ForumGarden

How rich is too rich?

At what point would you say people do not need a certain level of wealth?

How much is needed to live comfortably and how much should be redistributed to the poor?

Thoughts?

I don't believe that we have the right to make that determination without knowing all the particulars of a individuals wealth. For example---Bill and Melinda Gates may be doing a far better job of redistributing some of their wealth than a government could possibly do. This is perhaps true of other extremely wealthy people. Just sitting on the outside and observing the life style of the rich doesn't tell the whole story.

halfway;1416666 wrote: How rich is too rich?

At what point would you say people do not need a certain level of wealth?

How much is needed to live comfortably and how much should be redistributed to the poor?

Thoughts?You first need to tell us how much money we're playing with in this game.

halfway;1416666 wrote: How rich is too rich?

At what point would you say people do not need a certain level of wealth?

How much is needed to live comfortably and how much should be redistributed to the poor?

Thoughts?


I would say at no point. I worked for it, leave me and my money alone. Go away.

The money ain't going anywhere. It will either be spent on whatever I want, employing people to make, supply etc what I want or invested where I think it does the best.



Best if giving, keep it to yourself because it no matter how much it will not be enough and seem miserly.

Ahso!;1416669 wrote: You first need to tell us how much money we're playing with in this game.


Doesn't matter, it's all Monopoly Money anyway.

tude dog;1416676 wrote: Doesn't matter, it's all Monopoly Money anyway.It does matter. You wannabe libertarian types pose questions that suggest there's an unlimited amount of money to be had, and yet that's exactly what you're diametrically opposed to.

We can play this game with percentages instead of real numbers of, say, half-wit dollars, if you like, but we need to know if there is in fact a limited amount of money in circulation.

I should wait for HW to answer that question before going any further with this. Game rules need to be clearly laid out so everyone can play nice.

Ahso!;1416678 wrote: It does matter. You wannabe libertarian types pose questions that suggest there's an unlimited amount of money to be had, and yet that's exactly what you're diametrically opposed to.

We can play this game with percentages instead of real numbers of, say, half-wit dollars, if you like, but we need to know if there is in fact a limited amount of money in circulation.

I should wait for HW to answer that question before going any further with this. Game rules need to be clearly laid out.


Monopoly Money or not.

Do you want to give an answer to the OP's question?

If not, no problem.

tude dog;1416679 wrote: Monopoly Money or not.

Do you want to give an answer to the OP's question?

If not, no problem.I will definitely play after the rules are clarified.

tude dog;1416679 wrote: Monopoly Money or not.

Do you want to give an answer to the OP's question?

If not, no problem.While we wait for HW to return, how about this question, since you brought up Monopoly: When is a Monopoly game finished?

Lon;1416667 wrote: I don't believe that we have the right to make that determination without knowing all the particulars of a individuals wealth. For example---Bill and Melinda Gates may be doing a far better job of redistributing some of their wealth than a government could possibly do. This is perhaps true of other extremely wealthy people. Just sitting on the outside and observing the life style of the rich doesn't tell the whole story.
Do we have the right to make that determination even with knowing the particulars? I don't think so. If the money was come by illegally, then the problem isn't being too rich, but breaking the law.

Ahso!;1416680 wrote: I will definitely play after the rules are clarified.
Why? You'd only follow them until they're inconvenient.

Accountable;1416684 wrote: Why? You'd only follow them until they're inconvenient.I laughed out loud. Very good.

It sounded like a trick question unless you think taxes are a 'redistribution of wealth.'

Anyway, the rules aren't for my benefit, they're for HW's. You know how particular he can be.

Accountable;1416683 wrote: Do we have the right to make that determination even with knowing the particulars? I don't think so. If the money was come by illegally, then the problem isn't being too rich, but breaking the law.


Ah, but what if the wealth was obtained honestly but much of it used for supporting illegal activities, insurrection, dictatorships, child molestation, etc. , etc. ?

Lon;1416688 wrote: Ah, but what if the wealth was obtained honestly but much of it used for supporting illegal activities, insurrection, dictatorships, child molestation, etc. , etc. ?
Still, it's the activity, not the wealth.

Accountable;1416692 wrote: Still, it's the activity, not the wealth.


Yes, but you said "I don't think so"

Lon;1416695 wrote: Yes, but you said "I don't think so"I don't think we have the right to make that determination (that a person has too much wealth) even with knowing the particulars. It's the illegal activity we would object to, not the wealth, per se. We wouldn't say "You're using your wealth for illegal activities, so we will confiscate it." The only reason we would confiscate riches is if it was illegally obtained.

