On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:18 AM, William Conger wrote: > I have more than a few contradictory views re money. I try to resolve them by > wondering how much money is enough. At what point does wealth become too much? > After all, is a billion dollars in personal wealth OK in this world? Back in > the 1960s I used to think that if one had a million dollars in personal wealth, > that was enough; more than that should be 100% taxed or confiscated for > redistribution.
I am very wary of a government that can confiscate property for whatever reason (redistribution of wealth, e.g.). The ancient Jews had a better idea, the jubilee year of forgiving debts. Extremely wealthy people don't take money and remove it from society: no one can continue to spend $1 million on themselves all the time. They have to stash the money somewhere, and that's called investing, which enables lending to build things and finance business, which hire people, pay them wages, and in effect distribute money to others. What the wealthy can do that the poor or less affluent cannot do is ... anything they want. Bill Gates never has to balance flying first class to anywhere in the world, staying in 5-star hotels, and eating at good restaurants. The less well off fall back on Travelocity or Priceline to get good rates, shop during sales, etc. The very poor have no such options. Money is options. The political issue, then, is to figure out a way to equalize options. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
