Should there be a cap on how much money an american can earn before it gets distributed? -

Say an american reaches a net worth of 20 million dollars. This should be the cap right and banks could enforce it? any money exceeding that should be redistributed to prevent a monopoly on the US economy. Isn t this a good way to ensure equality and a stable economy? jobs couldn t be outsourced over seas because they couldn t earn more than 20 million anyway. Good idea or not? and I m not advocating communism if it sounds like it. 20 million dollars or even 2 million is enough to live off for the remainder of your life.|::::|After reading some of the answers, I believe a point was missed. Each wage earner pays a set percentage in taxes. These taxes help us all, from paying for the cop to protect you to the city streets you drive on. A cap is unnecessary as your tax burden is predetermined, and under the Obama plan, few people will receive a tax break, many will retain their current tax burden, and few will receive a tax increase.....of about 3%. That s it. 3%...Do we think the Donald, The Arnold, Mr. Gates and the hundreds of Movie Stars, Corporate Leaders and Politicians can t afford this? I thought not...Thanks for you patience.|::::|That would take away personal incentive. That would be punishing people who work to succeed. That would limit jobs and productivity. It s not right to punish someone who has devoted their life to doing what they do, and became successful at it. This would be the worst method for a stable economy. It removes motivation.|::::|You Idea is not new , it use to be part of the tax law in the US. From the end of WWII until 1964 we had a 91% tax rate on incomes over several million. It was the cut to 70% and in 1980 Reagan cut it to 50% and then even lower. These tax cut were intended to provide incentives for the high earners to increase their income, and they have succeeded. The top 1% have doubled their share and now get almost 1/4 of all the income in the US. http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008...|::::|Haven t you ever heard of Carpe Diem or the American Dream? If the government capped the earning potential of someone, what is the point of that person developing new technology and earning money if he has to be forced to give it away. I think it is a bad idea.|::::|That defeats the entire purpose of laissez-faire economics and individualism. There should be no cap on people s income. I think this backlash stems from jeleousy and frustration. When the economy is booming everyone ignores the liberal outcry for fair trade.|::::|In this scenario do you also cap the amount a lazy welfare leech can steal from the person who earns it? If you want to cap the amount earned, you should also be willing to cap the amount stolen.|::::|OMG OMG OMG OMG NO NO NO NO NO The key word in your question is EARNS If I were the person earning the money, I would just stop working and let the other guy do all the work. Let someone else support me. What the heck.|::::|It worked really well during the Soviet Union s reign. Taking the most productive people economically and taking away their desire to produce is hardly the way to build wealth.|::::|If we are going to place a limit on how much a person can ear, something around 5 billion sounds like a nice round figure. Anyone who earns more than that should be taxed back to 5 billion.|::::|no, i really have to take a conservative stance by saying that money should not be distributed once reached a cap of 20 mil. i mean, say for example you personally made 25 mil, and all you got to keep was 20 while the other 5 was given away to people on welfare- because really, you dont know where your other 5 mil is going to be distributed at-- and if you worked hard for your money, then youre probably going to want to keep it. and to further elaborate my point, barack obama is increasing tax on the rich, however, the more $ you donate, the less taxes you pay. so in reality, you could donate 5 mil and pay quite less taxes in the first place if you felt that strongly about having money being distributed. but i really think that an excuse and rebuttal to this argument will always be communism, even though it really isnt, but if something is yours that you earned, i.e. 20 mil, then its yours to keep...not to be given away.