My walking dream: a country with more millionaires and no billionaires. A country where anyone can be rich--and many are, but no one can be an oligarch. All it would take to get there is an individual wealth cap set at $100M with every dollar of wealth above that level taxed at 100%. I ask why not? And then I remember, we live in a count…
My walking dream: a country with more millionaires and no billionaires. A country where anyone can be rich--and many are, but no one can be an oligarch. All it would take to get there is an individual wealth cap set at $100M with every dollar of wealth above that level taxed at 100%. I ask why not? And then I remember, we live in a country full of bootlickers to billionaires who ask not what billionaires can do for them and instead ask what they can do for billionaires.
Yes, and I'll add that it's obscene that someone who throws a ball or sings can make 1000x more money than a researcher dedicating his career to combating childhood cancer. Sadly, this is not a problem with a 'top down" solution. Taxing 100% above $100M sounds nice, but won't work. The problem can only be solved if the "masses" radically change their priorities.
As a Jewish American, acutely aware of 4000 years of history, I would say that "survival is evidence of God's favor." And I'm not sure whether I'm being sarcastic.
Why do you think we need to punish success at all? Instead of stifling incentive and innovation, make the incentive more amenable to all. Before Reagan, there were CEO limits on pay; it couldn’t be higher than a certain percentage higher, than the average employee compensation.
If we incentivize CEO’s and other C-suite executives, then require all public companies to offer stock options to employees as well; based on the same formula; hence, everyone is incentivized to be as productive as possible.
But we don’t do it anymore (some do). Wall Street is the Wild West, and the Movie Wall Street epitomizes the state of our Union: GREED! And quite frankly, money is the ultimate incentive!
And with a SCOTUS, who continues to gut the administration state and doing the bidding of billionaires; we have unlimited money in elections, which corrupts all of our elected officials.
Actually, If we had a justice system that actually worked, with regulations that could actually be enforced; then we wouldn’t have to limit anyone’s pay.
Wishful thinking, I know! However, we had a system that worked post World War Two (New Deal 1933), which brought about the middle class and housing for the regular guy and gal (GI bill). Our problem is we lost our way, and got greedy; and that malignant tumor we now call Trump, is the inevitable result!
By the way, while thinking about Reagan, I realized that Reagan, Trump and John Wayne have something in common; all played strong, alpha male roles on TV and in the movies; yet, ironically none of them ever served their country, or risked anything; yet, each are the hero’s to millions.
It just goes to show that America was always an illusion. Whether it’s the “bright city upon a hill”, the country that fights for good; battling evil, or the great hero who saves the day, it’s always been more fantasy, than reality.
Yet, these are our national treasures. I’d prefer teachers, scientists, engineers, firemen and even law enforcement (for the most part), as well as artists, over money guys; any day. And I should know, I made my career on Wall Street, and I don’t miss it at all!…:)
It's not stifling incentives, it's preventing concentrations of power and reducing corruption. You can't donate $250M to a political campaign if your net worth is only $100. Plenty of incentive out there with a $100M wealth cap. Ask anyone who is worth even $50M if they feel successful and they will quickly tell you that they do. Ask anyone who doesn't already have $100M if they would like to have $100M someday and they will quickly tell you yes. The point is, $100M as a wealth cap is still *plenty* of incentive to succeed while at the same time preventing the establishment of oligarchs and reducing corruption.
If all it takes is ~$50M to live like a ridiculously rich celebrity, what incentive is there to have more than that beyond wanting power rather than luxury? There's a point of diminishing returns on decadence that starts after $100M or so and anyone who wants more than that is simply power-seeking and should be kept in check.
Travis, I agree with you, but my question is why limit anyone’s pay. We had regulations on Wall Street and in business that kept companies in check. We had a SCOTUS that limited money in politics. We had limits on executive pay above the average employee pay. So my point is that we don’t need to cap pay in order to achieve the goals that you seek. That said, we pretty much agree!
You can limit executive pay, and it’s definitely one way to go, but it’s not the root cause of the problem. And if $100 million was all anyone could make, we wouldn’t have progressed as much economically.
The amount of multi-million homes, yachts, high end cars, all brought to us from innovation. Innovation that wouldn’t exist without billionaires, because they are willing to be the test case or beta test for ideas and products that no one else can afford at first; however, as a result as the manufacturing process becomes more efficient, and can be produced at scale, the items or products will eventually become affordable to the average folk. Same goes for building high rises for retail.
