Limitarianism: the case against extreme wealth | LSE 

try passing a bill in Congress that meaningfully restricts PAC/political donations...it's far too late; Congress far too owned for there to be ANY hope of such a bill passing. As Martin Sandbu suggests, we "can" introduce such restrictions instead of introducing a limit on wealth, for example, to a reasonable multiple of the mean, but, IMO, in some economically/socially /legally influential nations it's FAR too late for that particular solution to be in any way viable. i think he's clearly correct in his characterization of a 100% tax applied to all wealth/income above a level n being the same as a limit on those two things.

an additional Q in relation to 'neo-liberalism' lowering of total abject poverty could be: "how many, if any, lower paid (so, never in abject poverty) people now receive less for their labour?" (not simply in 'real' (inflation adjusted) terms but also in actual numerical amounts per hour/day). note: IF THEY WERE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AT ALL the money paid in mid-late 90s to folks engaged in low/no skill construction work in UK dropped (from ¬150GBP down to ¬120 per day) after millions of low skilled (almost exclusively young males) migrants from far poorer European nations were welcomed into the country at the turn of this century. Yes, the number of those living in abject poverty in Europe surely reduced as a consequence but a significant financial/economic cost was born by some of the lowest paid (with the fewest employment opportunities and alternatives) workers in the UK. (a fact never acknowledged or compensated through any ensuing government policy ) note 2: Though far fewer in number those migrants with higher construction skills (plumbing/electric trades) came to the UK too. These skilled 'trades' folks were the primary target of the UK's open door migration policy in the first place, as the UK ( from 1979 to 1992 under 'conservative' party rule and led by its infamous disciple of 'neoliberalism' :Thatcher) had quite deliberately, through its choice to cause years of deep recession through its 'scorched earth' approach to economic/labour union policy, all but completely eliminated the flow of apprentices required each and every year to maintain an economically stable (S=D) level of skilled tradesmen/women to replace all those retiring each year...that government lasted until 1997 yet did nothing in the 12 years of power it enjoyed after those (1980-83) recession years to make up for that significant shortfall. Consequently, by the mid to late 90s, enough tradesmen had retired, and far too few (4 year long) apprenticeships had been completed to create anything like the number of certified/qualified tradesmen needed to replace them. So, the inevitable acute national shortage of certified plumbers and electricians came about. As a result the prices they (esp plumbers) could (and did) charge households for their (often urgent/emergency) services rose sharply and rapidly. "the market will decide everything" was the conservative government's interminable and idiotic mantra, at the same time that it forced years of deep recession upon huge swathes of the nation's industry, decimating every market in the national economy, many permanently, a couple of them, heavily unionised, were the target of the government's 'union busting' policy and so were completely eradicated, their critical products imported instead, unsurprisingly at a far higher cost than previously was the case.(eg; already higher priced imported coal made even costlier by it having to be shipped all the way from the east coast of Australia ! This seemingly pig headed, economically irrational approach to the government's national energy strategy imported significant inflation too as higher energy costs are consequently paid by every UK business, this is reflected in the higher prices it likely then charges its customers.) A price , we now fully understand, that that government was more than happy for the people to pay in order to seriously undermine / eliminate the powers of the only organisations in existence which represent, to industry and government, their own collective interests involving workplace/economic issues ! For some peculiar and unmentioned reason, and despite it clearly experiencing a classic 'supply vs demand' issue, that same government apparently could not stomach that particular version of its hitherto all knowing, magic "market" to witness a rise in the price tradesmen charged middle class voters, who, as house owners are by far the most prolific users of those trades' services. (albeit having been limited to just those two skilled trades, and temporarily, the increasing hourly rate of the 'working class' reportedly caused status anxiety in some as they related it , presumably unfavourably, to their own 'middle class'/management income.) A political party representative of the broader electorate, as opposed to just the very low, wealthy percentage of it that are financial donors to the party's coffers, might try to fix the supply side of the UK market in tradesmen by immediately rolling out a national program of relevant training/apprenticeship schemes. Not only to raise the supply of tradesmen, but , in so many ways even more importantly , in so doing it would help address some of the politically , economically and socially disastrous pandemic of unemployment it had deliberately brought about through its total elimination of the nation's coal industry years earlier, decimating countless communities, towns and cities that it had left entirely unsupported ever since despite its countless earlier 'guarantees' to the contrary. But no, they rejected the idea of working class youngsters having the opportunity to have a preciously scarce chance at a solid and sustainable career. Instead the party, always mindful of its wealthy, business owning donors (and their slightly unhinged obsession with discovering a scheme which would somehow result in them seeing ever decreasing wages paid to their employees) decided it would simply push through a bill enabling a policy that would entice the skilled tradesmen (and many millions of unskilled) of poorer European nations into the higher wage UK ..and so the UK's open door migration policy was born. (eventually launched by the incoming, thatcher inspired "new" Labour government) .

This idea is completely crazy.

Why you should bother about someone else's money? Is not yours, so don't pretend you have any power to redistribute not your wealth by hiding it behind any morals or other bs. If it's obtained illegally - it should be confiscated. If it's earned fair - not your damn business