What if there was a maximum assets?

Commitment to our readers

The Gobanking Council's editorial team is obliged to bring you impartial reviews and information. We use data -controlled methods for evaluating financial products and services – Our reviews and reviews are not influenced by advertisers. Further information on our editorial guidelines and our methodology for checking the products and services can be found in the methodology.

20 years
Help you live, richer

Trust from
Millions of readers

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 30.8% of American assets are currently concentrating on the top 1%. 97.5% in the upper half. In any case, this is a strongly distorted distribution.

In order to contain the gap between the rich and the poor, loud critics of inequality from prosperity demanded state interventions that can consist of taxes on the richest Americans or tax breaks for the middle class.

What would the world look like – just go with it – if a maximum assets were set up? While the question is purely hypothetical, it turns out to be interesting that we can speculate about. What happens in a reality in which taxes are imposed to keep net assets below 1 billion US dollars?

Gobanking Council spoke to financial experts to hear her opinion on the economic and personal effects of such a reality. Aaron, Razon, Personal Finance Expert at Couponsnake, believed that the consequences could be positive, while finance and insurance experts at Clearsurance Melanie Malon believed that the consequences could be much negative.

Next, you will learn why the poor arm stay arm and the middle class is not rich.

Positive consequences

Could a maximum assets offer more personal fulfillment and distribute evenly?

Increased economic mobility

According to Razon, the most obvious change, which results from the implementation of a maximum net capacity, would be greater economic mobility due to the narrowing of the gap between very rich and the arms. Or the very rich and … most other people.

Since the prosperity is distributed more evenly, “economic mobility for low -income earners would be achieved,” said Razon.

Income of low earners often suffer from a lack of access to resources that are available to their wealthier colleagues. High costs for education, healthcare and living space immortalize a vicious circle of poverty and economic stagnation.

However, if there were maximum net assets, the prices would have to drop across the board. Companies would not be able to get the top in the same way because the top would have a ceiling – and more people can reach them.

Increased personal fulfillment

If the possibility of collecting unlimited wealth, the “more, more” mentality of America could also argue, Razon, who indicated that this shift could encourage individuals to live better at the moment and be grateful for what they have not yet acquired what they have not yet acquired.

After all, the goal post would stop moving.

“People have no choice [other] To define what success and performance means for you, and the chances are that you can invest a larger part of your focus on personal fulfillment, the balance of work and working life and make valuable contributions to society, ”said Razon.

While it would still take much shorter focus and strength to collect $ 1 billion individually, the general cultural way of thinking could be shifted, which leads to the fact that the finance managers less desirably or personally considerably significantly significantly significantly significantly significantly significantly.

Increased motivation

It is becoming increasingly difficult and demoralizing to keep a marathon without ever knowing what mile you are on. The trip can begin to feel insurmountable, exhausting and not be worth it anymore.

But Razon said: “The presence of a financial finish line changes everything.”

The diagram of financial bank brands becomes much easier if you know where you are – especially if you are closer. With a imposed financial upper limit, the Americans, paradoxically, were able to see an increase in motivation and dynamics by considering their financial and professional dreams much more.

Negative consequences

On the other hand, the inability to further increase prosperity could lead to stagnation.

Increased hiding places

Musson had a less positive – but no less potentially accurate – outlook on what could result if a maximum assets were imposed.

“Some people [would] We still accept prosperity. There are always gaps, ”said Musson, who emphasized the obsession of the Americans of money and greed.

According to Musson, many people would never adhere to a government upper limit. You would simply find better opportunities to hide assets. Some were able to use overseas banks; Others could form companies or Shell companies to transfer assets of themselves as individuals.

And with so much money from the books, it would only get worse. Economic mobility and access to resources for low-income earners would remain difficult-like the ability to fully understand or pursue why.

Reduced productivity and innovation

Razon did not agree to Musson that maximum assets would increase motivation.

“Some people would stop being productive,” she said. “Without the incentive of more prosperity, some people would stop trying.”

Musson said that not only wealthy people employ thousands of people, but also help to finance all types of innovations and activities that boost the economy. Unfortunately, the desire to lose innovative and grow without the same financial incentive – and therefore also progress in sectors such as technology and medicine.

Musson felt most certain: “What would not happen is that someone would expand their wealth beyond the border and hand over the excess to the government. […] You would either find a way to keep it or you would minimize your assets. “

Sources