The problem is that "contracts" aren't aimed at reaching morally just outcomes; they are generally not included at all. So the idea people have an extra-legal moral right to pre-tax income is fundamentally flawed. — Benkei

Why is it flawed? It could be that one has a moral right to some X but no legal right to it. Case in point: abortion in some countries.

Taxation is not a just acquisition or transfer. — NOS4A2

It is if Rawls' (or some other) theory is correct. See distributive justice for a more in-depth account.

It is if Rawls' (or some other) theory is correct. See distributive justice for a more in-depth account.

Naturally, I’m in the retributive justice camp myself.

I think there is a case for private billionaires as they are able to do things groups or governments cannot due to pressures of opinion.

There is something special in having a few people able to actually shake things up a little. Such as with Elon Musk.

I do wonder though whether or not people like him would be inhibited or not by caps on wealth? Guess we will never know (well, at least for a good few decades!).

How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? — Captain Homicide

Given that my "ideal society" consists in post-scarcity economic democracy, "wealth" would be measured only as personal reputation acquired by positively contributing to (A) excellence (i.e. singular performances, innovations, inventions, discoveries) in culture and/or (B) positivesum conflict resolutions, such that "the wealthiest person" at any time would be the one who is most esteemed (trusted?), or among a cohort of the most esteemed, by her society for service to the overall well-being (i.e. flourishing, sustainability) of her society.

I would refuse to answer how wealthy the wealthiest person should be without first being aware of how it came to be that this level of relative wealth was ensured.

Wealth is just the sum value of one's private property, and there's nothing inherently wrong with a person being wealthy. Under capitalism, important mechanisms are responsible for creating individuals with extreme wealth. Replacing these mechanisms to ensure people aren't too wealthy may have unintended consequences.

I would say that to allow capitalism to flourish, it'd be disastrous to limit wealth to just a few million. It must be several magnitudes higher than that.

The uber-rich may say that they need incentives to continue, and that's true, but certainly not incentives at the current level. There should be no cap, but it should become progressively harder and harder to build wealth beyond certain levels. These levels need to be far higher than a few million though.

I don't believe there should be a limit at all. The concern for me is the floor for everyone else. — Philosophim

Philosophim's comment is spot on and can serve as my conclusion.

According to service for humankind. Intelligence and work ethics.

Guess the richest guy or girl should be able to buy a kickass Mercedes and a Lambo, Have a nice villa of say 250m2 and one really nice or 2 pretty nice summer homes. Making say one travel yearly to an exotic place
Nothing more than that. No yatchs or private jets. And massive propaganda not to spoil kids but making them equal in opportunity save the gene material.

But when the lambo rolls down the street it would be accompanied by commoners taking their hats off and bowing in revere for someone that produces real miracles, not the fake miracles of Gods.

But Socrates really had a better suggestion sketched out 2k+Ys ago.

:up: I like it. A much more interesting frame.

How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?

Where would their wealth come from? — Captain Homicide

My ideal society would be orientated around a different value system to our own and the idea of personal wealth, in terms of money or belongings, would be obsolete. Access to decent housing, health services and good food would be available to all, with no special rules and privileges for some at the expense of a less privileged class.

:cool:

Probably nearly infinitely wealthy, since ideally we'd live in some sort of Star Trek, post-scarcity society where we can just replicate things, beam vast distances in an instant, and go on holodeck vacations.

I prefer to start at the other end, and set a lower limit on the wealth of the least wealthy. and that limit would be sufficient to be fed, clothed and housed according to the acceptable standards of the society such as is conducive to good health, and further enabled to participate in and contribute to that society. Only after that, if you need a 40 ft yacht and the resources are available, will I merely pity your psychological inadequacy.

Given that my "ideal society" consists in post-scarcity economic democracy — 180 Proof

To get to the tech level needed for post-scarcity, something like a profit-motive will have to exist.

So what's your point?

So what's your point? — 180 Proof

Profit and wealth would be hard to get rid of, even in a post scarcity society. While a scarcity of material goods wouldn't exist, a scarcity of services provided by humans would and people with wealth who are used to having enough money to pay for whatever services they want would be loathe to give up that wealth.

rather than stocks and owning the means of production and so on. — Captain Homicide

And so who owns them, and how does ownership come about, and even what is owning? Four examples: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, The Walton family. Consideration of these suggests that great wealth results from, is the reward for, great and successful effort - a combination of necessary factors.

The acquiring of great wealth, the possibility of acquiring it, would seem to be integral to the working of the system as a whole. So I submit that the important question is how much to tax, and on what basis. The Waltons, for example, have a combined wealth of between $500B and $1T. Invested in USTs at two percent, that yields at the least $10B per year. Most folks can live on that and even save something for a rainy day.

One approach: a long-term assets tax, active investments exempt. And the amount as a percentage would increase as the age of the asset and the amount. Details, no doubt many, to be worked out.

a scarcity of services provided by humans — RogueAI

Ubiquitous AI-automation would eliminate that "scarcity" (as it's already incrementally doing now).

When are the robots going to start making more land?

When are the robots going to start making more land? — unenlightened

Silly question. Besides generational migration to space habitats, thinning the human herd is much easier and more efficient. :smirk:

The object of a fair economic system should be to create a system where everyone can equally strive for and achieve success, with some of course performing better than others, and with no preset limits being set on the success you can achieve.

If I can build 20 birdhouses a day and you only 5, I'd be opposed to a law limiting my birdhouse building to 5 so we can all have the same amount.

And should I be required to give my extra birdhouses away for fairness' sake, I'm pretty sure I'd stop making surplus birdhouses and we'd just have less birdhouses.

Silly question. Besides generational migration to space habitats, thinning the human herd is much easier and more efficient. — 180 Proof

People like to have children, and like to have a bit of room, so it's a bit silly is to imagine an end to all shortage and limitation. Perhaps we will start building ring worlds?

If you say so ... :roll:

If it's true.