Why don't we force wealthy people to give us more of their money?

[Bonam]

Give it a few decades, and you'll be as jaded as me.

Oh, I have no shortage of jadedness. Have you been following the Obama NASA budget fiasco at all?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Remiel]

I am glad you made the reference to the Kardaschev scale. I'd like to see us keep advancing on that scale, among others.

On a more technical note, is solar energy that reaches the Earth counted as part of the energy output of the Earth or the energy output of the Sun for the purposes of the scale?

I am not sure if it was Kardaschev's estimate or someone elses, but there was a suggestion that we could reach Level 1 by 2100... Though I am kind of skeptical about that. Supposedly we currently use only about 0.16% of the Earth's energy output.

The estimate for Level 2 though... was 11000 and change.

[Bonam]

On a more technical note, is solar energy that reaches the Earth counted as part of the energy output of the Earth or the energy output of the Sun for the purposes of the scale?

I am not sure if it was Kardaschev's estimate or someone elses, but there was a suggestion that we could reach Level 1 by 2100... Though I am kind of skeptical about that. Supposedly we currently use only about 0.16% of the Earth's energy output.

The estimate for Level 2 though... was 11000 and change.

The Energy that reaches the Earth from the Sun is "Earth's energy output" for the purposes of the Kardaschev scale. That is, a level 1 civilization is one that uses 1.7x10¹⁷ W. A level 2 civilization uses all the energy from the star (like if you completely surrounded the star to harness 100% of all the energy it emits), that is, about 4x10²⁶ W in the case of the sun. A level 3 civilization uses all the energy from the galaxy, that is, about 10³⁷ W.

Personally I think we'll reach level 1 well before 2100, barring catastrophic collapse of technological civilization.

By the way, it should be noted, that certain devices created by humans already function at levels of power that would put us at higher levels on the scale, though only for very short lengths of time.

For example, when the NIF lasers discharge, they do so at a power of 0.4x10¹⁷, that's like 0.99 on the scale. When a large thermonuclear device is detonated, the power released is 5x10²⁴ W, which is around the 1.9 range on the scale.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Remiel]

The scale, however, really means, " equivalent " to though, does it not? Because we cannot capture alls of Earth's energy without killing off every other living species, really. Capturing all the energy of the Sun might be doable if a dyson sphere were actually possible. But literally capturing all the energy of a galaxy... I doubt it could be done. I would bet some phenomena just preclude capturing their energy... And I would also imagine putting a dyson sphere around every star would have weird consequences...

[Bonam]

The scale, however, really means, " equivalent " to though, does it not? Because we cannot capture alls of Earth's energy without killing off every other living species, really. Capturing all the energy of the Sun might be doable if a dyson sphere were actually possible. But literally capturing all the energy of a galaxy... I doubt it could be done. I would bet some phenomena just preclude capturing their energy... And I would also imagine putting a dyson sphere around every star would have weird consequences...

Yes, of course, it is the equivalent energy. The planet/star/galaxy thing is just a convenient progression, that each happen to be separated by about 10 orders of magnitude.

Though once civilizations pass level 1 and change, harnessing the energy of stars and other cosmic phenomena directly seems to make the most sense. I mean, you can build fusion reactors or something, but why, the galaxy already has 100 billion ready made fusion reactors. Galaxies with active galactic nuclei would also considerably simplify (or at least centralize) the process of collecting galactic quantities of energy. With civilizations in the 2.5+ range such structures could potentially be artificially constructed and harnessed... and who knows what other presently unfathomable sources of energy may by then be discovered. Among other things, we still have no good explanations for the nature of dark matter, nor even the first clue about "dark energy", which together constitute about 97% of the mass-energy of the universe, with matter that is familiar to us comprising only 3%.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Oleg Bach]

REAL wealthy people do not look at money the way we common people do - money is not the issue - POWER and control is the issue for them - and you are asking them to give you power - That is not going to happen.

