LogFAQs > #905579442

adjl posted...

So don't give people the choice. If all money has to go through a central tracking system in order to change hands, it'd become virtually impossible to hide income (especially if cash disappears, though that carries with it plenty of other issues). Certainly, one could avoid ever reaching the cap by just spending the money instead of depositing it, but that's still preferable because spending money still redistributes it (just to people the earner chooses instead of the government) and avoids extreme concentration of wealth.

And this is exactly why socialist states become authoritarian rather quickly.

The whole "why would anyone work harder if they don't get paid for it?" argument has merit, but only when the cap is so low as to be reasonably attainable without working hard. Nobody is going to be able to amass $50 million without putting some effort into it, and having $50 million to your name is going to be beneficial enough that people will still want to work for it even if they can't be billionaires. They just aren't going to work harder than is needed to become fabulously rich, which I don't think is really a bad thing.

In the "wealth inequality" sense, that's not really a bad thing, no. In the "social programs" sense, it could be disastrous, as seen with France.