The problem is that people think "wealth" just means money. Like the amount of wealth in society is just a count of how many dollars there are in society. That's not what wealth is. The vast majority of wealth that exists is in the form of valuable goods and properties: A diamond ring. A car. A house. A business. Anything that can be sold for money is wealth. That's why your net worth is an accounting of everything you own according to its resale value plus whatever cash you have in the bank, rather than just whatever cash you have in the bank. Elon Musk for example. They say he's going to be the first trillionaire. That doesn't mean he has a trillion dollars in the bank. He doesn't. Not even close. That net worth means he owns a trillion dollars worth of stuff - Tesla, SpaceX etc etc.
    

So where the amount of "wealth" in society is measure of how much valuable stuff there is in society, when Tesla rolls a car off of the assembly line and sells it for $50k, they've literally just created $50k of new wealth and added it to the economy (granted it's a car meaning it'll depreciate in value over time, it's still worth whatever its resale value is at any given moment). Yes, Tesla is going to briefly take $50k of cash out of the economy when they accept payment for it, but most for that $50k is going to go right back out the door as wages for their employees who are in turn going to spend it on something else and so forth. So the amount of money in the economy doesn't change, but the amount of wealth in society goes up by $50k. That happens every time someone manufactures a new car, or builds a new house, or mines a new diamond. New wealth is being created and pumped into the economy by these businesses every day.
     

The net effect of all of this new wealth being constantly pumped into society is that there's simply more to go around which means the average standard of living increases (even if unevenly for different people). This is the rising tide that lifts all boats and it's the exact reason why capitalism is the most successful system in terms of lifting everyone's standard of living, even where some are permitted to get filthy rich - because wealth is not zero sum when new wealth can be generated out of thin air by anyone with the means and motivation to do it.
      

So what does this have to do with personal wealth caps: The amount of personal wealth a business owner accumulates for himself is a function of how much new wealth he's generated and pumped into society. He's innovating and creating things people want to buy because he wants to get filthy rich. That is the incentive that motivates all the Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steves Jobs, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison types. They do it to get rich.
     

So (and this is the important part) by imposing a wealth tax on those entrepreneurs, wherever you draw that line, that's where those entrepreneurs are going to stop innovating, stop making new things people want to buy and in turn stop generating new wealth and pumping it into society. They'll stop doing that because there's no more incentive for them to continue. It's now just a cost with no benefit to them, so they quit. Sure you've stopped one individual from getting any richer, but the real effect is that you've stopped all that new wealth being created and pumped into society which puts a drag on everyone else's standard of living. The gratification you get from knowing that one guy won't get any richer is nothing compared to the economic detriment you've imposed on society by shutting off all that new wealth creation. It's not worth it, and that's why we don't put caps on personal wealth. You just have to accept that it's better for everyone to allow one guy to get filthy rich in order facilitate that rising tide that raises everyone's standard of living than it is to score a petty "fuck you" against that rich guy.
      

Oh and before anyone suggests lifting all boats by dividing Elons' personal wealth (i.e. all of his business holdings) equally among the people, this has actually been tried before and it doesn't work. That's the literal definition of communism.

The problem is that people think "wealth" just means money. Like the amount of wealth in society is just a count of how many dollars there are in society. That's not what wealth is. The vast majority of wealth that exists is in the form of valuable goods and properties: A diamond ring. A car. A house. A business. Anything that can be sold for money is wealth. That's why your net worth is an accounting of everything you own according to its resale value plus whatever cash you have in the bank, rather than just whatever cash have in the bank. For instance they're saying Elon Musk is going to be the first trillionaire. That doesn't mean he has a trillion dollars in the bank. He doesn't. Not even close. That net worth means he owns a trillion dollars worth of stuff - Tesla, SpaceX etc etc.
   

So where the amount of "wealth" in society is measure of how much valuable stuff there is in society, when Tesla rolls a car off of the assembly line and sells it for $50k, they've literally just created $50k of new wealth and added it to the economy (granted it's a car meaning it'll depreciate in value over time, it's still worth whatever its resale value is at any given moment). Yes, Tesla is going to briefly take $50k out of the economy when they accept payment for it, but most for that $50k is going to go right back out the door as wages for their employees who are in turn going to spend it on something else and so forth. So the amount of money in the economy doesn't change, but the amount of wealth in society goes up by $50k. That happens every time someone manufactures a new car, or builds a new house, or mines a new diamond. New wealth is being created and pumped into the economy by these businesses every day.
   

