Not sure what that limit should be but everything above it should be taxed at 100%

in order to "bridge" with the capitalist pigs, I would be willing to allow unlimited wealth during a person's life.


But, upon death, 100% of that acquired wealth goes back to the commons.

I agree. Land especially.

So if I have enough money, I can buy all the ocean front property in all of the Caribbean Islands and none of you will ever get to go there ever...

If I have enough money I will buy Yosemite Natl Park after teaparty removes natl park laws, and none of you ever will see it again.

Think about this, it is absurd that we allow any human or corp to own any property, lease for a lifetime, sure, own?

insane

We should be able to apply for lifetime use if we want to be ranchers or farmers, and just pay a percentage of our profit to the public trust and when we die if our kids don't want to ranch or whatever a new trustee should be chosen after taking applications. And all school should be free so anyone can be a success. Get rich if you can and have a bit of fun, but when you die most of the money goes back into the public trust. We run around the world thinking we own whatever land we land on ( i know thats from Pocahontas or something) but we kill everything we touch. We can't be trusted. We are greedy selfish people. I wish the Tribes controlled the land and could deport greedy bastards to hell.

they'd give it all to their family members before they die.

things in place to stop the generational transfer too.

There was a post in the last day or two that said something like 80+% of the inherited wealth that SHOULD be getting hit with inheritance taxes is instead being passed along untaxed via various legal loopholes.

until the Middle Class is restored and the poverty level is raised considerably.

They've stolen much of their wealth from the Middle Class by hiding their wealth offshore and not paying federal taxes. On top of that, they've shipped jobs overseas for cheap labor and closed down unions, not to mention stealing retirement funds.

Time for them to pay back what they stole.

This is the reality. This is what has happened. No one seems to want to admit it. Kind of like no one seems to want to admit that we are sheltering international war criminals in our borders, that the Iraq invasion was an illegal crime against humanity, and that criminal bankers still run this country instead of eating their meals in federal penitentiary.



indeed.

factory workers, etc. are considered disposable.

but folks need to understand that comparing the rates from different periods is a flawed approach because of other variations in the tax code from period to period. Was the top marginal rate during the late forties and 50s in the 90 percent range? Yes. But what was considered taxable income and/or deductible during those years is much different than it is today. So the fact there was a 90 percent rate in the past doesn't provide support for taking today's tax code and simply increasing the top rate to 90 percent.

Say you start a small business, it could be anything a restaurant, hardware store, candle shop, doesn't matter and once your child comes of age he or she works in the business along side you and has every intention of continuing the business after you retire or pass on. Or, I had an aunt that never moved out of the family home and by staying there allowed my aged grandparents to live out their lives at home while still receiving the care that they needed. After they both passed the house went to her and frankly, she earned it by allowing my grandparents the opportunity to live out their days at home instead of being sent to a nursing home. Would you allow the creation of trusts so that grandchildren would be able to attend college and graduate debt-free?

I'm not sure if you intended to disallow these sort of things, but I can't get behind not allowing families to keep homes that have been in the family for generations or helping other family members get a start on life without the worry of crippling debt.

the child could buy out the restaurant from you. The Aunt could be paid wages for the services provided via an equal share of equity in the house in lieu of cash wages.

The point is that any EXTRA wealth hording, beyond what the individual uses to live out their life will return to the commons, as is should.

As a species we appear to be against this fact, we do not even let our bodies decompose properly and go back into the earth. We lot them up in coffins isolated in graveyards. I do not know where our collective mental disorder originated from, but it is not doing our species or our planet any good.

I think people who are talking 'wealth caps' are talking numbers in the 100 millions of dollars plus range. Enough to set 100+ relatives up for life even after you die.

Not just people who might have a couple of million in assets or less.

People with a few million aren't the ones out there getting legislation specially written for them, by and large. It's your megamillionaires who are screwing everyone over in terms of long term survival on earth in their greed for ever more green, by buying Congresscritters to do their bidding.

And that can be just as detrimental to a community.

still kept alive. I finally, after all these years of paying the mortgage, own my little hovel. Trust me. No one would want my pitiful little .68 acre of land or my hovel. Most people who work on it say I should burn it all down including the jungle that is full of species that are beneficial and I happen to like watching, and start over. No way. If I can find an heir to give it to at some point, who would take care of it and leave the majority of it for wildlife like I do, I'm leaving it to them when I die. If not, I hope they eventually come up with a way to make land go back to wilderness and stay that way for people who have no heirs and want that.

more taxation of the rich, how exactly would you go about insuring that " upon death, 100% of that acquired wealth goes back to the commons."?

