Provisional summary on capitalism

[Nik]

If I'm allowed I'd like to summarize what we've gotten so far on capitalism and its sub-genres here, since the threads got a little confused between each other.
Thanks everyone for your opinions and input. It's cool that we have somewhat different views on certain issues, as pluralism is certainly blessed and contributes to the debate
It seems no one realistically expects equality in capitalistic societies (Rupert, Mehreen, Ian). From here the views differ a bit. If J.J. largely supports the idea that every man for himself and although doesn't suggest to shoot poor on sight -:) and agrees even with certain help to the needy, but points out that subsidies may be counterproductive (Yelena agrees) and may stimulate more lazy bums -:). J.J. generally thinks that tycoons and magnates pay enough and shouldn't be bothered lest after them it would be middle class' turn.
Ian & yours truly here seem to be a little more favorable to the needy and working class and less so towards super-rich, particularly where they skip paying taxes in line with their income.
As of the idea of the cap on enrichment no one, except for me, seems to be too excited for different reasons...
Quite few have pointed out that there is a problem with governance and politicians and generally favor less governance and more free market (J.J., Alex). While most seem to agree that some regulation is definitely needed...
Some solutions for a better governance and life in general were offered - education (J.J.), direct democracy rather than representative (Alex)...
Many seem to be worried with middle class shrinking, dying, not feeling good -:)
Electoral donations system raises few concerns..
Some doubts were voiced as of whether what we have today is close to the original spirit of capitalism (Rupert, J.J.)
I don't claim to be meticulous and if my summary, god forbid, doesn't do justice to your stances, please feel free to correct me

[J.J.]

Not sure if you ever watched Futurama, but there were a couple episodes with gags that sum up why lower classes support favorable policies toward the rich.

One episode centers around a hostile takeover of their silly little delivery company. everyone is against it until they realize how much their shares are worth and one characters says "I'm rich! Finally I have an opinion on the capital gains tax."

Another episode mirrored the 2008 election and one of the characters is asked why they support tax breaks for the rich or something like that. "You're not rich." "But I might be someday."

Suppose you had the cap that you propose, and all the rhetoric surrounding the US Presidential election draws a sudden surge of interest to your books. They take off, Hollywood comes calling, and suddenly you're the biggest indie author ever seen. People call for sequels, and the publishing houses are willing to throw millions at you to write the books, however you've hit that cap. If you spend the time writing another book, you will have to give away every dime because you're not allowed to make any more money. So what do you do? Do you spend your time writing a book for someone else to profit from, or do you take your newfound wealth and find some tropical beach to retire on and enjoy what you have?

I know it's an unlikely scenario, and a little simplified, but it's easy to support policies that we don't think will effect us, but despite the talk of the deck being stacked against upward mobility, all it takes is for one thing to go right and suddenly you're the next EL James, Andy Weir, or Hugh Howey.

And I know you're talking about setting the cap ridiculously high, but you can't trust governments to keep it there. Because you impose this cap, and the lives at the bottom don't get any better. They continue to blame the rich, and politicians looking for votes lower the cap to pander. Then they lower and lower it, and on a long enough time frame, that cap is more in reach than you ever realize.

I'm tepid on the minimum wage, but in all honesty, raising the minimum wage would do more for lower-class workers than simply limiting the accumulation of wealth.

[Nik]

Cool examples from Futurama -:). Haven't seen it, but sounds lots of fun.
I wish I had that dilemma that you describe -:), but I don't believe in miracles and many more things, based on 'belief', 'luck' and similar things... If you ask me, personally, I'd be more than happy to apply a cap to myself and I think it's the right approach to start anything from yourself. On one New Year some years ago I was in intensive care unit with unclear chances of survival and all I cared to ask from my partners was that they see through that the employees receive their 13-th salary (i.e. annual bonus) that I promised them. Or another example - having around much more wealthier corporations we were the only ones who took employees abroad on our account and spent few thousand bucks on it. Could've published dozens of books with that money, but I've no regrets, I'm kinda proud of it. I'm not giving these examples to boast what a great philanthropist I am -:), but rather to demonstrate that with such an attitude I'm highly unlikely to reach even a small per cent of that cap. To become really rich you need to love each dollar separately -:)
I'm not saying the cap is panacea and I'm for raising minimum wages too and applying a bunch of measures to ensure we have more homogenous societies rather than polarized.
I'm talking about the cap from the efficiency point of view. The money that is stashed away somewhere with little chances of doing something even for its owner is inefficient, especially when it is so needed elsewhere for valid agendas.
Up until a certain level - it's about money, but at some point after you had ferraris, private jets, yachts, clubs and so on, it's not an issue anymore. I'm not surprised that unlike many millionaires and billionaires, some mega-rich people live relatively modestly. It's because at a certain level your priority changes from moneymaking to 'leaving some memorable legacy'. Hence you have donations, monuments, hospitals, stadiums, etc. But the same person, who donated a hospital worth of 50mil won't hesitate a minute later to transfer the same amount abroad to avoid taxes. It's their extreme individualism, it's in their vein, instinct. Not everyone, of course, but some. Nobody likes to pay taxes, the difference - they can afford it.
Now, the cap that I was thinking may be even in the form of a loan (but with very favorable terms). Take the unused excess of what you have and distribute it among those who need them most, even people from your immediate circle - your driver, who wants, for example, a bigger house, but is afraid of a mortgage, your pilot, your gardener, your secretary, whatever. They pay you back something - an interest or something symbolic. Instead of being surrounded by people silently hating you because you're disgustingly rich (I think a lot of people hate very rich), you'd have a clan of 'worshipers' around, some real people that you know that you have helped them...
My idealistic, silly phylosophy anyhow -:)

[J.J.]

I see where you're coming from with the cap. I know some countries have steep taxes on estates to limit the kind of accumulation you're talking about. I think the idea is you can accumulate as much wealth as you want, but you're only allowed to keep so much of it as generational wealth. There are debates over whether that is fair since the first generation supposedly paid the taxes on that money and the government taxes it again and again.

But there used to be a philosophy floating around the wealthy circles in this country at the end of the 19th century through the Depression. The first generation would earn the money/accumulate the wealth. The second generation would manage the fortune to ensure the family security. Then the third generation would go into politics/public service.

I know today, we look at wealth as a factor to influence politics, but the Kennedys were an example of how this philosophy used to enter practice. JFK Sr. was the man who managed the Kennedy fortune to ensure the wealth in perpetuity, and his children were the famous politicians. And for a rich family, they remain some of the most beloved political figures among the Babyboomer generation.

I know it seems to be an idea that no longer exists today, but I always thought it was one of those noble ideas about how wealth accumulation could become a positive.

[Nik]

I've nothing against rich people and I admire many of them, especially those actively engaged in making their fortunes and driving the progress along the way, with all the controversy the likes of Richard Branson, Elon Musk or William Gates even....
On the other hand, trillions (quadrillions maybe?) of dollars 'buried' somewhere while there are so many things they could do, simply seem unfair and inefficient...
It's like Newtonian mechanics working perfectly in normal conditions, but being overridden by Einstein's at close to the light speed, so I similarly can see a certain limit of private property at a very distant extremes -:)