How much wealth is it ok for a person or organization to have?

[keithnurse]

On another thread "Can a rich church or man get into heaven?" there are people asserting that it is wrong to have wealth. How much wealth do you think is ok for a person or organization to have? If you think there is a limit to the amount a person should have, where would you set the limit? and how would you enforce it? by government setting a limit on personal wealth? All of this, of course is assuming that the wealth you have was obtained legally and ethically and honestly. I don't think there should be any limit on how much wealth a person can have, it would be really bad to have government saying "you can't have more than, say $200,000 dollars, in your bank account". Of course we should help the poor and less fortunate but I don't think helping the poor means there is anything wrong with having as much wealth as you can get ethically. If a man is very successful in business at selling his product, after giving whatever he wants to help the poor, why shouldn't he be able to use his other money to put a swimming pool in his back yard if he wants to? or do anything else legal he sees fit with his money?

 

[whereismynotecard]

I would like communism, the real kind, where everyone works hard to help everyone else and everyone got a relatively nice house and whatnot, but that never works out in real life. Some people have huge houses and lots of cars, and they don't need all of that. And some people work just as hard-or even harder than the rich people their whole lives and can still barely afford to live. It just sucks. But, what are we going to do about it? Nothing. Oh well. That's just the way the cookie crumbles, eh?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would like communism, the real kind, where everyone works hard to help everyone else and everyone got a relatively nice house and whatnot, but that never works out in real life. Some people have huge houses and lots of cars, and they don't need all of that. And some people work just as hard-or even harder than the rich people their whole lives and can still barely afford to live. It just sucks. But, what are we going to do about it? Nothing. Oh well. That's just the way the cookie crumbles, eh?

Communism sounds great until one realizes that everyone doesn't work hard.

Stated like this, it's just another Eutopia.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Communism sounds great until one realizes that everyone doesn't work hard.

Stated like this, it's just another Eutopia.

Yeah. That's why it wouldn't work. But if everyone would help out equally, it would be great. If there are 1000 tasks to be done, and 20 people have to do all of them, it would take a while, but if 200 people helped out, it wouldn't take that long at all. It cannot happen, but it would be great if it could.

 

[keithnurse]

I think a better idea than communism is what they have in Sweden and other European countries: no limit on wealth, so you can soar as high as you possibly can but a social safety net to keep people from falling below a certain level in terms of housing, health care, etc.
If John down the street doesn't have a certain thing why should that mean that I can't have it?

 

[Magic Man]

I think a better idea than communism is what they have in Sweden and other European countries: no limit on wealth, so you can soar as high as you possibly can but a social safety net to keep people from falling below a certain level in terms of housing, health care, etc.
If John down the street doesn't have a certain thing why should that mean that I can't have it?

Indeed. Denmark is a great example. I don't think there should be any limit to the amount of wealth you can have, but the more you have, the more you should pay in taxes. For instance, the government shouldn't say "You can only have $200,000 in assets", but they should say "If you make over $500,00, you pay 50% in taxes".

 

[3.14]

wel apperently there are people who would be able to buy entire country's , so i say if you can buy a country or have a higher income then a country your to rich

 

[keithnurse]

wel apperently there are people who would be able to buy entire country's , so i say if you can buy a country or have a higher income then a country your to rich

If a person has more money than some countries I say to him/her "congratulations on your success, hopefully you got the money legally and ethically, now, how are you going to put that money to constructive good use for the good of humanity while making a nice profit for yourself?"

 

[3.14]

for example warren buffet: (62 billion)

If you exchanged the $62 billion for dollar bills the cash would carpet an estimated 595 square kilometers -- the same approximate area occupied by Baghdad.


gdp - Wolfram|Alpha

from the 231 countrys on the list only 64 have a higher gdp

 

[BucephalusBB]

No limit.. Control..
So actually something like keithnurse said

 

[Reverend Rick]

The United States is becoming a poor country. If you want to see real wealth, visit the UAE some time.

The problem with welfare is the same problem communism had. People figure out that they can get something for nothing. They value their idle time more than they do money. Communists pretend to work while the government pretends to pay them.