First off, you'd need some threshold level only above which the excess would all be taken away. And assuming that there's good agreement on that threshold level, what exactly would you do with the excess? Distribute it to the very poor? Sell it and then use the money for social programs?

I wonder if some assets, like boats, airplanes, certain luxury homes, would eventually be unsellable, because fewer and fewer people would either be able to buy them or be willing to buy them if they're only going to be taken away. I can see rich people simply signing long-term leases for such things jointly with their children just so as to pass these things on.

I would like to see definite caps on how much CEOs and the like can earn, a tax on all stock market transactions -- which wouldn't even have to be very large to bring in a lot of money -- and realistic inheritance taxes. Outright confiscation of wealth would not be needed if we limited its growth in the first place.

...a minimum wage that exceeds an amount as determined by the Poverty line index:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

...and guarantees health insurance for every American.

it is a global economy. This weekend the leaders of this "global free market" met in Bilderberg (http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php). I am not picturing folks in capes running around plotting about how to subjugate others etc (I know there is a lot of conspiracy out there). But then again the reality is probably just as bad for common folks at large globally when billionaires sit down and discuss their visions of the future (which always seem to involve the poor taking a hit).

I'm getting older now and have spent many years thinking about this. I don't think you can justify the inequality using any code of moral conduct, whether it is religious or secular. I'm not sure at this point if currency itself is even desirable. I'd love to see humans on earth be able to divide up/use resources in a way that all would get what they need to survive.

The Venus Project has done extensive work in this area if you are not familiar with them - thinking about how we could move forward into the future without capitalism holding most of us back.

prime objective of humanity. Humans are still quite primitive and tribal. Technology advances, but humanity lags. If I put my futuristic hat on, tin foil lol , money will be obsolete in the future.

Money, is a facilitator. What needs to happen is the lust for money needs to be replaced with the lust for working together, cooperation, sharing and shedding of the 'king of the mountain' mentality that has dominated the human species for eons.

For survival, that was once necessary, but with the endless scenarios humans are faced with now, money and weaponry will not enable survival of the human species. Great wealth does not imply intelligent thinking, but rather asset protection at any cost, usually.

unbridled wealth, hoarding of money/assets. Capitalism, like many, is a system prone to be rigged and the incentives are great. It used to be accomplished by taxation, but now the greedy hoarders of wealth have wormed their way into government and/or the control of government. Yes, there needs to be a limit, I'm just not sure at this time of the best way to accomplish this. If, this is not done, the capitalistic system will ultimately collapse taking along with it any hint of a democracy. The core problem is there is way too much money in politics in the US, and, TPTB will not relinquish control to move in a better direction for the good of the entire country. Instead, militarization is taking place to protect the assets from the masses.

government.

A capitalist society trying to fight concentration of wealth is like a man trying to fight death. The human body and a capitalist society are both systems with limitations. Cells will only divide for so long, and people will only get so rich before they start becoming the de facto authority and controlling the government.

Yes, capitalism DOES lead to a concentration of wealth. But that doesn't mean concentration of wealth is inevitable in an economy with capitalist elements? I'd argue not. A regulated market economy can maintain a balance between the economic flexibility of capital and markets, while preventing the worst abuses of such systems.

In short, aggressively progressive taxes, and strict market regulations.

1945 marginal taxes over $500,000 a year rates (something like that). I just looked and it was 94% over....looking for the dollars per year figure now. $200K per year. $200K a year in 1945 is worth several times that now in 2014 dollars.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

You nailed it.

I wonder when this country is going to wake up to that idea.

or as lobbyists, after they leave congress. In other words, most of them.

starting a business and growing it. The increasing value of the equity is not considered income, or taxed as such. Jeff Bezos is worth billions from Amazon stock but this has never been taxed as income.

Sam Walton started a business.

His kids inherited it, and make up something like half of the wealthiest top ten in the country.

But what you're talking about isn't 'real' until he cashes out, at which point he's got major capital gains to pay.

