money or anything of value, from any constituent, political supporter or other person or entity. The only exception being acceptance of ordinary and unexceptional gifts from relatives or close personal friends. Any violation of this proscription shall be subject to severe criminal penalties.

I think this is an extremely bad idea.

Okay. Why?

I'd never support the Democrats if they supported this.

The Democrats never would. Which is why I want to see the Socialist Party gain some ground here. It's needed far more than the average American knows.

 

[Wicked Jester]

In the interest of preserving the strength and social integrity of the American Nation I propose that in addition to an equitably progressive tax rate a limit of $20,000,000 (twenty-million dollars) be imposed on all personal assets and that any assets in excess of that amount be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service. This would ensure the continued ability to acquire and retain reasonable personal wealth while eliminating the harmful potential of excessive wealth and the emergence of a financial aristocracy which could operate to undermine the nature of our democratic republic.

In addition to the above, I propose that laws be enacted to finance all federal and state elections with public money and that no candidate or elected official be permitted to accept any form of contribution or gift, whether money or anything of value, from any constituent, political supporter or other person or entity. The only exception being acceptance of ordinary and unexceptional gifts from relatives or close personal friends. Any violation of this proscription shall be subject to severe criminal penalties.

I think this is an extremely bad idea.

Okay. Why?

I'd never support the Democrats if they supported this.

The Democrats never would. Which is why I want to see the Socialist Party gain some ground here. It's needed far more than the average American knows.

You truly are an anti-american pissant.

No wonder you called for politicians in Wisconsin to be dragged from their homes in front of their families, and tortured.

 

[Toro]

...Toilet paper.A family of 4 will be allowed 1 roll per week....

Democrat's have actually proposed that one. Makes me wonder how many of the others are already in the works too....

You're kidding ...

 

[Toro]

In the interest of preserving the strength and social integrity of the American Nation I propose that in addition to an equitably progressive tax rate a limit of $20,000,000 (twenty-million dollars) be imposed on all personal assets and that any assets in excess of that amount be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service. This would ensure the continued ability to acquire and retain reasonable personal wealth while eliminating the harmful potential of excessive wealth and the emergence of a financial aristocracy which could operate to undermine the nature of our democratic republic.

In addition to the above, I propose that laws be enacted to finance all federal and state elections with public money and that no candidate or elected official be permitted to accept any form of contribution or gift, whether money or anything of value, from any constituent, political supporter or other person or entity. The only exception being acceptance of ordinary and unexceptional gifts from relatives or close personal friends. Any violation of this proscription shall be subject to severe criminal penalties.

I think this is an extremely bad idea.

Okay. Why?

What incentive is there to build a business?

Businesses are what creates jobs. Enterprise value of $20 million is nothing. You would wipe out the stock market - and trillions of dollars of wealth - completely.

Doesn't seem particularly wise.

 

[Toro]

[...]Does that apply to corporations and businesses? Or do you support economically raping individuals and encouraging the hoarding of wealth by businesses? Because if you don't think this thru -- It's gonna look more like Idiocracy than Socialist Nirvana?

Or am I expecting too much thought on your part?

It applies to personal assets, which are the fuel of greed. If you own and control a multi-billion dollar corporation your personal assets are limited to $20 million. So you might as well turn over the business to someone else, retire and enjoy your $20-million lifestyle.

Dude, do you know how naive this is?

I'm not sure what you mean by "personal assets," but all but maybe 20 or 30 billionaires in this country don't have personal assets of $20 million, whereby personal assets are assets other than ownership in businesses. And almost all above $20 million is in personal real estate. So to avoid that cap, people just wouldn't buy a third or fourth house, at least not in America.

Any two-bit accountant could find a way around this.

 

[Toro]

One thing you should consider is how many of the super-rich of the Gilded Age bugged out when FDR imposed a 91% tax on them? The answer is none. Why do you suppose that is?

Because they found all sorts of ways to get around the tax laws.

 

[Liability]

The gubmint that has the authority and power to say "$20,000,000.00 and no more!"

is also the gubmint that might, tomorrow, say, "$5,000,000.00 and no more!"

but then the next year change it's mind again and then say, "$500,000.00. That's plenty. No more."