[WIP]

Of course they can. The energy we are producing and using now is as nothing to the energy available. Consider just solar energy, the Earth alone is constantly exposed to ~170,000 TW of solar energy. All of human civilization, in comparison, uses just ~15 TW of energy. Then consider deep geothermal energy, the Earth's core and mantle contain vast and untapped reservoirs of heat. Then consider fusion energy, which is coming closer to technological fruition through projects such as ITER and NIF as well as hundreds of smaller labs. Then consider all the energy available from the Sun itself. The Sun produces 4x10²⁶ W, 13 orders of magnitude more energy than we utilize.

We are not in danger of running out of available energy sources.

I am glad you made the reference to the Kardaschev scale. I'd like to see us keep advancing on that scale, among others.

This not just a matter of energy, even if it was possible for us to hog all of the solar energy reaching the earth.......how much of that are you planning to set aside for plant-based photosynthesis? Or do you think that humans can exist separate and apart from any other living organisms? I would argue that we still don't have any idea how much we are dependent on the biosphere for our continued survival, so it is reckless and stupid to just go ahead and plunder it to keep adding to our already oversized population and increasing waste of natural resources. Besides all that, this planet isn't growing any larger, so the resources that come out of the ground are a finite resource.

[WIP]

Oil is an energy source that will be play a smaller and smaller role over the coming decades as other technologies take its place, precious metals are available in vast abundance that we have not yet begun to tap both on Earth, on asteroids, and on other planes in our system. Water can be desalinated from the oceans using existing technology. Where you see problems and wars, the "rational realist" sees technical solutions.

These grand schemes of exploiting asteroids and massive desalination projects to irrigate the deserts of the world have been around for more than 50 years. But how practical are they? They are still in the realm of science fiction. In the meantime we have the real world problems of overpopulation and overconsumption. The "rational realist" is just another name for scientific triumphalism -- your religion apparently, and one that is based on blind faith that future technological innovations will come along just in time to save our ass and allow us to continue on a course of endless expansion.

[Moonlight Graham]

Sorry for not responding to this thread of mine earlier.

My main purpose of this thread was to not propose some kind of new system of grander wealth redistribution. There are obviously many complexities that would come with doing such a thing, & in reality would have many repercussions such as driving businesses out of the country thus hurting said countries' economy, among others.

The MAIN purpose of this thread was to ask WHY we (people in rich western nations) don't, or historically have chosen not to, force the most wealthy of people (ie: let's say people worth a billion dollars or more or maybe the top 1%) to give the average person much more of their wealth (through taxes or whatnot)?

It's clear westerners living in liberal democracies value the basic tenets of capitalism & the freedom of being rewarded for smarts/ability/hard work. However, i would think that human nature being what it is (ie: people being ultimately self-regarding/selfish) that the majority of people in any "western" country - aka those making 5-figures or less - would much rather scrap such idealism in favour of forcing the extremely wealthy to transfer enough wealth to them to add maybe the equivalent of a year's income to each person's net worth.

I mean, why do most people value the right of billionaires to keep such massive amounts of wealth over the chance to attain much more wealth for themselves? It just seems odd to me. So i also want to ask this question to everyone:

Ignoring the possible economic consequences for a given country implementing high taxes to the rich etc., if you had to choose between 1) billionaires having the freedom of keeping their billions OR 2) enacting tax laws forcing billionaires to give up most of their wealth (yet still keeping hundreds of millions for themselves) and you personally receiving a cheque for, say, $100,000...which would you honestly choose?

(BTW I'm not talking communism here, or even a hard "cap" on wealth. People would still all earn different wages & economic classes will still exist, & the very rich can still earn as much as they are able, but they will just be taxed much greater.)

Edited August 14, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

....Ignoring the possible economic consequences for a given country implementing high taxes to the rich etc., if you had to choose between 1) billionaires having the freedom of keeping their billions OR 2) enacting tax laws forcing billionaires to give up most of their wealth (yet still keeping hundreds of millions for themselves) and you personally receiving a cheque for, say, $100,000...which would you honestly choose?

Neither, as your proposal is dead on arrival and unworkable. Why do you have a fantasy about bilking millionaires just because of inherited or amassed wealth? Do you think such wealth is "immoral"? And extending your fantasy further, why should you get the $100,000? What is this business about "forcing billionaires" to do anything? Very odd...