For example, do you think anyone would invest in developing cellular phone technology, if they didn’t immediately have a market for the first iterations of the device?
Originally the technology came from DARPA (as did much of our technology at the time); this was before Silicon Valley. However, developing it for commercial use is different and expensive. The first cell phones cost four thousand dollars ($11k in today’s dollars), and $1 minute, local calls and a $50 dollar monthly fee ($700 a month in today’s dollars).
Another example is Musk. Innovators tend to be risk takers. Corporate types are not; hence, Apple and Tesla are two of the biggest corporations in the world by market capitalization, while AT&T is just another cellular phone company; one of “who care!”
Or look at Xerox; one time it was one of the most innovative companies in the world. They invented the interactive mouse; yet, because the bean counters in NY didn’t understand the technology or business applications of the device, they happily gave it to Steve Jobs, and the rest is history. No one knows who Xerox is anymore, but everyone in the world knows Apple.
My point, we need guys and billionaires like Musk for innovation the business world anyway. They are disruptors which is needed every once in a while. Corporate boards are risk adverse. And most of the time, innovation is forced on an industry, not the other way around. IBM would never have developed a PC, if it weren’t for Apple; At least not then. And if people were limited in making $100 million, most people would never take a risk like that; investing in a start up, especially back in the 60-70’s.
So if corporations tend to be conservative, it’s innovation that creates the paradigm shift; creating new markets and opportunities. And that takes people with a certain risk appetite and creative mind. And without the incentive of conquering the world, these people would cease to exist.
Billionaires like Musk and Thiel are like assholes (necessary evils). And although, we’d like to rid the world of them; in the end, we all need one. Otherwise, we’d all be full of shit!..:)
I'm talking about taxing wealth, not pay, so there's a big difference there.
You would still get innovation from all of these people who innovated if there was a $100M net worth cap because when people are innovating at the ground level they don't know whether or not they're going to get rich to begin with, and they would still take the risks for $100M because when they are at the ground level innovating the idea of eventually having $100M is part of that ceiling they are shooting for in the first place. Do you really think that tech innovators would simply cease to innovate when they're young and broke simply because the maximum rich they can get is "merely" $100M rich? Come on man....
“Do you really think that tech innovators would simply cease to innovate when they're young and broke simply because the maximum rich they can get is "merely" $100M rich? Come on man....”
No, I don’t think the innovators would cease to exist. I think the investor class; willing to invest in start ups, wouldn’t exist at the level we have today.
And for every unicorn, there’s a hundred Orphans. And without startups, we’d have very few millionaires. A lot of investors become rich because of guys like Gates and jobs. However, they would have never existed without them.
And I get your talking about wealth, not necessarily pay, but the two do go hand in hand. And there are two ways to become billionaires, build your own company, or become a CEO of a growth company with unlimited market opportunities.
That said, I wasn’t being critical of your position; I agree with you, and in no way am I defending billionaires. I feel the same way as you, but I do think they are a necessary evil. It’s just too bad most of them are sociopaths!
I don't see billionaires as a necessary evil. I think you have to be a sociopath by nature to be a billionaire because the only way someone gets that greedy in the first place is if something is wrong with them. Most people just want to be rich enough to live the best of life and not have to worry about things anymore. Billionaires are a different breed.
Startups can get funded via venture capital firms. They don't need individual billionaires to do that. Plenty of people start businesses without needing a leg up from a billionaire, the tech sector can go the same way frankly. If the juice is really worth the squeeze then Uncle Sam will invest into startups without the need for billionaires. The USG does this all the time with NSF/NIH grants among many other investment programs. Startups don't go away simply because billionaires do.
Fair enough: malignant sociopaths are a necessary evil…:). That said, I think we’re talking past each other, because I honestly agree with you, and respect your comments; however, every solution has negative consequences, which is what I am trying to point out.
And yes, start-ups can get financing from venture capitalists; but there’s a catch. These hedge funds are looking for a quick buck; not a longterm ROI on research and development. In many cases, they invest similar to your example with the NIH. Here’s the difference.
NIH grants at the university level, try to solve a problem with treatments, or try ways to cure a disease. However, once the research is in advanced state, it’s bought by a pharmaceutical company, who then puts up the trial money and conducts a real life study that peer reviewed. Here’s the catch though. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t looking for cures, they’re looking for a treatment, or drug therapy; lifelong patients, not a one time treatment.
