Canadas reputation .

[captain morgan]

I think that depends. Though I'd not be for any income ceiling, or any ceiling on essential wealth (business, essential assets such as shelter, etc.), I could agree to a high wealth ceiling for non-essential personal wealth. It would in fact have a few advantages:

No matter how hard a person works, there's no way he can become a billionaire through work alone. Certainly luck plays a role there to some degree. This would thus discourage people from going into industries that concentrate wealth excessively, such as monopolistic ones. And because he can get only so rich, once he reaches his limit, he may change his mindset from making more wealth at all costs (e.g expanding his tobacco company, his brewery, his casino, etc.) to looking at moving towards more ethical industries, figuring that even if he makes more money anyway, he won't get to keep it, so might as well move into something he feels better about besides just money.

Sure I could agree to a high wealth ceiling, such as a million dollars let's say, applicable to personal non-essential accumulated wealth only, business and essential wealth being exempt.

By differentiating between 'essential and non-essential' wealth, you have effectively established an earnings ceiling. Further, as you touch on in the next post, you pose the essential question in asking "what is considered essential?"... Do you establish how big one's house is by setting sqft per person regulations? How would account for the disparate preferential treatment (and the associated value) of someone living on the ocean in West Van compared to a ground level apartment on East Hastings? - Sure, my example is extreme, but it is applicable - engaging your suggestion would put my example at the forefront at some point.

In addition, differentiating between personal and business wealth will also have great problems in that someone owns that business and therefore it could be considered a part of their personal wealth.

Don't take offense to this Machjo, but your thoughts, while commendable are simply idealistic. You do not give enough emphasis to the human factor and the very real notion that we are all different in so many ways.

 

[Machjo]

I definitely see your point. Another option I could see would be a kind of honour tax system, whereby the government would recommend that, essential wealth (leaving it to personal conscience to interpret, but could include business and other such wealth), that one not possess more than a certain amount of wealth, all excess to be spent, given to charity, etc.

Sure such a law would be legally unenforceable, but who knows, maybe it could change attitudes and perceptions.