(BTW I'm not talking communism here, or even a hard "cap" on wealth. People would still all earn different wages & economic classes will still exist, & the very rich can still earn as much as they are able, but they will just be taxed much greater.)

Sure...not communism...just outright theft! Good luck with that.

Edited August 14, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

Neither, as your proposal is dead on arrival and unworkable.

No, you actually answered my question. You clearly choose option 1), aka the status quo. That's a perfectly valid opinion.

Sure...not communism...just outright theft! Good luck with that.

Theft involves breaking the law, Robin Hood-style. It's not theft if it is done through legal means with consent of "the people".

I have built a small island in the mid-Atlantic where the currency is hugs, lollipops grow instead of grass, and unhappiness and depression don't exist because it's illegal. I invite you to join us!

Edited August 14, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Ratio]

I'm talking very wealthy people by the way. IE: let's say people who have over 50 to 100 million in assets.

It seems to me ridiculous that the vast majority of all people, aka those who are not insanely wealthy, do not force the wealthy to be taxed much more and have the extra wealth transferred to them. The non-wealthy majority (whom i assume includes virtually everyone on these forums) have the power to do it, so why don't we? Are we stupid? Does the average joe feel that somebody who is worth over a billion dollars legitimately deserves their riches due to their smarts and hard work? If anyone does believe this...WHY??? Who gives a crap about the rich? Give me most of your money, i'll let you keep about 100 million and you will still be laughing inside your 10 yachts and 5 mansions, and now maybe i can afford a mansion of my own and we'll all be laughing.

So WHY? Why in the world do we let them keep their money? Do you think they deserve it? If people are ultimately self-regarding (which i believe), why do the masses deny themselves more money they can readily have?

Personally, i'm inclined to say F the billionaires. Distribute most of these billions to the worker bees, many of whom work just as hard if not harder than the queen bees to keep the honey flowing.

I'm not a communist, i'm simply asking questions & thinking aloud. Certainly Marx was a brilliant thinker, but had many flawed ideas as well. The revolution of the proletariat he predicted obviously never happened. Marx may not have underestimated the intelligence, greed, and manipulativeness of the elite, but rather overestimated the intelligence of the proletariat. Are we so apathetic, naive, and sedate to put up with getting rammed in the buttocks?

Money is power. It controls the economic & political systems. I am absolutely tired of watching the little people, the many, get screwed by the wealthy/elites in infinite ways. Maybe if the elites had less money, and we had more, the power systems of the world would become a little more equal & "democratic".

I think that people shouldnt be allowed to have more then 500 000 dollars... really do you need more?

stop the greed stop the hate.

we should have our government take all exceesive wealth to give a boost for social programs for immigrants who REALLY need it.

But of course, rich people are often racist... and wont be gtiving up their wealth, eventually the people will take it!

[bush_cheney2004]

....But of course, rich people are often racist... and wont be gtiving up their wealth, eventually the people will take it!

Well hell, then all the rich people would just kill all the poor people. Eff them.....

[Bonam]

Ignoring the possible economic consequences for a given country implementing high taxes to the rich etc., if you had to choose between 1) billionaires having the freedom of keeping their billions OR 2) enacting tax laws forcing billionaires to give up most of their wealth (yet still keeping hundreds of millions for themselves) and you personally receiving a cheque for, say, $100,000...which would you honestly choose?

Some countries tried this. Those that did, did not provide very good examples of places to live. People in the West would rather skip on those extra $100k rather than be sent to the Gulag maybe? You may think there is something in between, but there really isn't. Either people can keep a substantial chunk of the fruits of their labor and property and benefit therefrom, or they are nothing more but slaves to a regime that can do whatever it wants with them.

[Yesterday]

Personally I think the problem lies in how much everything costs. The cost of the basics of life, house/food/health care, that is what should be addressed. I don't mind having less money than most others if what I do have is enough. Enough to care for myself and enough to enjoy myself a bit. And really, re-circulating appropriated wealth does nothing to fix the problem of cost. Over 200,000 for a small house? Come on!!!!! That's more than 20 years of wages for more than just a few people.

