Replies

I may not win any friends among my Conservative peers hereon . . . but here goes.

I'm torn.

I believe the workman is worthy his hire. And, even people like rock stars, sports stars, software gurus etc. who churn out a product that benefits 10's to 100's of millions of people are due a portion of the cost each individual benefitting pays. I think that's a pretty solidly sound principle. Otherwise, why bother being creative. Be a well paid garbage collector or plumber and be done with a lot of other hassles.

On the other hand, 2% having 80% of the wealth seems extremely excessive.

And, in the New Testament, The Church had all things in common. God is not at all thrilled with our citizen's; western Society's; human nature's addiction to the gods of materialism. HE WILL BE INSURING WITHIN A RELATIVELY FEW YEARS THAT AUTHENTIC BELIEVERS ONCE AGAIN HAVE ALL THINGS IN COMMON in the USA. There will be no other viable way to handle the situations that will be arising.

And, after that horrid TRIBULATION, Christ's eternal Kingdom will clearly do things perfectly.

But to be more hypothetical as though I were rewriting the rules for our Republic at the outset . . . I think I'd try and get something like the following implemented.

1) Individuals who make 20-40 times the MEDIAN OF THE LOWER THIRD OF WAGE EARNERS would have 8 years of unfettered consumption at those rates of income.

The last 2 of those 8 years, a committe of a cross section of one's citizen peers of the most RESPECTED, HUMBLE, ALTRUISTIC OF THE CITIZENS IN THAT LOCALE AS DESCRIBED BY THE LOCAL POPULATION would examine the accounts and expenditures of the individuals concerned.

If there was a clear trend of spending at least 1/4th of said income in behalf of others and the public good, then said wealthy individuals would be allowed to continue to spend more or less unfettered with only yearly review for another 4 years.

After 4 years, the proportion of their income spent in behalf of the public good would have to go up to 35%. If it had gone up to 34% within the last year of those 4 years, the individual would be granted another 4 years of only yearly review.

At the end of that 4 years--16 years total--the proportion devoted to others and/or the public good would have to reach 55% within the last year of that 16th year. Then, another 4 years would be authorized with merely yearly review.

The last year of that 20th year, the individual would be required to demonstrate 70% of their income being devoted to others and/or the public good. If so, the individual would be authorized 10 years of additional unfettered spending at their own discretion with merely yearly review by their peers. Every decade thereafter until their death or dramatically less income [to be defined], they would have a review to asses whether they warranted by virtue of the wisdom of their impact on the public good, another 10 years of rather unfettered management of their own expenditures.

2) UPON THEIR DEATH, inheritance would pass as designated in their wills. Massive wealth could be inherited. However, the 3rd year after the inheritance was passed, a committee of peers would assess how wise the inheritee was using the wealth for his own life as well as for the public good. If the consensus was positive, the inheritee would be authorized another 5 years of relatively unfettered management of the wealth. At that point, the same process per above would apply.

3) Individuals who have income 40-60 times the MEDIAN of the LOWEST 3RD income group in the population at large would be allowed 5 years of unfettered management of their wealth with committee a review beginning the at the end of the 3rd year and also at the ending of the 4th and 5th years. At the end of the 5th year, if the consensus was positive, the individual would be allowed an additional 5 years of managing their own wealth unfettered.

At the end of every year following the end of the 10th year, a similar review would occur. Unbinding feedback would be given yearly. At the end of every 5th year until 15 years total, a positive consensus would be necessary for continued unfettered managment of their own wealth. During the 14th and 15th years, it must be demonstrated that they are beginning to insure that at least 30% of their income is devoted to others and/or the public good.

At the 19th and 20th years, it must be demonstrated that they are beginning to insure that at least 60% of their income is devoted to others and/or the public good.

At the end of the 24th and 25th years, and for every 5 year segment thereafter, it must be demonstrated that they are devoting 80% of their income to others and/or the public good.

Inheritance would be as above except that consensus required reviews would occur every 2 years for the first 10 years the inheritee managed the wealth. After that, the inheritee would be on the same program as the benefactor was before their death.

4) All those who's income was beyond 40% TIMES the MEDIAN income of the poorest 1/3rd of the population would undergo consensus required review every 2 years after an initial 5 years of unfettered management of their own wealth. And, they would have to devote 90% of their income to others and/or the public good after 20 years of income at the 40%+ level.

5) The peer review committee members would serve 16 years after which 1/4th would be rotated off every 4 years. Their income during years of service would be 3% of the incomes of all those they reviewed during the year. They would not have their expenditures reviewed except once at the half way point of their term and at the end of their term to insure there was no conflict-of-interest or other less than humble and altruistic management of their incomes.

Their deliberations would be highly classified. They would have a support staff chosen individually by them and that staff would also retire with them. The support staff would each receive 15% of the amount of income of the committee member they supported.

A monitoring mechanism and group--non permanent in terms of individual terms of duty--would be developed to insure that committee members and staff maintained the highest of morals and ethics at all times.

Taxes of the total population would be based on either a flat 15% tax or some fitting percentage OR a transaction tax.

Charitable and other public works organizations and projects would be open to contributions from all citizens, including the wealthy as outlined in general terms above.

Citizens amassing massive wealth would not be required to turn over major portions of it to a government bureaucracy which would inevitably manage it worse. Nevertheless, the opportunity to freely amass such wealth must at some point carry with it compelling pressure to apportion increasing amounts of it for the good of others and/or the public good.

Probably individuals skilled at amassing such wealth would be much better than government bureaucrats at insuring that genuine public good arose from their wealth.

anyway--so much for off the top of my head.