How many houses, properties and tax haven benefits can one human need to make them happy. "Winning" should be redefined so that the rich have to move along toward other pursuits; say, helping humanity or Earth.

And that would have made the world a better place.

with men.

You know she got booted off the Forbes billionaire list because she gave so much to charities, right? She didn't stash it in tax havens or take tax subsidies, like rich men do in the US.

I could very well make an exception for women until they reach economic parity with men, sure.

Why not.

She stated outright she is happy to pay taxes because she was on welfare when she wrote the first HP book. She still makes a lot of money - but she also gives money to the state for the next person on welfare who will go on to create the next culture for the next generation.

they did a major tax reform, the majority of the citizens got a few hundred to some thousands. as usual, the super rich did even better.
-
They got inheritance taxes reduced.
-
that tax break expired or was expiring.... but was extended forever I think. Transfer of wealth from one generation to next is taxed at a lower rate than in the 1990s.

As that any and all wealth comes from belonging to society. Society gets to set limits on how much maybe extracted from it by any person. Said limits, set far above the reach of the average person, act to prevent bottlenecks in the economy.

The total allowable lifetime level of globally held wealth should be capped, at say $100,000,000.00 in total fair market value. Every asset you own must be added together and used as the basis for determining your cap (based on the individual basis). Married persons may share a total fortune of 200 million, if they file separately.

At a total wealth of 75 million dollars, the individual should be forced into retirement. All income between 75 and 100 million must come from investments only. No salary, no bonuses, no stock options, no teaching fees, no advisory fees, nothing but previously owned investment paying off (including increasing value in art).

At 10 million dollars, receiving any sort of retirement or "golden parachute" becomes illegal.

A wealth increase cap (to include any and all compensation) of 5 million a years should be imposed.

An inheritance cap of 7.5 million (1 1/2 times the yearly allowance) should be imposed (allowing for the a yearly increase of 12.5 mil during the year of the inheritance only. In the case of the loss of both parents [or others] the inheritance is locked at 12.5 per year. The beneficiary may designate a public good charity if they so desire).

An estate, after inheritances are doled out (at a cap of 7.5 mil per individual), will become property of the state to serve the common good. A will may stipulate charitable contributions at 7.5 mil per institution, or individual. In the case of associations of individuals and institutions named in a will, no person may get de facto control of more that 7.5 mil.

No salary cap for the purposes of Social Security taxation.

Those individuals needing more than the normally legally allowed amount of wealth may, by public referendum only, apply to the citizens of the respective state to increase their allowances by 10 million dollar increments.
Those claiming the need for more wealth than 100 million dollars are proof the we desperately need single payer health care which includes mental health coverage.

He opens more and more branches, expands to a couple of different states, but then all of a sudden somebody from the government decides that his business is now worth more than $75 million. What would happen at that point? Is he allowed to continue to build his business, opening more branches and hiring more people, becoming richer and richer, or does he have to cease all involvement with it? Or does the government forcibly seize an equity stake in his business?

corporate personhood legal identity, anyway, and their growth creates economic activity.

Why would it be the government that "forcibly" seizes someone's stake. Why couldn't it be that the businesses continue growth without the founders' profiting. They could set up their excess share of profit to go toward other projects of their choice -- funding medical research, a foundation, university, space projects, veterans, poor children's lunch programs, paying down the war debt, etc.

You seem to be saying that you would only confiscate part of his stake if and when he took the business public. Which he obviously never would under the regime you envisage.

with his joint, not sole, ownership with others of his family and friends, no?

And having won should be able to step aside so the next person can have their chance. Here are some ways that might happen.

I would have no problem if said person gave away some of their fortune to keep from exceeding the 75 mil limit. Contribute to the greater good in a way satisfying to them. I think a person, so dedicated to something they started, would be able to trudge along at 5 mil a year with 69.5 mil in assets, quite comfortably. Making whatever donations they wanted to hover just under the cut off point.

Another solution would be to publicly trade stock of the company. They could seek partners willing to own portions of, but not wield control in a company. If he owns 68 mil in stock in a company valued at 200 mil, he still falls within the limitations. His pride and joy continues expanding as it can.

The owner could lower the price of his product to not generate so much profit. That would be another solution. Merely because you could get a 90% profit on your product, doesn't mean you have to; 1% profit is still profit.

A lot of it boils down to revamping how we view success and money.

We can't afford oligarchs ... as reality makes obvious.