Limiting the amount of money one could have would shut down the economy. Why would anyone keep working for nothing? Anyone who thinks there should be a limit, just wants to encourage laziness.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I don't think there should be a limit to personal wealth but I do think that there should be percentage caps between corporate levels of employment. So the top level executive can't make 2000% more than the bottom level worker. That way, if the senior guys want to make more money they have to bring the people below them along with them.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't think there should be a limit to personal wealth but I do think that there should be percentage caps between corporate levels of employment. So the top level executive can't make 2000% more than the bottom level worker. That way, if the senior guys want to make more money they have to bring the people below them along with them.

Just another way of saying share the wealth.

Should a rich man pay more for a Big Mac than the rest of us? Then why would he have to pay his employees more than the local pay rate for the services they provide?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Just another way of saying share the wealth.

Should a rich man pay more for a Big Mac than the rest of us? Then why would he have to pay his employees more than the local pay rate for the services they provide?

Why should he give him self continual raises and not his employees? Share the wealth is right. As a company becomes more successful everyone should benefit from that success. To give monetary rewards only to the upper management while leaving the lower tiers scraping by is an abuse of the system.

 

[Magic Man]

The problem with welfare is the same problem communism had. People figure out that they can get something for nothing. They value their idle time more than they do money. Communists pretend to work while the government pretends to pay them.

I'm not sure what it's going to take to get it through your head. Yes, some people take advantage of welfare. Some people take advantage of everything that's out there. That doesn't mean those services are bad, it just means there is room for improvement.

Limiting the amount of money one could have would shut down the economy. Why would anyone keep working for nothing? Anyone who thinks there should be a limit, just wants to encourage laziness.

While I don't think there should be a limit, I think, as usual, you're exaggerating a bit. How many people who have over $5 million really work hard? I'm sure there are a few, but I'm guessing the percentage is somwhere below 8%. It's not exactly encouraging laziness to want a limit, although there are other reasons why I think it's not the way to go.

 

[keithnurse]

Why should he give him self continual raises and not his employees? Share the wealth is right. As a company becomes more successful everyone should benefit from that success. To give monetary rewards only to the upper management while leaving the lower tiers scraping by is an abuse of the system.

Bonuses and other compensation to the top execs and CEO should be tied to how well the company is doing, they get more if the company does well, they get less if the company does poorly. Unortunately that's not what happens in a lot of cases. The CEOs should not be rewarded for letting the company go down the tubes. Workers should be rewarded for good performance, not just because the executive got a raise.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Bonuses and other compensation to the top execs and CEO should be tied to how well the company is doing, they get more if the company does well, they get less if the company does poorly. Unortunately that's not what happens in a lot of cases. The CEOs should not be rewarded for letting the company go down the tubes. Workers should be rewarded for good performance, not just because the executive got a raise.

Yep, I agree. Workers should get rewards based on performance but the levels of rewards should all be tied together. Executives should not be able to give themselves raises beyond a percentage that the workers made. If they want to give all the executives raises that would put them at a level say 300% higher than there workers. I have to believe it means the workers have made enough money in the company to support that, meaning they need raises too. To often what happens is the workers are not given any rewards because it all goes to the executives.

 

[Alceste]

Imagine the whole population of the world is represented by a group of people sitting around a dinner table. There's enough food for everybody, but there's no more when that's gone. Everybody's got a spoon, and they are all dishing themselves up, but the spoons are all different sizes. Rick would argue that the guy who scoops fastest with the biggest spoon deserves all the food he can shovel onto his plate, even if it means somebody else with a slow arm and a tiny spoon gets none at all.

Now tell me, in a world where hundreds of thousands of children are starving to death and haven't got to pennies to rub together, how is it possible to accumulate millions or billions of dollars of personal wealth "ethically"?

 

[Smoke]

I don't think there should be any limit. If you get too out of control, the peasants will storm the castle.

However, the other thread didn't say it's wrong to be rich; it just said that -- according to Jesus -- it makes it very unlikely that you will be saved. Not exactly the same thing. If you don't care about what Jesus says, pile up all the wealth you want.

 

[Valjean]

Past an income of a couple hundred thousand dollars, there's really not much more, practically, that money can buy that isn't pure ostentation.

Mansions, expensive cars, private planes, lavish meals and parties, expensive clothes and accessories -- these don't enhance health, comfort, security or happiness. They're just showing off.
They're saying: "Look at me, I can afford to live in a huge house" (that's no more comfortable and considerably more difficult to keep up than a modest bungalow).
"I can afford a $5,000 suit, a $2,000 handbag or $100,000 necklace" (that's no better quality than what you can get in Sears or Tesco, or, in the case of jewelry, pure vanity).