The net effect of all of this new wealth being constantly pumped into society is that there's simply more to go around which means the average standard of living increases. This is the rising tide that lifts all ships and it's the exact reason why capitalism is the most successful system in terms of lifting everyone's standard of living, even where some are permitted to get filthy rich - because wealth is not zero sum when new wealth can be generated out of thin air by anyone with the means and motivation to do it.
   

So what does this have to do with personal wealth caps: The amount of personal wealth a business owner accumulates for himself is a function of how much new wealth he's generated and pumped into society. He's innovating and creating things people want to buy because he wants to get filthy rich. That is the incentive that motivates all the Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steves Jobs, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison types. They wanted to get rich.
   

So by imposing a wealth tax on those entrepreneurs, wherever you draw that line, that's where those entrepreneurs are going to stop innovating, stop making new things people want to buy and in turn stop generating new wealth and pumping it into society. They'll stop doing that because there's no more incentive for them to continue. It's now just a cost with no benefit to them, so they quit. Sure you've stopped one individual from getting any richer, but the real effect is that you've stopped all that new wealth being created and pumped into society which puts a drag on everyone else's standard of living. The gratification you get from knowing that one guy won't get any richer is nothing compared to the economic detriment you've imposed on society by shutting off all that new wealth creation. It's not worth it, and that's why we don't put caps on personal wealth. You just have to accept that it's better for everyone to allow one guy to get filthy rich in order facilitate that rising tide that raises everyone's standard of living than it is to score a petty "fuck you" against that rich guy.
   

Oh and before anyone suggests lifting all ships by dividing Elons' personal wealth (i.e. all of his business holdings) equally among the people, this has actually been tried before and it doesn't work. That's the literal definition of communism.

The problem is that people think "wealth" just means money. Like the amount of wealth in society is just a count of how many dollars there are in society. That's not what wealth is. The vast majority of wealth that exists is in the form of valuable goods and properties: A diamond ring. A car. A house. A business. Anything that can be sold for money is wealth. That's why your net worth is an accounting of everything you own according to its resale value plus whatever cash you have in the bank, rather than just whatever cash have in the bank. For instance they're saying Elon Musk is going to be the first trillionaire. That doesn't mean he has a trillion dollars in the bank. He doesn't. Not even close. That net worth means he owns a trillion dollars worth of stuff - Tesla, SpaceX etc etc.
 

So where the amount of "wealth" in society is measure of how much valuable stuff there is in society, when Tesla rolls a car off of the assembly line and sells it for $50k, they've literally just created $50k of new wealth and added it to the economy (granted it's a car meaning it'll depreciate in value over time, it's still worth whatever its resale value is at any given moment). Yes, Tesla is going to briefly take $50k out of the economy when they accept payment for it, but most for that $50k is going to go right back out the door as wages for their employees who are in turn going to spend it on something else and so forth. So the amount of money in the economy doesn't change, but the amount of wealth in society goes up by $50k. That happens every time someone manufactures a new car, or builds a new house, or mines a new diamond. New wealth is being created and pumped into the economy by these businesses every day.

The net effect of all of this new wealth being constantly pumped into society is that there's simply more to go around which means the average standard of living increases. This is the rising tide that lifts all ships and it's the exact reason why capitalism is the most successful system in terms of lifting everyone's standard of living, even where some are permitted to get filthy rich - because wealth is not zero sum when new wealth can be generated out of thin air by anyone with the means and motivation to do it.

So what does this have to do with personal wealth caps: The amount of personal wealth a business owner accumulates for himself is a function of how much new wealth he's generated and pumped into society. He's innovating and creating things people want to buy because he wants to get filthy rich. That is the incentive that motivates all the Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steves Jobs, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison types. They wanted to get rich.

So by imposing a wealth tax on those entrepreneurs, wherever you draw that line, that's where those entrepreneurs are going to stop innovating, stop making new things people want to buy and in turn stop generating new wealth and pumping it into society. They'll stop doing that because there's no more incentive for them to continue. It's now just a cost with no benefit to them, so they quit. Sure you've stopped one individual from getting any richer, but the real effect is that you've stopped all that new wealth being created and pumped into society which puts a drag on everyone else's standard of living. The gratification you get from knowing that one guy won't get any richer is nothing compared to the economic detriment you've imposed on society by shutting off all that new wealth creation. It's not worth it, and that's why we don't put caps on personal wealth. You just have to accept that it's better for everyone to allow one guy to get filthy rich in order facilitate that rising tide that raises everyone's standard of living than it is to score a petty "fuck you" against that rich guy.

Oh and before anyone suggests lifting all ships by dividing Elons' personal wealth (i.e. all of his business holdings) equally among the people, this has actually been tried before and it doesn't work. That's the literal definition of communism.