And of course, somewhere down that road, you might find the same gubmint saying, "You don't have a right to any accumulated wealth, you greedy individual fuckers!"

If you value personal liberty, then you have to disagree with the absurd contention expressed in the OP.

It is flatly ridiculous claptrap.

 

[flacaltenn]

Guess it's one year and out for all these guys...

SI.com - The Fortunate 50

No one can touch Tiger Woods, the runaway No. 1 for the fifth year in a row. Tiger's near $128 million haul is more than double his closest pursuer, Phil Mickelson at $62.4 million. As usual, hoops dominates the 50: More than half this year's list is made up of NBA players. There are 10 baseball players, seven football players, three NASCAR drivers, three golfers and one boxer -- and yet zero women.

I know --- no room for sports heroes in the Socialist paradise. They will be replaced with Govt sponsored athletes taken from their parents at an early age.. I guess that'll have to do til the "one child" policy kicks in "to save the planet" and cut down on Govt expenses for entitlements.

It's all mute anyway since NO ONE will be able to afford to own a major sports franchise, a race car team, or even a golf course.
Those are all so burgeoise anyway ain't they?

 

[martybegan]

Guess it's one year and out for all these guys...

SI.com - The Fortunate 50

No one can touch Tiger Woods, the runaway No. 1 for the fifth year in a row. Tiger's near $128 million haul is more than double his closest pursuer, Phil Mickelson at $62.4 million. As usual, hoops dominates the 50: More than half this year's list is made up of NBA players. There are 10 baseball players, seven football players, three NASCAR drivers, three golfers and one boxer -- and yet zero women.

I know --- no room for sports heroes in the Socialist paradise. They will be replaced with Govt sponsored athletes taken from their parents at an early age.. I guess that'll have to do til the "one child" policy kicks in "to save the planet" and cut down on Govt expenses for entitlements.

It's all mute anyway since NO ONE will be able to afford to own a major sports franchise, a race car team, or even a golf course.
Those are all so burgeoise anyway ain't they?

For people like MikeK they think that what will happen is that the money will magically be redistributed to the masses, elevating everyone to a grand level of existance.

What they don't realize is that SOMEONE has to make sure people don't keep all that money, and the ones who make sure of that would probably be pretty good at keeping it themselves. You would basically be trading in one ruling class for another, except this one has all the guns.

 

[flacaltenn]

What happens in the long run Marty is no one PARTICIPATES in ventures that exceed $20Mill. Leaving nothing left to confiscate.

Kinda like trying to fund state healthcare progs from tobacco taxes while you're actively working to cut tobacco consumption.. That's pure economic genius right there.. Taxes go up and up.. Consumption tanks, blackmarkets thrive, and sick people have less financing than they did before.

All you've done is deprive society of the breadth and depth to take on big ventures and big ideas..
And in this case -- folks learn to stash wealth in corporations and LLCs and other structures that can't be raided. Thus solidifying the corporate fascism that Mussolini only dreamed of.. Great job Mikey. When can we get started??

 

[Middleoftheroad]

I've tried several times to find the right words to respond to the OP but i'm just dumbfounded. In a capitalist society it can't work, even in a socialist society it can't work. The only society it could work in is something closely resembling communism. I love small business and feel that the current tax code favors corporations more then small business, BUT (and its a big but), do you have any idea how much it takes to start a car manufacturing company? Just look at the recent history of Tesla. I'm not going to bother to look up the numbers, but my guess is that so far they have invested close to, if not over 1B dollars. And they are tiny. I think next year they are supposed to be manufacturing a couple thousand cars. They are too small to compete on the international market. American companies need the means to compete with foreign companies, and sometimes that takes billions, upon billions. Unless you just want to relinquish buying any major product from a foreign nation, I'm sure that will do the economy WONDERS (sarcasm intended)

 

[westwall]

Gee, Mike...what WOULD the country's billionaires do if any legislative body were to pass such an utterly stupid law? I'll give you a hint, Sparky. Since most of them already have residences in other parts of the world you'd see an exodus of billionaires and their money from the US that would reach biblical proportions. Who would then support the roughly 50% of Americans that don't pay any income tax?

