eringsbrough

How does one encourage the wealthy to re-invest once they are wealthy when money defines their power? The obvious answer which is what we have been doing, is to simply tax them. This of course leads to a bloated government where favors are traded in exchange for access to other wealthy peoples money leading to a shell game where most of the rest of us lose.

The rich, once they attain their wealth do not want to get rid of it. As a general rule, those with money are more interested in primogeniture in order to pass on their wealth to the only people they really care about, their children. The rest often goes to foundations which is an attempt to re-distribute the wealth to those feel deserve it most. More often then not though, much of their wealth gets re-invested in order to maintain their wealth. If the disparity between taxed income and capital gains tax is large enough, then they get to keep their wealth and no new money enters the system. However since the growth of the money supply devalues their money, their investments combined with the loss from capital gains taxes must be greater than the inflation rate otherwise they lose access to their wealth.�Lately though, the wealthy simply move their accounts to offshore accounts that arenapos;t taxed or stick their money in complicated derivatives in order to maintain their vast wealth without having to give any of it back.

Unfortunately this is the trickle upward effect of wealth aggregation and is the single most problematic concern of any age.

The problem ultimately is a cross between greed, familial allegiance, and the argument for a meritocracy. The first can be addressed by a re-distribution of wealth, the second by same, the third however proves to be the problematic one. The reason it is problematic is because everyone believes what they do is more valuable than everyone else around them. Once the wealth becomes concentrated it is a simple matter for whoever considers themselves the elite to simply define what they do as being the most important. Eventually the most important jobs are only available to those who have wealth to begin with and thus the problem perpetuates itself. However were there to be a proletariat uprising, then those who win will define what they do as being the apos;bestapos; jobs. For a true meritocracy to function, job allocation must be determined by rational allocation of wealth to those who NEED it in order to do their jobs. But by this I mean access to control of the resources, not to their own bank accounts.

Fairness dictates that no human is worth more or less than another. The problem with this is that we are not built the same. This inherent unfairness between talent and worth is the crux of the ultimate problem. If we pay everyone equally then those who would otherwise bear the brunt of the work will rebel by not working and civilization will collapse.

The problem is how to unthrone the idle rich. Being wealthy is only useful to society if those with money reinvest for the greater good. If however the wealthy are affraid of losing their wealth, then there is not a force on earth short of threat of violence that can coerce them to compete.

Ultimately any solution to this conundrum must be dealt with at a psychological level. So the real question is, what motivates us and how do we harness that for maximum utility?

And therin lies the core of the problem. What motivates people is status. Wealth is merely an indicator of status (hence SES or socico economic status which among other things is a predictor of happiness.) If everyone had the same amount of money we would all be miserable because ultimately what drives us is position in the social heirarchy. (also known as popularity.) We all want love, and love is the great evil.

The reason I classify love as the great evil is because it is large

engineer utility power, eringsbrough, eringtones, eringurrl, eringurrl.com.