And as for the venture capitalist funds, or other hedge funds, or private equity funds that invest in startups; it’s a similar model. They may see the technology as a solution to some sort of network or application issue, but can’t see the pig picture, or aren’t looking to invest in a longterm project. Therefore, they will direct their investments towards solving a particular problem; not the way a visionary would imagine his product or service; nor a desires for that narrow focus.
Hence, visionaries are usually kicked out before the company goes public, or is forced to hire an outside CEO (bean counter).
For example, Tesla in 2010, was leveraged to the hilt, and on the verge of bankruptcy. It was saved, ironically, by Obama. He signed into law a bill with a $7,500 credit for EV vehicles; making Musk the richest man in the world. Musk would literally be broke right now, if not for our commitment to fighting Global Warming. I guess the price of eggs for outweighs to future health of our planet; who would have thunk it. That said, do you honestly believe a venture capitalist fund would take that kind of risk? It’s a rhetorical question, no need to answer!…:)
Moreover, consider the 2007-8 housing bubble/market crash. There were at least four funds that I know of, who called the crash correctly, besides the ones that have gotten a lot of publicity. Two went under, the others forced to liquidate a portion of their bearish investments. These companies bought credit default swaps, which act like an insurance product, in which you pay premiums until the bond is about to default and you get paid. In addition, they also bought Long-Term Equity Anticipation Securities, or LEAP’s. They act like regular options, but their expiration is at least a year out. Bottom line; the funds were losing money in 2007, and their investors shut down the funds, and they had to sell at a loss. Get my point?
Have a great weekend and enjoy the Super Bowl!….:)
We could have a thriving tech industry in every small city, or we can have Amazon Cloud Services and Microsoft Office. This should be a very easy sell if we can get people to listen.
My walking dream: a country with more millionaires and no billionaires. A country where anyone can be rich--and many are, but no one can be an oligarch. All it would take to get there is an individual wealth cap set at $100M with every dollar of wealth above that level taxed at 100%. I ask why not? And then I remember, we live in a country full of bootlickers to billionaires who ask not what billionaires can do for them and instead ask what they can do for billionaires.
Yes, and I'll add that it's obscene that someone who throws a ball or sings can make 1000x more money than a researcher dedicating his career to combating childhood cancer. Sadly, this is not a problem with a 'top down" solution. Taxing 100% above $100M sounds nice, but won't work. The problem can only be solved if the "masses" radically change their priorities.
I’d settle for a country that just didn’t allow anyone to buy elections, and an IQ test for every civil servant and politician! Is that sooo wrong?…:)
Why do you want to punish success?!?!?! /s
Besides, that wealth is evidence of God’s favor. (and just so all know: /s)
As a Jewish American, acutely aware of 4000 years of history, I would say that "survival is evidence of God's favor." And I'm not sure whether I'm being sarcastic.
Depends what your definition of success is.
Democrats believe in raising the tide for all boats, Republicans believe in whomever has the biggest yacht wins.
Preventing concentrations of power and reducing corruption is not the same as punishing success ;-)
Why do you think we need to punish success at all? Instead of stifling incentive and innovation, make the incentive more amenable to all. Before Reagan, there were CEO limits on pay; it couldn’t be higher than a certain percentage higher, than the average employee compensation.
If we incentivize CEO’s and other C-suite executives, then require all public companies to offer stock options to employees as well; based on the same formula; hence, everyone is incentivized to be as productive as possible.
But we don’t do it anymore (some do). Wall Street is the Wild West, and the Movie Wall Street epitomizes the state of our Union: GREED! And quite frankly, money is the ultimate incentive!
And with a SCOTUS, who continues to gut the administration state and doing the bidding of billionaires; we have unlimited money in elections, which corrupts all of our elected officials.
Actually, If we had a justice system that actually worked, with regulations that could actually be enforced; then we wouldn’t have to limit anyone’s pay.
Wishful thinking, I know! However, we had a system that worked post World War Two (New Deal 1933), which brought about the middle class and housing for the regular guy and gal (GI bill). Our problem is we lost our way, and got greedy; and that malignant tumor we now call Trump, is the inevitable result!