Additionally, all future income limited to 2m / year before a 95% tax rate kicks in -- with a huge portion directly earmarked to providing a living wage for all Americans.

Somebody starts a business and grows his or her company over time. What happens when the government believes that the value of the business exceeds $1 billion? The forcible seizure of cash on hand or inventories, a forced flotation, or something else? And you would need a great many appraisers of antiques and artwork to sniff around in rich people's houses and basements. Not that they would find much, as the Van Goghs would long since have been transported to second homes in Europe or the Carribbean.

Which is why the confiscation needs to be world wide.

All you need to do is to convince every single government of every country in the entire world of the wisdom of your scheme. Should be a piece of cake.

What's needed is to convince the majority of PEOPLE in the world that the confiscation and redistribution of wealth is in their interests. At that point the governments won't matter.

And yes that's a big job. But the capitalists are kind enough to make it a WHOLE lot easier by their actions.

Personal wealth should be confiscated while business value and wealth can be regulated to insure that only a reasonable amount of cash is kept, not hoarded like it is now. Business regulations can ensure that the currently hoarded cash is funneled back into the business via expansion and employee raises and benefits.

Why should one person be allowed to accumulate billions while so many suffer in poverty?

Personal wealth cap should be 1bn; annual income should be restricted to 2m. All else taxed at 95%.

So would you force someone to take their company public in a situation like that?

The goal is distribution of wealth. The 1% have proven they are going to fight us tooth and nail for every penny. Since their irresponsibility caused this, they'll have to deal with some unpleasant (to them) consequences.

has to dread the annual visit from the government inspectors who will confiscate part of his business if he has become too successful.

My proposal calls for business to invest in employees via wages, benefits and growth. The business owner only has to worry if 1) the business has grown into the billion dollar range and 2) the business is hoarding cash and not being ethical with it's employees.

There should be a hard salary cap that says the best paid employee can't make more than 20 times what the poorest paid employee makes -- including stock options and bonuses -- and that includes everyone from the owner of a business, or a CEO / president, down to the lowest temp janitor.

by any means necessary. I don't have the popular will for this position yet, but the political will is there.

Have a good social safety net. It would be so complicated to calculate the upper end and they would find ways around it anyway.

those with wealth and power have now gained pretty much full control of the US government under our current political funding process, and corporations are now people. Your idea is excellent, and how it worked in the past, but I have no idea how appropriate taxation would be restored. How would one go about that?

Taxes would be one way of regulating how much wealth someone could acquire, either income or a wealth tax.

should i be hugely compensated? sure.

but should i have so much that the rest of the world is in abject poverty while i piss away the planet's resources on frivolity? no.

at some point, extreme wealth is tyranny, so one way or another, people should not be able to get that wealthy, either as individuals or as groups of very wealthy people.

n/t

significantly on upper incomes and wealth.

Personally, I don't care how much some people make, as long as everyone else is doing OK.

for everything over 2 million. That would end the lucky sperm club in two generations

But we should have a livable minimum wage.

enforcement of and high fines for violating much more stringent environmental and consumer protections laws, and other such methods to stop accumulation of wealth that is detrimental to the general welfare of the people (the human ones, that is.).

we dont live in an utopia where everyone is created with same skill set and intelligence and we have to accept that a undeniable fact....the real issue is setting up some basic living standards thru a common sense tax system and prompting a work ethic in people that they also have to put forth an effort.


I tire of the "poor me" syndrome and those who enable it.

The more hoarded by a single individual, the less everyone else has to share.

Already, the top 1% own more of the world's wealth than the bottom 50% or somesuch.

To set up your 'basic living standards', you're going to have to take away some of what the top few hoarders have.

And btw, how do you reconcile 'making people put forth an effort' and the inheritance of tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars?

Those people inheriting have no put forward no 'effort' , they've simply been born lucky. Or would you do away with inheritance to make sure everyone 'put forth some effort'?

and its easy for me to say have people put forth the effort.....if we have those who feel entitled to a public hand out then something needs to happen in return

I dont care about those who were born to wealth, tax laws can be changed, changing people's sense of entitlement not so easy.....

One reason I support public service of some type by all americans...whether its the military or peace core...we can restore a work ethic but it takes work to do it.

