a social benefit of limiting total individual wealth

April 18th, 2009 by Romeo Anghelache

I was arguing a few days ago that adding to your State’s Constitution a provision which limits the total wealth of a person to the necessary for a human lifetime would naturally limit corruption or criminality. Examples in favor of this proposal abound, the most recent one is the plot to kill Morales, the current, democratically elected, president of Bolivia.

The wealthy persons who now have plenty of disposable income to pay mercenaries, will have to think harder or collaborate with other plotters to hire killers (or to subvert administrators) if a total limit on personal wealth would be in place.

Such a constitutional provision would not add a burden on the legislative system: the total wealth of a person can be estimated from the taxes paid, so no further control or monitoring is necessary. And by the way, taxes have nothing to do with limiting somebody’s wealth, taxes are the practical means we use to recognize that we live in a society and we pay, through these taxes, the common services we (should) get from the State. And this has nothing to do with any kind of leftism either (in case u’ve been brainwashed about it), those wealthy persons who would be affected by this provision would have the freedom to hand the rest to their relatives or friends, if they don’t want to hand it to the State. Essentially, this principle means replacing hiring with collaborating.

Comments are closed.