What would be right with it? Sorry, I am bored so I am going to try my macro economic lecture again
You see
@Firefly, direct precise answers.
I do appreciate the underlying basic economic message and to an extent you are of course correct. But economics is not called the dismal science for nothing, so if doable, allow me a little latitude to suggest an idea that
may offer some opportunity to consider some enhancement on the prevailing economic theory (unless you think there is nothing left to improve?).
I am of course open to learning the error of my ways and once shown what is wrong with such an idea, then if necessary, I will answer what is right with the idea.
I perhaps over-egged the notion of using 500 wealthiest people as a means to make my point.
So for ease of reference, and as this is nothing more than a crude experiment I will amend it down to 1 - the wealthiest individual on the planet. I will also take the liberty of applying a universally agreed principle of putting a limit on excessive wealth amongst the nations of the earth and that all armies of illegally practising lawyer's, tax accountants etc have been stood down. But I will offer a token insofar that the government will guarantee a financial return to this person equivalent to 0.1% for every year of their life of the total of the sum of excessive wealth confiscated or taxed,
if ever, in real terms that individuals personal wealth ever falls below 1% of what his/her max acquired wealth ever was.
(E.g Richest person was worth $100bn. Gov confiscates 100% in excess of this figure.
Somehow this person goes bankrupt and the gov returns $100m every year for rest of life, in cash, to cope with the hardship).
We can use the richest country in the world, the US, as our laboratory, in turn, the richest person in the world and we can theorize on the pro's and cons and ponder on likely reactions, positive, negative or neutral from the wealthiest person, and the population at large (we will avoid using real names, as how Zuckerberg, Gates, and that Amazon guy react to a proposal is wholly subjective)
The wealthiest person in the world, an entrepreneur of highly successful internet retail company has acquired a personal wealth of $100bn. The government implements a law that says, as you are the wealthiest person in the world, any additional acquired wealth over and above what you have now will be taxed 100%. The following year, she acquires $10bn more. The government sends her a bill for $10bn payable by cash, cheque, bank transfer or transfer of ownership.
The following year, an owner of a tech firm surpasses this woman as the richest person in the world. Having acquired an additional $7bn to achieve this feat, the government sends him a bill for $7bn instead....and so forth.
What would be wrong with that?
