Skip Navigation Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team
 

Citizen's Briefing Book Component

LOGIN



FIND AN ISSUE YOU CARE ABOUT



MORE CATEGORIES

Content Starts Here

Idea Detail
-50
Points

Redistribute the Wealth

Does it make sense that 90% of the wealth of the United States is held in the hands of 2% of it's citizens? President-elect Obama, I ask that you create a law that limits personal fortunes to be no more than 300 times than what the average hard-working American makes. Above that, there should be a 100% tax. This will allow people to still diversify and accumulate a lot of money, but will immediately fix the deficit. It will also give the government excess funds that can be redistributed to the poor according to need. This is our chance to erase poverty from this planet. Why not take it?
6 Comments  »  Posted by George Hull, Jr. to Economy, Service, Additional Issues on 1/13/2009 9:34 PM

Comments
 
Snoop Dog
1/13/2009 9:52 PM
Poverty is caused by the stifling of progress in technology, which itself is caused by the present world's profit-driven economic system.


 
patrick tanksley
1/13/2009 9:55 PM

no sir no sir. i am not rich first of all. and if i worked my ass off in school and worked like hell to the top of the ladder or had a good idea, why in the hell should i have to fork over my money that i worked my ass off for? how will it fix the deficit?  erase poverty? thats what FDR was thinking, but look at how it turned out. NOT ALL but most of the people living off welfare in government housing its generation upon generation my friend. and trust where i grew up i have seen it i have been surounded by it, and that is why i am working hard so i can have that nice house on the hill and a nice car. i am sorry sir but if the government wants me to stop doing good and wants to take my money for being successful i will take myself and my money elseware

 
patrick tanksley
1/13/2009 9:57 PM
seriously what is wrong with turning a profit? and furthur more when 90% of the time the poor keep doing what keeps them poor and likewise for the rich how is it a rich persons falt? they still pay way more taxes than you could ever dream of. its a shame that 98% of the population are lazy
 
Sam C
1/13/2009 10:14 PM
I'm not conservative like the above commenters - I actually do care about wealth distribution - but an actual 100% tax on income above a certain level would just lead people to stop working and start measuring their status in terms of how much leisure time they have. The government would get basically nothing off of the 100% marginal tax rate, which would reduce the money it had to pay for social programs.
 
George Hull, Jr.
1/13/2009 11:13 PM

Very true Sam. I'm still hashing out my idea here, so I will amend it to be a progressive tax raise which reaches 75% at 300 times the national average. Adam Smith himself was for progressive taxation. That's right, the founder of Capitalism was for progressive taxation.

 
Shrugged
1/14/2009 12:23 AM
I'm thinking that if I had houses, cars, priceless works of art, and I heard the news that someone was coming to take it away from me and make it damn hard to hold onto what I already had--I'd move to a country that was a bit more friendly ... and I'd take my productivity, investments, and staff jobs with me.

"... excess funds that can be redistributed to the poor ..."  who will decide who gets what?  Who will set the standard?  If everything you don't need is taken away from you than why would you earn more than you absolutely need?  If we, as a nation, are all just earning to exist than we're just stagnating.

Perhaps before we try to play Robin Hood with the laws we should examine them a bit more: where are these wealthy getting their wealth?  Would a flat consumption tax be a better alternative?  Can laws be adjusted to create a more competitive environment that allows others to get a share of the pie while rewarding the most innovative man who offers the best bargain (as chosen by the consumer)?

Subscribe to ideas