For some reason raising the cost of everything continually, disgustingly, seems to be the fix du-jour for everyone but the un-wealthy.

[Moonlight Graham]

Some countries tried this. Those that did, did not provide very good examples of places to live. People in the West would rather skip on those extra $100k rather than be sent to the Gulag maybe? You may think there is something in between, but there really isn't. Either people can keep a substantial chunk of the fruits of their labor and property and benefit therefrom, or they are nothing more but slaves to a regime that can do whatever it wants with them.

Which countries are you speaking of. You are saying that if taxes on the very rich were raised dramatically in, say, Canada, that our democracy would corrode & be replaced by some kind of authoritarian regime? i don't see the connection.

[Moonlight Graham]

Why do you have a fantasy about bilking millionaires just because of inherited or amassed wealth? Do you think such wealth is "immoral"?

I have taken time to think about this.

For a ridiculously rich person (let's say a Canadian) who has more money than they can possibly spend to have that money while 1 in 10 children in Canada live in poverty and 1 in 4 aboriginal children live in poverty, and given the fact that half of the world's population lives on less than $2.50 U.S. a day (less than $1000 a year) and many in disgusting conditions where they are drinking water laced in feces and digging for food in garbage dumps...then yes i believe it is immoral.

[bush_cheney2004]

...then yes i believe it is immoral.

You do realize that your very benchmark of "poverty" is based on the "immoral" standard of living that you assail?

How much is too much...or not enough? What makes you the arbiter of such things?

[Moonlight Graham]

You do realize that your very benchmark of "poverty" is based on the "immoral" standard of living that you assail?

What constitutes "poverty" is certainly relative. But i don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Please clarify. I criticize those who have billions or hundreds of millions of dollars, how is that my "benchmark"?

How much is too much...or not enough?

Enough would be when a large majority of people in the world (among those who freely choose to have it) have access to basic necessities of life such as clean drinking water, subsistence caloric intake, proper sanitation, basic health care etc.

Obviously some people may not be able to have this due to the politics where they live, and the policies of the west, but that is a whole other discussion.

What makes you the arbiter of such things?

I'm the arbiter of nothing but my own opinion. You asked for it, i gave it.

[bush_cheney2004]

What constitutes "poverty" is certainly relative. But i don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Please clarify. I criticize those who have billions or hundreds of millions of dollars, how is that my "benchmark"?

Your position is quite arbitrary, and I suspect it is even more flawed because you associate uber wealth with your own circumstance, not median incomes or cost of living around the world.

Enough would be when a large majority of people in the world (among those who freely choose to have it) have access to basic necessities of life such as clean drinking water, subsistence caloric intake, proper sanitation, basic health care etc.

More waffling and qualifications....what about those who do not "choose it"? Would that relieve billionaires of your moral damnation?

Obviously some people may not be able to have this due to the politics where they live, and the policies of the west, but that is a whole other discussion.

Policies of the west? So this is just another guilt trip...namely yours?

I'm the arbiter of nothing but my own opinion. You asked for it, i gave it.

Billionaires have opinions too.

[Moonlight Graham]

Your position is quite arbitrary, and I suspect it is even more flawed because you associate uber wealth with your own circumstance, not median incomes or cost of living around the world.

My position in the OP was just an idea i threw out in the wind. Yes, somewhat arbitrary. My position from my last post is different from the OP and not compatible with my original "idea".

My overall position is that IMO it is immoral for extremely wealthy people to keep so much of their wealth while others die, suffer horribly, or otherwise cannot attain a humane standard of living due to lack of wealth & social services.

It could also be argued that it is immoral for a regular joe like you and I to buy a 50" plasma HDTV while many die/suffer throughout the world from very preventable causes, when we could easily get along with a 27" TV and give the difference to the poor or development agencies.

Policies of the west? So this is just another guilt trip...namely yours?

"Guilt trip"? If one's actions/inactions or those of their government are directly or indirectly responsible aka "guilty" of furthering the suffering of human beings, yes i guess that's what you'd call it.

How do you legitimize it on your own mind? Do you prefer the commerce/industry/govt of your own country to secure you the very best deal at the expense of the well-being if not survival of other human beings around the planet? All the while continuing to legitimize it with how you vote and how you spend your dollars?