The problem is that people think "wealth" just means money. Like the amount of wealth in society is just a count of how many dollars there are in society. That's not what wealth is. The vast majority of wealth that exists is in the form of valuable goods and properties: A diamond ring. A car. A house. A business. Anything that can be sold for money is wealth. That's why your net worth is an accounting of everything you own according to its resale value plus whatever cash you have in the bank, rather than just whatever cash have in the bank. For instance they're saying Elon Musk is going to be the first trillionaire. That doesn't mean he has a trillion dollars in the bank. He doesn't. Not even close. That net worth means he owns a trillion dollars worth of stuff - Tesla, SpaceX etc etc.

So where the amount of "wealth" in society is measure of how much valuable stuff there is in society, when Tesla rolls a car off of the assembly line and sells it for $50k, they've literally just created $50k of new wealth and added it to the economy (granted it's a car meaning it'll depreciate in value over time, it's still worth whatever its resale value is at any given moment). Yes, Tesla is going to briefly take $50k out of the economy when they accept payment for it, but most for that $50k is going to go right back out the door as wages for their employees who are in turn going to spend it on something else and so forth. So the amount of money in the economy doesn't change, but the amount of wealth in society goes up by $50k. That happens every time someone manufactures a new car, or builds a new house, or mines a new diamond. New wealth is being created and pumped into the economy by these businesses every day.

The net effect of all of this new wealth being constantly pumped into society is that there's simply more to go around which means the average standard of living increases. This is the rising tide that lifts all ships and it's the exact reason why capitalism is the most successful system in terms of lifting everyone's standard of living, even where some are permitted to get filthy rich - because wealth is not zero sum when new wealth can be generated out of thin air by anyone with the means and motivation to do it.

So what does this have to do with personal wealth caps: The amount of personal wealth a business owner accumulates for himself is a function of how much new wealth he's generated and pumped into society. He's innovating and creating things people want to buy because he wants to get filthy rich. That is the incentive that motivates all the Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steves Jobs, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison types. They wanted to get rich.

So by imposing a wealth tax on those entrepreneurs, wherever you draw that line, that's where those entrepreneurs are going to stop innovating, stop making new things people want to buy and in turn stop generating new wealth and pumping it into society. They'll stop doing that because there's no more incentive for them to continue. It's now just a cost with no benefit to them, so they quit. Sure you've stopped one individual from getting any richer, but the real effect is that you've stopped all that new wealth being created and pumped into society which puts a drag on everyone else's standard of living. The gratification you get from knowing that one guy won't get any richer is nothing compared to the economic detriment you've imposed on society by shutting off all that new wealth creation. It's not worth it, and that's why we don't put caps on personal wealth. You just have to accept that it's better for everyone to allow one guy to get filthy rich in order facilitate that rising tide that raises everyone's standard of living than it is to score a petty "fuck you" against that rich guy.

Oh and before anyone suggests lifting all ships by dividing Elons' personal wealth (i.e. all of his business holdings) equally among the people, this has actually been tried before and it doesn't work. That's the literal definition of communism.

The problem is that people think "wealth" just means money. Like the amount of wealth in society is just a count of how many dollars there are in society. That's not what wealth is. The vast majority of wealth that exists is in the form of valuable goods and properties: A diamond ring. A car. A house. A business. Anything that can be sold for money is wealth. That's why your net worth is an accounting of everything you own according to its resale value plus whatever cash you have in the bank, rather than just whatever cash have in the bank. For instance they're saying Elon Musk is going to be the first trillionaire. That doesn't mean he has a trillion dollars in the bank. He doesn't. Not even close. That net worth means he owns a trillion dollars worth of stuff - Tesla, SpaceX etc etc.

So where the amount of "wealth" in society is measure of how much valuable stuff there is in society, when Tesla rolls a car off of the assembly line and sells it for $50k, they've literally just created $50k of new wealth and added it to the economy (granted it's a car meaning it'll depreciate in value over time, it's still worth whatever its resale value is at any given moment). Yes, Tesla is going to briefly take $50k out of the economy when they accept payment for it, but most for that $50k is going to go right back out the door as wages for their employees who are in turn going to spend it on something else and so forth. So the amount of money in the economy doesn't change, but the amount of wealth in society goes up by $50k. That happens every time someone manufactures a new car, or builds a new house, or mines a new diamond. New wealth is being created and pumped into the economy by these businesses every day.