You don't really think any of this stuff through...do you, Mike?

If you believe absconding is that easy it's you who isn't thinking.

One thing you should consider is how many of the super-rich of the Gilded Age bugged out when FDR imposed a 91% tax on them? The answer is none. Why do you suppose that is?

Next question is where would they go? What countries do you know of where billionaires enjoy the kind of protections and accommodation by government as they do here? But let's not just assume that getting away would be as simple as you seem to think it might.

Aside from the fact that there presently is such a thing as an exit tax for expatriating individuals and corporations, if something as radical as the proposed confiscation were enacted let's assume it would be accompanied by equally radical measures to prevent unencumbered bug-outs. Measures such as frozen assets and expediently suspended passports, etc.

After all, we are talking about a radical change in policy.

Long before your dream law was enacted everything of value would be out of this country.
All art to speak of (save what was in museums of course), car collections gone, aircraft collections gone, basically most things of value would disappear. Mansions would be burned to keep them from falling into the hands of the mindless mob and finally the people who actually know how to do stuff would bid sayonara and wait for the fires to burn themselves out and the idiots to be dead and then they would come back and start fresh.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Comrade MikeK, you fucking coward - answer the question:


In 1980, the average life expectancy was _____ Now it has dropped to _____

In 1980, the average home size was _____ Now it has dropped to _____

In 1980, the average family had _____ cars; Now it has dropped to _____

In 1980, the average family had _____ televisions; Now it has dropped to _____

In 1980, the average family ate out _____ times per week; Now it has dropped to _____


You made an allegation, are you acknowledging that you were flat out lying? Are you confirming that you are a lying, socialist fuck?

 

[Trajan]

In the interest of preserving the strength and social integrity of the American Nation I propose that in addition to an equitably progressive tax rate a limit of $20,000,000 (twenty-million dollars) be imposed on all personal assets and that any assets in excess of that amount be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service. This would ensure the continued ability to acquire and retain reasonable personal wealth while eliminating the harmful potential of excessive wealth and the emergence of a financial aristocracy which could operate to undermine the nature of our democratic republic.

In addition to the above, I propose that laws be enacted to finance all federal and state elections with public money and that no candidate or elected official be permitted to accept any form of contribution or gift, whether money or anything of value, from any constituent, political supporter or other person or entity. The only exception being acceptance of ordinary and unexceptional gifts from relatives or close personal friends. Any violation of this proscription shall be subject to severe criminal penalties.

we? I thought you said you were from Australia?

anyway, impose limits on wealth? would you like a red hanky to go along with your red diaper to dry your tears of raging envy?

 

[kwc57]

I've tried several times to find the right words to respond to the OP but i'm just dumbfounded. In a capitalist society it can't work, even in a socialist society it can't work. The only society it could work in is something closely resembling communism. I love small business and feel that the current tax code favors corporations more then small business, BUT (and its a big but), do you have any idea how much it takes to start a car manufacturing company? Just look at the recent history of Tesla. I'm not going to bother to look up the numbers, but my guess is that so far they have invested close to, if not over 1B dollars. And they are tiny. I think next year they are supposed to be manufacturing a couple thousand cars. They are too small to compete on the international market. American companies need the means to compete with foreign companies, and sometimes that takes billions, upon billions. Unless you just want to relinquish buying any major product from a foreign nation, I'm sure that will do the economy WONDERS (sarcasm intended)

Not to worry. In comrade Mikey's world, the state who confiscated all of the wealth over $20,000,000 would own Tesla.

 

[expat_panama]

...Toilet paper.A family of 4 will be allowed 1 roll per week....

Democrat's have actually proposed that one. Makes me wonder how many of the others are already in the works too....

You're kidding ...

It was about a year ago, some Dem. Solon was calling for a limit to how many squares of TP used for one-ing it and two-ing it, men vs. women, etc. It was gross.

 

[expat_panama]

Democrat's have actually proposed that one. Makes me wonder how many of the others are already in the works too....

You're kidding ...

Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use

By Lynn Davidson | April 22, 2007 | 20:35

I think I might know the reason that Karl Rove didn’t want Sheryl Crow touching him. He’s read her blog, and he knows where her hand has been. What is it with these environmentalists and scatology? First there was “The Year Without Toilet Paper” in the New York Times, and now this. Muzak-friendly pop-rocker, Sheryl Crow and “An Inconvenient Truth” producer and private-jet aficionado Laurie David are on a cross-country college speaking tour to promote the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Crow is blogging her experiences at the Huffington Post, and this time, she really came up with a Duesey (emphasis mine throughout).

Apparently, Crow wants to save the Earth one toilet paper square at a time. She proposed “a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting” and perhaps “just washing that one square out.” She doesn’t seem to want to pass a law, just culturally berate us into obedience. Here is Crow’s “easy way” to be part of the solution to anthropogenic global warming:

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

I’d like to say she was kidding, but based on other global warming “solutions,” it is hard to tell. Wacky ideas abound. A man-made volcano shooting sulfur into the air, giant “space umbrellas” and even getting rid of toilets so we can compost our own waste in a box underneath the sink.

So, when Crow said that instead of paper napkins, we use a detachable “dining sleeve” on specially designed clothes to wipe the mouth:

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

Sounds nutty, but it is any different than space suits keeping cow farts from killing Mother Earth or counting on UFO's to prevent global warming?

It’s too hard to tell when environmentalists are kidding. I’m not even sure if they know. One thing I do know is that the recent push of environmentalism into common culture is no accident. David told the Guardian that after the 2004 elections, she vowed to devote a year to “changing the national debate about global warming.” She exposed her methods with one revealing quote from a conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr, “We need to infiltrate popular culture!” That they did. I just hope that while they are infiltrating, they use hand sanitizer.

Read more: Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use | NewsBusters.org

 

[kwc57]

Democrat's have actually proposed that one. Makes me wonder how many of the others are already in the works too....

You're kidding ...

It was about a year ago, some Dem. Solon was calling for a limit to how many squares of TP used for one-ing it and two-ing it, men vs. women, etc. It was gross.

How To Wipe Your Butt | A Practical Step-By-Step Guide to Keeping a Clean Behind

 

[KissMy]

Impose A $20-million Limit On Accumulated Personal Assets!

So you want to drive our world class inventers & business founders to foreign countries because you are to impatient to wait for their money they make from all the other countries of the world to trickle down here in the USA?

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Willis Haviland Carrier, Henry Ford & Elon Musk would have left this country under your stupid plan.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In the interest of preserving the strength and social integrity of the American Nation I propose that in addition to an equitably progressive tax rate a limit of $20,000,000 (twenty-million dollars) be imposed on all personal assets and that any assets in excess of that amount be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service. This would ensure the continued ability to acquire and retain reasonable personal wealth while eliminating the harmful potential of excessive wealth and the emergence of a financial aristocracy which could operate to undermine the nature of our democratic republic.

In addition to the above, I propose that laws be enacted to finance all federal and state elections with public money and that no candidate or elected official be permitted to accept any form of contribution or gift, whether money or anything of value, from any constituent, political supporter or other person or entity. The only exception being acceptance of ordinary and unexceptional gifts from relatives or close personal friends. Any violation of this proscription shall be subject to severe criminal penalties.

Wow. That's more liberal than Huey Long. He first proposed capping personal fortunes at $50,000,000 each - in the 1930's. That's over half a billion in today's dollars. Then he revised his figure to 5 mil (probably after someone told him there weren't enough 50 millionaires to add up to much) - but that's still 60 mil in today's money.


$20,000,000 is a lot of INCOME but its not as much in ASSETS as you might think - at today's interest rates, with 20,000,000 in a savings account, you'd barely bring home 250k a year - a good living and some would say rich even, but by no means filthy rich.



How would you even work out such a cap in practice? What if I buy a $10,000,000 apartment complex. 10 years later, it appreciates in value to $25,000,000 - so I have to give 1/5th of it to the IRS - but then say next year my $20,000,000 in value left drops to $5,000,000 in a market crash?

Not to mention the ease of hiding assets. You can dig a whole and bury a ton of gold in it and no one might ever find it.