You create 'create' as many fictional dollars as you want, but you'll end up with hyperinflation if you just keep stacking on the 0s. The more money you create, the more prices go up, so it always becomes a matter of ratios. If the top few people continue to grab an ever greater percentage of the total wealth of a system, the rest continue to be impoverished until you wind up in Weimaresque territory, where a wheelbarrow full of money buys a loaf of bread.

individual in your lifetime?

So even if Joe Billionaire wants to leave his entire billion to his kid, either directly or in trust, as soon as his kid gets to, say 100 million from him, the kid is ineligible to get any more of Joe Billionaire's money, either as wages, gifts, inheritance, or trust.

Force the wealth hoarders to break up their wealth upon their death. Got a billion? You can give 100 million to 10 people, but not that entire billion to one person. Make mega-inheritors have to actually earn more if they want to hoard as much as the last generation did, not simply get handed all of it.

not that the rich didn't have "too much".

than a limit on how much they should have, but that's not really relevant to my statement at all.

If you can make sure everyone has sufficient food, shelter, health care, and education, is it NECESSARY to set a ceiling on wealth?

The reality is that most CEOs have boards that are comprised of their relatives and friends who vote to give them these ridiculous salaries and benefits packages that in no way reflect their actual value.

To deal with this, we should have a law that limits the ratio of CEO pay to full-time employee pay. The U.S. has the most outlandish ratio of any democracy. This is bad for democracy.

A strong middle class is good for democracy.

The U.S. created a strong middle class by redistributing wealth via taxation and govt. programs to train people or to hire them for the arts, to build infrastructure to bring relief to poor people in remote areas through dams and electricity and education and so on.

It is shortsighted of the wealthy to think they will not be negatively impacted (or their heirs won't be) by creating conditions for social unrest and upheaval.

Republicans seem to be too stupid to realize this, even tho this is the lesson of history over and over again. This stupidity started with Reagan/Goldwater. I hope it is dying -it seems to be, at least among the voting public - but those invested in this disparity are still holding on to the dream that they deserve what they get while the poor and misery-laden do too (c.f. Mittens Romney, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, ad nauseum).

I hope it doesn't take even more misery among the working class white population to realize they have been screwed by the very people they have voted for since Reagan.

As long as private ownership of the means of production is permitted, the rich will always be able to get richer and circumvent any laws you pass - if you could even pass such a law in the first place.

Have wealthy people and a strong social safety net.

Nations in western Europe that nationalized their (local) banks and got rid of the scum have done better than the U.S. during this latest recession.

If keeping capitalism means misery for the majority - then, no I don't want to keep capitalism.

but that's not what it means. to claim limiting wealth destroys capitalism is a BULLSHIT statement put out by the right wing.

If you want to have the nastiest most Hobbesian form of a nation state, then you don't place regulations on businesses or expect taxation to support infrastructure and a strong middle class.

This is the American model since Reagan and before Roosevelt.

I am entirely supportive of getting rid of that sort of capitalism.

America also did well for 20 or 30 years after the war. On the time scale of nation-states, a few decades can easily contain patterns counter to what would be expected. Due to a strong labor movement and the general upheaval of the state of capital after the war, we were able to push back the tide for a bit.

Of course there are short-term measures that will benefit a country, but in the long run the accumulation of capital (and thus power) determines what will happen. Do you think money in politics is a problem? It isn't going to get any better.

Limiting wealth doesn't destroy capitalism, it just runs counter to the basic assumptions of capitalist property law. This makes it even harder to get regular people to agree to, let alone the billionaires.

They're probably pretty close to where we were 4 decades ago. But even there the neo-liberal forces are working to push back those "reforms" on capitalism that have made it such a beacon of hope for the believers in "regulated" capitalism. I'm curious to see where Scandinavia is in another 40 years.

You can't build a model on what capitalism is on a few decades of what it was under extraordinary circumstances, which INCLUDED, fighting a propaganda war against a system that was, at least nominally, anti-capitalist. It's no coincidence that we began to see the true face of capitalism when the USSR collapsed. On an historical scale, the few decades of success of most of us under "regulated" capitalism was just a blip on the radar.

Regulating capitalism is like riding a hungry tiger. It's very difficult to do over the long term and you're always in danger of being eaten.

Continental Northern Europe as a whole has weathered this recession better than the U.S. - as has Canada. What's the difference? A stronger social safety net with universal health care, job training for people whose industries are being made irrelevant by changes in technology, strong unemployment insurance...