Accountable;1416698 wrote: I don't think we have the right to make that determination (that a person has too much wealth) even with knowing the particulars. It's the illegal activity we would object to, not the wealth, per se. We wouldn't say "You're using your wealth for illegal activities, so we will confiscate it." The only reason we would confiscate riches is if it was illegally obtained.


If confiscating some of that wealth to curtail illegal activities, what would be wrong with that?

Just to answer the Ops question I will put forth a number. $500,000 a year is enough for a family of 4 to live well on. Good enough?

Lon;1416699 wrote: If confiscating some of that wealth to curtail illegal activities, what would be wrong with that?
Are you serious?

What was that movie?

Wealth needs to be defined too.

Having huge amounts of land and bugger all cash......is that rich ?

Lon;1416667 wrote: I don't believe that we have the right to make that determination without knowing all the particulars of a individuals wealth. For example---Bill and Melinda Gates may be doing a far better job of redistributing some of their wealth than a government could possibly do. This is perhaps true of other extremely wealthy people. Just sitting on the outside and observing the life style of the rich doesn't tell the whole story.


tude dog;1416673 wrote: I would say at no point. I worked for it, leave me and my money alone. Go away.

The money ain't going anywhere. It will either be spent on whatever I want, employing people to make, supply etc what I want or invested where I think it does the best.



Best if giving, keep it to yourself because it no matter how much it will not be enough and seem miserly.


Accountable;1416683 wrote: Do we have the right to make that determination even with knowing the particulars? I don't think so. If the money was come by illegally, then the problem isn't being too rich, but breaking the law.


Thanks for the replies.

My question was simple (I thought).

Thank you for those who understood the question and participated.

Thanks much.

Bruv;1416733 wrote: Wealth needs to be defined too.

Having huge amounts of land and bugger all cash......is that rich ?


Never met a farmer who thought he was rich.

tude dog;1416755 wrote: Never met a farmer who thought he was rich.
Ever met one who wasn't up to his knees in debt? I understand that's the situation most family farms are in.

I was thinking net worth since that seems to get the most attention. Buffett draws a small salary, but is worth billions. He is taxed at a low rate because the income is dividend income. His secretary draws a salary which has a higher tax because she is paid a wage. Nonetheless, he is still very, very wealthy and is likely considered "rich" by any means.

I guess I am looking for a number that the media refers to as "rich" since it is bantered about frequently.

Anyone know what Roseann Barr's definition is? And her desire for those above it?

:-3Accountable;1416729 wrote: Are you serious?


Absolutely------Example---------------Big Bucks is financing part of a revolution to a Banana Republic with weapons purchased through Mayfair Bank-----Confiscate the bank account.

Lon;1416774 wrote: :-3

Absolutely------Example---------------Big Bucks is financing part of a revolution to a Banana Republic with weapons purchased through Mayfair Bank-----Confiscate the bank account.


"If" this is an illegal act, execute the law. Why would you not?

If it is not legal, maybe those desiring a revolution need financed? Maybe they are a "good" cause in the eyes of some? Maybe it is a "che" clone with visions of grandeur. Would that be a good cause?

I think you are deviating from the questions just a bit. No offense of course.

halfway;1416776 wrote: "If" this is an illegal act, execute the law. Why would you not?

If it is not legal, maybe those desiring a revolution need financed? Maybe they are a "good" cause in the eyes of some? Maybe it is a "che" clone with visions of grandeur. Would that be a good cause?

I think you are deviating from the questions just a bit. No offense of course.


No offense taken, however, your questions are worded such that they do not require a specific dollar amount, besides, any specific dollar amount would be totally meaningless.

Lon;1416782 wrote: No offense taken, however, your questions are worded such that they do not require a specific dollar amount, besides, any specific dollar amount would be totally meaningless.
The original question is:

How rich is too rich?

At what point would you say people do not need a certain level of wealth?

How much is needed to live comfortably and how much should be redistributed to the poor?

It's not like HW is actually on topic either.

halfway;1416783 wrote: the original question is:

How rich is too rich?

It's a matter of perspective

at what point would you say people do not need a certain level of wealth?

Point of what?

How much is needed to live comfortably and how much should be redistributed to the poor?


how much of what? Food? Clothing? Cars?

Lon;1416788 wrote: how much of what? Food? Clothing? Cars?


Sorry for the confusion LON. I certainly did not mean to present such a "fuzzy" question.

Wealth meaning assets. Assets meaning combined value of objects of worth. Why don't we just say "the traditional accounting view of assets and the resulting net worth.

So....how much net worth is too much before they should have to share the wealth or give up a more fair share.