Billionaires have opinions too.

Yup. And so does this dude.

[bush_cheney2004]

My position in the OP was just an idea i threw out in the wind. Yes, somewhat arbitrary. My position from my last post is different from the OP and not compatible with my original "idea".

Very arbitrary...and now capricious as well.

My overall position is that IMO it is immoral for extremely wealthy people to keep so much of their wealth while others die, suffer horribly, or otherwise cannot attain a humane standard of living due to lack of wealth & social services.

Why is it immoral? The wealth has to be generated to begin with, so is the very existence of wealth also immoral, or just the wealth distribution. Be careful...I am laying a trap for you.

It could also be argued that it is immoral for a regular joe like you and I to buy a 50" plasma HDTV while many die/suffer throughout the world from very preventable causes, when we could easily get along with a 27" TV and give the difference to the poor or development agencies.

50" is too small...I have a bigger plasma than that, because I want to see all the poor bastards in the world in high def from across the room or in-ground heated pool. The US is disposing millions of TVs just for the upgrade to ATSC tuners.

"Guilt trip"? If one's actions/inactions or those of their government are directly or indirectly responsible aka "guilty" of furthering the suffering of human beings, yes i guess that's what you'd call it.

That's quite a leap in logic....keeping wealth for oneself does not further suffering that already exists for many other unrelated causes.

How do you legitimize it on your own mind? Do you prefer the commerce/industry/govt of your own country to secure you the very best deal at the expense of the well-being if not survival of other human beings around the planet? All the while continuing to legitimize it with how you vote and how you spend your dollars?

Of course...in the exact same way the "poor and suffering" have acted in their own self interest and reasons. Have you ever been to a "poor" country where the greatest wealth is to be found at a US military waste dump?

Why are you not sending every dime to such righteous causes? This would ease your guilt trip.

[Moonlight Graham]

That's quite a leap in logic....keeping wealth for oneself does not further suffering that already exists for many other unrelated causes.

I never mentioned anything about "keeping wealth" in that sentence. What about trade policies that severely take advantage of poor countries because they have little to no leverage? When you buy a t-shirt or a cup of coffee or absolutely anything, you are making a political act. But obviously you don't give a rip because getting your goods at the lowest possible prices likely trumps most other concerns (don't feel bad, most people are like this too).

Of course...in the exact same way the "poor and suffering" have acted in their own self interest and reasons.

And this is what makes the world a better place. States and people always acting in their own self-interests.

Awaiting the typically arrogant BC response...

[bush_cheney2004]

I never mentioned anything about "keeping wealth" in that sentence.

What is the opposite of taking wealth for your guilt ridden redistribution scheme?

What about trade policies that severely take advantage of poor countries because they have little to no leverage? When you buy a t-shirt or a cup of coffee or absolutely anything, you are making a political act. But obviously you don't give a rip because getting your goods at the lowest possible prices likely trumps most other concerns (don't feel bad, most people are like this too).

Nonsense....there are many other parameters that impact consumer decisions besides price. I don't buy cheap t-shirts.

And this is what makes the world a better place. States and people always acting in their own self-interests.

The world is a better place because of self interest, not the commie plans in your head.

Awaiting the typically arrogant BC response...

I am the voice of reality...if that be arrogant...then reality is arrogant. Please give all your money away today. Have you done this yet? If not, why not? Why are you so selfish?

[dre]

Some countries tried this. Those that did, did not provide very good examples of places to live. People in the West would rather skip on those extra $100k rather than be sent to the Gulag maybe? You may think there is something in between, but there really isn't. Either people can keep a substantial chunk of the fruits of their labor and property and benefit therefrom, or they are nothing more but slaves to a regime that can do whatever it wants with them.

What?

Virtually every successfull country cycles MOST wealth back into the pool through things like progressive graduated income taxes, and inheritance taxes. Countries that dont do this eventually face revolution because wealth and political power consolidate into the hands of the few.

Can you name a single successful modern country where most wealth isnt reclaimed by society? Iv certainly never heard of one...