They have also done things like limit capitalism in some ways - for instance, Nokia as the cell phone system. You should read The United States of Europe to know how they have avoided some of the traps of American-style capitalism.

America did well after the war because the tax structure created greater equality - because even Republicans, as in Eisenhower, saw the value in public works projects - i.e. the interstate road system.

We now need to upgrade to faster and more energy efficient transportation systems for goods, at the least. People will follow.

This nation has relied on taxation since its founding. It has also relied upon slave labor and then wage slave labor. If a system has to rely upon slavery to survive, it doesn't deserve to survive.

There is no basic capitalist property law. Laws change. It used to be basic capitalist property law to be able to own humans.

Those who hold that opinion now are scumbags. In their day, they were just working within the system.

As I said - I don't want capitalism if it means a weak democracy - but democracies have the power to undercut capitalism's threat to democracy's existence - via taxation. Via wealth redistribution. Via a basic minimum income that puts power in the worker's hand, not just the owner.

Since we have progressive income taxes that limit the wealth (income) one can accumulate in a given year already. What i'm asking is, what should the practical goal of that tax be? Is it dangerous to let individuals become too powerful/influential in a democracy based on their wealth?

The question is what to do about it. My position is that there doesn't seem to be a way to do this if we allow individuals to own the means of production. Using those, they can acquire more and more wealth and power. Of course, some individuals will lose this race and others will win, but the ones that win will wind up with near total control of the system.

You talk about the progressive tax rate, which has been steadily decreasing for decades, with a SLIGHT bump under Obama (who had a veto-proof majority!) The tax hasn't been sufficient to prevent concentration of wealth, and has in fact been undone by the very people it was supposed to limit. I'm not sure what makes you think a more extreme measure can be enacted, or that it would be sufficient.

We've been in this situation before, pre-FDR. he managed to make the income tax massively more progressive, to everyone's benefit. But he also had a crisis to exploit. It's not clear that many Americans even understand this point, or why it's important.

The very concept of "you make too much, so we are taking everything you make over X amount" is disturbing. Who decides what that amount is? 1 billion? 500 million? 10 million?

I think that most corporate CEOs are grossly overpaid. I mean, really, you had to pay that guy 20 million a year? You couldn't get somebody to do the job for half that amount?

I would suggest a taxation system that is more favorable to companies that spread the wealth in a more equitable manner. You want to pay that guy 20 million while you pay starvation wages to the worker bees? Then the money you save up front will bite you on the back end in taxes.

a good way to implement what I'm talking about.

I believe that we could eliminate 90% of the political problems in this country with one simple constitutional amendment: public financing of all elections. It would be illegal to give politicians a single cent, and the government would pay for all election costs at an equal, reasonable amount for the five (for sake of argument) political parties in a jurisdiction.

Too many states have constructed barriers to voting.

If the offspring of successful parents are so resourceful and clever, they should be able to generate their own fortunes. They'll still be getting a huge leg up to start with.

And Bush the Lesser.

I don;t object to people getting rich... not even VERY rich. But after a while, the numbers don't signify wealth anymore, but POWER. When we hit that point, tax the shit out of 'em.

I don't really think we need to argue about hard numbers - but the influence that any one person can wield over the interests of everyone else in a society.

I think it's important for people to think about that once in a while.

That would solve most of the problem. The old argument that low capital gains taxes would stimulate the economy has been shown to be so much bunk.

Some multiple, less than twenty, of minimum wage, minimum wealth.

Don't like that? Leave and good riddance.

It pisses me off when my taxes pay for your bodyguard/police interface, private jet travel, and the infrastructure that supports your fancy vacation homes and fancy hotels.

If you can't walk unnoticed and unremarkable among the common folk, then fuck you.

The uber-wealthy oligarchs ought to be taxed out of existence for their own good as well as everyone else's.

Labor is an exchange of your time, your life, for money. I believe it should be taxed at a lesser rate than investment income.

It goes against the principles of a free society to set a limit on how successful (in this example, wealthy) a person can be.

There should be appropriate tax rates to reflect that the excess income is greatly due in part to the society the wealthy person lives in and so the society should also receive a portion of the income.

Most rich owners, CEOs etc can afford to pay their employees a living wage. Enforce it.