I know this is a bit off the main topic, but let's consider it an evolution of the original question. By the way, there is no "correct" answer...just an expressing of viewpoints.

halfway;1416666 wrote: How rich is too rich?

At what point would you say people do not need a certain level of wealth?

How much is needed to live comfortably and how much should be redistributed to the poor?

Thoughts?


It's not my place to tell anyone what level of wealth they should or shouldn't have nor how I think they should or shouldn't distribute it. The wealthy should pay taxes based on whatever the going tax laws indicate but outside of that, it's theirs to manage as they see fit.

halfway;1416666 wrote: At what point would you say people do not need a certain level of wealth?Would someone/anyone please explain to me WTF this question means? It makes no sense whatsoever.

I assumed he was asking if there should be a cap on an individual's income and/or wealth and what should that cap be ... i.e. if you have $4 million coming your way annually ... do you really need that much? Can't you get by on $3 million?

Is Tabby right, HW, is that what you intended to convey?

You take your annual expenditure x how many years you are likely to live add a slip up factor of 50 % and you could never run out.

Of course people do the most ridiculous things like go to the Mandalay hotel in Las Vegas and order a beefburger with potato wedges and a truffle dip and pay $6000 including 20 % tip.

Although is this a bad thing? Think of the lifestyle the waiter has working there

halfway;1416666 wrote: How rich is too rich?



At what point would you say people do not need a certain level of wealth?



How much is needed to live comfortably and how much should be redistributed to the poor?



Thoughts?




I don't think there should be a 'too rich'.



Doing better is what keeps us going, IMO.

jafsie;1416842 wrote: You take your annual expenditure x how many years you are likely to live add a slip up factor of 50 % and you could never run out.

Of course people do the most ridiculous things like go to the Mandalay hotel in Las Vegas and order a beefburger with potato wedges and a truffle dip and pay $6000 including 20 % tip.

Although is this a bad thing? Think of the lifestyle the waiter has working there


Yeah, if they really tip that well.

I will probably never know what it is to be too rich..........are you suggesting mandatory socialism?

chonsigirl;1416850 wrote: I will probably never know what it is to be too rich..........are you suggesting mandatory socialism?


How did you come up with that? Not sure that was asked in any of the questions.

Lon;1416774 wrote: :-3

Absolutely------Example---------------Big Bucks is financing part of a revolution to a Banana Republic with weapons purchased through Mayfair Bank-----Confiscate the bank account.
Again, if the activity is illegal then convict the criminal. I disagree that it gives justification for taking what was rightfully and legally earned.

flopstock;1416843 wrote: I don't think there should be a 'too rich'.



Doing better is what keeps us going, IMO.


So controlling, stifling, punishing, or stopping it would be against our nature?

OK, as a response to the OP let's try ten times average income should be the max allowed

As a related question, as y'all appear to be against taking legally earnt money from the worker, how much money would you say it was legitimate for a person to inherit? After all, the inheritor has done nothing to earn them money.

Bryn Mawr;1416995 wrote: OK, as a response to the OP let's try ten times average income should be the max allowed

As a related question, as y'all appear to be against taking legally earnt money from the worker, how much money would you say it was legitimate for a person to inherit? After all, the inheritor has done nothing to earn them money.


Who says money must be earned? How about gambling? Finding gold? Oil? Artifacts?

Lon;1416996 wrote: Who says money must be earned? How about gambling? Finding gold? Oil? Artifacts?


Such comments as :-

I would say at no point. I worked for it, leave me and my money alone. Go away.


suggest that that is the objection to having a restriction.

As to gambling etc. I know several people whose main income is earnt by gambling - why should you consider it to be unearnt income?

Bryn Mawr;1416995 wrote: OK, as a response to the OP let's try ten times average income should be the max allowed

As a related question, as y'all appear to be against taking legally earnt money from the worker, how much money would you say it was legitimate for a person to inherit? After all, the inheritor has done nothing to earn them money.


That's a reasonable question too. A really nasty curse for a devout Hindu is, "May you be born to rich parents."

Regarding the OP, I'm less concerned about the amount of money as the political power it so often conveys.

Bryn Mawr;1416995 wrote: OK, as a response to the OP let's try ten times average income should be the max allowed

As a related question, as y'all appear to be against taking legally earnt money from the worker, how much money would you say it was legitimate for a person to inherit? After all, the inheritor has done nothing to earn them money.Matters not. Don't you give gifts as you see fit? Shouldn't you be allowed to be as generous or niggardly with your wealth as you wish? The inheritor's status or size of the inheritance isn't really relevant.