The net effect of all of this new wealth being constantly pumped into society is that there's simply more to go around which means the average standard of living increases. This is the rising tide that lifts all ships and it's the exact reason why capitalism is the most successful system in terms of lifting everyone's standard of living, even where some are permitted to get filthy rich - because wealth is not zero sum when new wealth can be generated out of thin air by anyone with the means and motivation to do it.

So what does this have to do with personal wealth caps: The amount of personal wealth a business owner accumulates for himself is a function of how much new wealth he's generated and pumped into society. He's innovating and creating things people want to buy because he wants to get filthy rich. That is the incentive that motivates all the Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steves Jobs, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison types. They wanted to get rich.

So by imposing a wealth tax on those entrepreneurs, wherever you draw that line, that's where those entrepreneurs are going to stop innovating, stop making new things people want to buy and in turn stop generating new wealth and pumping it into society. They'll stop doing that because there's no more incentive for them to continue. It's now just a cost with no benefit to them, so they quit. Sure you've stopped one individual from getting any richer, but the real effect is that you've stopped all that new wealth being created and pumped into society which puts a drag on everyone else's standard of living. The gratification you get from knowing that one guy won't get any richer is nothing compared to the economic detriment you've imposed on society by shutting off all that new wealth creation. It's not worth it, and that's why we don't put caps on personal wealth. You just have to accept that it's better for everyone to allow one guy to get filthy rich in order facilitate that rising tide that raises everyone's standard of living than it is to score a petty "fuck you" against that rich guy.

Oh and before anyone suggests lifting all ships by dividing Elons' personal wealth (i.e. all of his business holdings) equally among the people, this has actually been tried before and it doesn't work. That's the literal definition of communism.

The problem is that people think "wealth" just means money. Like the amount of wealth in society is just a count of how many dollars there are in society. That's not what wealth is. The vast majority of wealth that exists is in the form of valuable goods and properties: A diamond ring. A car. A house. A business. Anything that can be sold for money is wealth. That's why your net worth is an accounting of everything you own according to its resale value plus whatever cash you have in the bank, rather than just whatever cash have in the bank. for instance they're saying Elon Musk is going to be the first trillionaire. That doesn't mean he has a trillion dollars in the bank. He doesn't. Not even close. That net worth means he owns a trillion dollars worth of stuff - Tesla, SpaceX etc etc.

So where the amount of "wealth" in society is measure of how much valuable stuff there is in society, when Tesla rolls a car off of the assembly line and sells it for $50k, they've literally just created $50k of new wealth and added it to the economy (granted it's a car meaning it'll depreciate in value over time, it's still worth whatever its resale value is at any given moment). Yes, Tesla is going to briefly take $50k out of the economy when they accept payment for it, but most for that $50k is going to go right back out the door as wages for their employees who are in turn going to spend it on something else and so forth. So the amount of money in the economy doesn't change, but the amount of wealth in society goes up by $50k. That happens every time someone manufactures a new car, or builds a new house, or mines a new diamond. New wealth is being created and pumped into the economy by these businesses every day.

The net effect of all of this new wealth being constantly pumped into society is that there's simply more to go around which means the average standard of living increases. This is the rising tide that lifts all ships and it's the exact reason why capitalism is the most successful system in terms of lifting everyone's standard of living, even where some are permitted to get filthy rich - because wealth is not zero sum when new wealth can be generated out of thin air by anyone with the means and motivation to do it.

So what does this have to do with personal wealth caps: The amount of personal wealth a business owner accumulates for himself is a function of how much new wealth he's generated and pumped into society. He's innovating and creating things people want to buy because he wants to get filthy rich. That is the incentive that motivates all the Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steves Jobs, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison types. They wanted to get rich.

So by imposing a wealth tax on those entrepreneurs, wherever you draw that line, that's where those entrepreneurs are going to stop innovating, stop making new things people want to buy and in turn stop generating new wealth and pumping it into society. They'll stop doing that because there's no more incentive for them to continue. It's now just a cost with no benefit to them, so they quit. Sure you've stopped one individual from getting any richer, but the real effect is that you've stopped all that new wealth being created and pumped into society which puts a drag on everyone else's standard of living. The gratification you get from knowing that one guy won't get any richer is nothing compared to the economic detriment you've imposed on society by shutting off all that new wealth creation. It's not worth it, and that's why we don't put caps on personal wealth. You just have to accept that it's better for everyone to allow one guy to get filthy rich in order facilitate that rising tide that raises everyone's standard of living than it is to score a petty "fuck you" against that rich guy.

Oh and before anyone suggests lifting all ships by dividing Elons' personal wealth (i.e. all of his business holdings) equally among the people, this has actually been tried before and it doesn't work. That's the literal definition of communism.