By the way, while thinking about Reagan, I realized that Reagan, Trump and John Wayne have something in common; all played strong, alpha male roles on TV and in the movies; yet, ironically none of them ever served their country, or risked anything; yet, each are the hero’s to millions.
It just goes to show that America was always an illusion. Whether it’s the “bright city upon a hill”, the country that fights for good; battling evil, or the great hero who saves the day, it’s always been more fantasy, than reality.
Yet, these are our national treasures. I’d prefer teachers, scientists, engineers, firemen and even law enforcement (for the most part), as well as artists, over money guys; any day. And I should know, I made my career on Wall Street, and I don’t miss it at all!…:)
It's not stifling incentives, it's preventing concentrations of power and reducing corruption. You can't donate $250M to a political campaign if your net worth is only $100. Plenty of incentive out there with a $100M wealth cap. Ask anyone who is worth even $50M if they feel successful and they will quickly tell you that they do. Ask anyone who doesn't already have $100M if they would like to have $100M someday and they will quickly tell you yes. The point is, $100M as a wealth cap is still *plenty* of incentive to succeed while at the same time preventing the establishment of oligarchs and reducing corruption.
If all it takes is ~$50M to live like a ridiculously rich celebrity, what incentive is there to have more than that beyond wanting power rather than luxury? There's a point of diminishing returns on decadence that starts after $100M or so and anyone who wants more than that is simply power-seeking and should be kept in check.
Travis, I agree with you, but my question is why limit anyone’s pay. We had regulations on Wall Street and in business that kept companies in check. We had a SCOTUS that limited money in politics. We had limits on executive pay above the average employee pay. So my point is that we don’t need to cap pay in order to achieve the goals that you seek. That said, we pretty much agree!
You can limit executive pay, and it’s definitely one way to go, but it’s not the root cause of the problem. And if $100 million was all anyone could make, we wouldn’t have progressed as much economically.
The amount of multi-million homes, yachts, high end cars, all brought to us from innovation. Innovation that wouldn’t exist without billionaires, because they are willing to be the test case or beta test for ideas and products that no one else can afford at first; however, as a result as the manufacturing process becomes more efficient, and can be produced at scale, the items or products will eventually become affordable to the average folk. Same goes for building high rises for retail.
For example, do you think anyone would invest in developing cellular phone technology, if they didn’t immediately have a market for the first iterations of the device?
Originally the technology came from DARPA (as did much of our technology at the time); this was before Silicon Valley. However, developing it for commercial use is different and expensive. The first cell phones cost four thousand dollars ($11k in today’s dollars), and $1 minute, local calls and a $50 dollar monthly fee ($700 a month in today’s dollars).
Another example is Musk. Innovators tend to be risk takers. Corporate types are not; hence, Apple and Tesla are two of the biggest corporations in the world by market capitalization, while AT&T is just another cellular phone company; one of “who care!”
Or look at Xerox; one time it was one of the most innovative companies in the world. They invented the interactive mouse; yet, because the bean counters in NY didn’t understand the technology or business applications of the device, they happily gave it to Steve Jobs, and the rest is history. No one knows who Xerox is anymore, but everyone in the world knows Apple.
My point, we need guys and billionaires like Musk for innovation the business world anyway. They are disruptors which is needed every once in a while. Corporate boards are risk adverse. And most of the time, innovation is forced on an industry, not the other way around. IBM would never have developed a PC, if it weren’t for Apple; At least not then. And if people were limited in making $100 million, most people would never take a risk like that; investing in a start up, especially back in the 60-70’s.
So if corporations tend to be conservative, it’s innovation that creates the paradigm shift; creating new markets and opportunities. And that takes people with a certain risk appetite and creative mind. And without the incentive of conquering the world, these people would cease to exist.
Billionaires like Musk and Thiel are like assholes (necessary evils). And although, we’d like to rid the world of them; in the end, we all need one. Otherwise, we’d all be full of shit!..:)
I'm talking about taxing wealth, not pay, so there's a big difference there.
You would still get innovation from all of these people who innovated if there was a $100M net worth cap because when people are innovating at the ground level they don't know whether or not they're going to get rich to begin with, and they would still take the risks for $100M because when they are at the ground level innovating the idea of eventually having $100M is part of that ceiling they are shooting for in the first place. Do you really think that tech innovators would simply cease to innovate when they're young and broke simply because the maximum rich they can get is "merely" $100M rich? Come on man....
