Azelma wrote:
1.) Is it inherently wrong/evil to be wealthy? Or is it all what you do with that wealth?
No, and not really.
People are what they do in this world. This applies least of all to charity and most of all to compassion, fairness and justice towards "the stranger". Enjoying one's wealth is no vice; enjoying one's wealth to the exclusion of compassion towards others is.
Like most Jews, I believe that the greatest service to society one can perform is to give someone a job. And like all Jews, I believe that the highest form of
tzedakah is to do good anonymously, with no hope of reciprocation of worldly reward.
Hence I utterly reject most forms of charity and non-profit as they exist today.
Azelma wrote:
2.) What is the appropriate level of wealth before someone has "too much"? If there's a poverty line, is there an opposite "rich line" that no one should be above?
Meaningless question.
I reject the idea that anyone has to lose for anyone to win. People believe this only because of the illusions of shortfall created by the limitations of the free market.
Not everyone can have three mansions, five cars, a yacht, and a helicopter, but I don't believe that so many people seriously want those things that anyone need live like an indentured servant to ensure that those who do, can.
And I believe that with a mixed economy, human and material resources could be used more efficiently than our current system allows -
more infrastructure and full employment - to allow many more people to become "super-rich" while also reducing the ranks of those in want.
A rising tide raises all boats.
Azelma wrote:
3.) Should people be required to give all their wealth beyond a certain point to the state for the "common good" (a way to enforce a "too rich" line)?
Progressive taxation is not comparable to a hard cap on wealth, something no one has ever proposed. The strawman is promulgated by capitalist propaganda.
Azelma wrote:
4.) Is someone like Bill Gates "too wealthy" and "evil" despite the massive amounts he (and his wife) have used to support great causes? Despite his generous giving, he still could afford to have everyone on FUBU killed quite easily.
No.
Bill Gates has earned what he has. And the world is infinitely better off for it.
Azelma wrote:
5.) If someone starts a successful business that creates jobs/tax revenue/etc do they deserve to earn more than the people they hire?
Yes.
But this is actually very rare these days. Attention is focused on a handful of brave pioneers, but they are neither the majority nor the most influential amongst the super-wealthy. Most of them are just socially connected and play with paper (corporate raiders and hedge fund managers).
Azelma wrote:
6.) How do you incentivize innovation and business without a profit motive? Can it be done?
No.
But it is a false duality. We can, in fact, have the best of both worlds:
1. Mandate that corporations pay their employees with a mix of cash and stock, so that all companies gradually evolve into co-ops.
2. Fully fund education and research.
3. Low interest state loans to entrepreneurs.
4. Build infrastructure - water, power, and mass transit.
5. Bring down the cost of living - build more high-rise, rent-free urban tenements and bring down the cost of utilities, education, food, and other life staples.
6. Dismantle the military-industrial complex.
7. Stabilize the currency and stop stagflation.
8. Exorbitant taxes on land, interest, and other unproductive speculation.
9. Mandate that all goods sold in the US must be produced in accordance with US law, and put the burden (and cost) of proof on the vendor.
10. Continue to raise the minimum wage, and establish other mandatory entitlements for workers.
11. Outlaw labor strikes and pickets. Outlaw the hiring of scabs. Unions negotiate directly with employers for employment, and all union representatives are directly elected by the employees.
12. Executives bear direct legal culpability for all illegalities committed by employees accountable to them, even if they were unaware of their misdeeds.
13. Ban women from receiving employment benefits (e.g., pensions and vacation time).
14. Fix the workday at six hours, and the workweek at four days.
15. Disband the EEOC.
16. Kill all legal firms. Bar associations now assign cases directly to their members via a DKP system. Wages are based on rank, which in turn is based on total score. Individual case scores are the inverse of their DKP cost.There would still be an incentive to create startups - more than ever, as individual leadership would have a strong advantage against co-ops, but would not be undermined by oligopoly.
This would balance the strengths of the capitalist and socialist systems - but with the weaknesses of neither. That is the great strength of a mixed economy, and it's why Germany is taking over Europe.
Essentially, this works on the same principle as the expiry on patents (something these same capitalists have worked very hard to repeal).
Azelma wrote:
If we agree the system is broken, what can realistically be changed within it to "close the gap" fairly.. as they say
Almost no societies that encounter their limitations are able to overcome them peacefully. I don't believe that our society will prove any different. I believe that change will come to America only after we meet with total catastrophe.
Azelma wrote:
Also, I'm asking within the context of our current Capitalist society...which won't be changing any time soon.
Germany in 1915Germany in 1935Germany in 1955