“Do you really think that tech innovators would simply cease to innovate when they're young and broke simply because the maximum rich they can get is "merely" $100M rich? Come on man....”
No, I don’t think the innovators would cease to exist. I think the investor class; willing to invest in start ups, wouldn’t exist at the level we have today.
And for every unicorn, there’s a hundred Orphans. And without startups, we’d have very few millionaires. A lot of investors become rich because of guys like Gates and jobs. However, they would have never existed without them.
And I get your talking about wealth, not necessarily pay, but the two do go hand in hand. And there are two ways to become billionaires, build your own company, or become a CEO of a growth company with unlimited market opportunities.
That said, I wasn’t being critical of your position; I agree with you, and in no way am I defending billionaires. I feel the same way as you, but I do think they are a necessary evil. It’s just too bad most of them are sociopaths!
I don't see billionaires as a necessary evil. I think you have to be a sociopath by nature to be a billionaire because the only way someone gets that greedy in the first place is if something is wrong with them. Most people just want to be rich enough to live the best of life and not have to worry about things anymore. Billionaires are a different breed.
Startups can get funded via venture capital firms. They don't need individual billionaires to do that. Plenty of people start businesses without needing a leg up from a billionaire, the tech sector can go the same way frankly. If the juice is really worth the squeeze then Uncle Sam will invest into startups without the need for billionaires. The USG does this all the time with NSF/NIH grants among many other investment programs. Startups don't go away simply because billionaires do.
Fair enough: malignant sociopaths are a necessary evil…:). That said, I think we’re talking past each other, because I honestly agree with you, and respect your comments; however, every solution has negative consequences, which is what I am trying to point out.
And yes, start-ups can get financing from venture capitalists; but there’s a catch. These hedge funds are looking for a quick buck; not a longterm ROI on research and development. In many cases, they invest similar to your example with the NIH. Here’s the difference.
NIH grants at the university level, try to solve a problem with treatments, or try ways to cure a disease. However, once the research is in advanced state, it’s bought by a pharmaceutical company, who then puts up the trial money and conducts a real life study that peer reviewed. Here’s the catch though. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t looking for cures, they’re looking for a treatment, or drug therapy; lifelong patients, not a one time treatment.
And as for the venture capitalist funds, or other hedge funds, or private equity funds that invest in startups; it’s a similar model. They may see the technology as a solution to some sort of network or application issue, but can’t see the pig picture, or aren’t looking to invest in a longterm project. Therefore, they will direct their investments towards solving a particular problem; not the way a visionary would imagine his product or service; nor a desires for that narrow focus.
Hence, visionaries are usually kicked out before the company goes public, or is forced to hire an outside CEO (bean counter).
For example, Tesla in 2010, was leveraged to the hilt, and on the verge of bankruptcy. It was saved, ironically, by Obama. He signed into law a bill with a $7,500 credit for EV vehicles; making Musk the richest man in the world. Musk would literally be broke right now, if not for our commitment to fighting Global Warming. I guess the price of eggs for outweighs to future health of our planet; who would have thunk it. That said, do you honestly believe a venture capitalist fund would take that kind of risk? It’s a rhetorical question, no need to answer!…:)
Moreover, consider the 2007-8 housing bubble/market crash. There were at least four funds that I know of, who called the crash correctly, besides the ones that have gotten a lot of publicity. Two went under, the others forced to liquidate a portion of their bearish investments. These companies bought credit default swaps, which act like an insurance product, in which you pay premiums until the bond is about to default and you get paid. In addition, they also bought Long-Term Equity Anticipation Securities, or LEAP’s. They act like regular options, but their expiration is at least a year out. Bottom line; the funds were losing money in 2007, and their investors shut down the funds, and they had to sell at a loss. Get my point?
Have a great weekend and enjoy the Super Bowl!….:)
An interesting back & forth gentlemen. It has me thinking…….and I like that.
Try explaining that to one of the bootlickers you identified. :)
Yea I know. Uphill battle.
That involves pushing a really big rock.
Well said ! May I quote you?
Go for it. I wish dems would use the "more millionaires, no billionaires" slogan as a way of showing that they're anti-oligarchy but not anti-rich.
We could have a thriving tech industry in every small city, or we can have Amazon Cloud Services and Microsoft Office. This should be a very easy sell if we can get people to listen.