[StacyRoberts]

I read Piketty's capital. It's very long.

My current best solution to the problem of capitalism is this: once a year the richest n people must divest themselves of all assets minus the median annual salary and start over.

[StacyRoberts]

Explanations for the down votes are appreciated. I've put a lot of thought into this.

[SgtBastard]

For any arbitrary n, those clustered at the top will arrange their affairs to maintain the n-1 wealthiest person in society to avoid the reset. Giving away 100s of millions to keep billions makes rational sense - especially if you can arrange it to flow to your spouse/children/trust/charity you control.

In fact, you could game such a system by spiking a competitors net-worth right before the reset i.e. by suddenly buying a small, but significant chunk of their shares to move the market value on their shares.

What exactly have you thought about?

[StacyRoberts]

Those are games within with the current system as well. The difference is that once you begin to approach the top your incentive becomes altruistic, because you are thinking about increasing the wealth of other people more than yourself.

That's the key. Capitalism only rewards greed. There is no altruistic component. What I suggest rewards altruism after the game is won. There is currently no end to the increasing gap, except violent revolt, which has always been the solution.

Violent revolt is not a good solution to the wealth gap.

[empiricus]

Did not downvote. But this solution would make the rich try to hide their true wealth, so basically it becomes picking randomly from the first 0.x percent. Also do you agree your solution has zero chances of ever being implemented?

[StacyRoberts]

They do that now in shell companies and off shore accounts.

No I don't agree with that. Someone may have asked the founding fathers that too. You know the monarchy will never go for independent colonies, right?

Political systems change, violently eventually unfortunately and the goal of a new system is to avoid that.

[keenmaster]

I didn't downvote, but while I see the value in a moderate wealth tax, I think cutting the rich down to median salary would destroy a lot of value. Our capitalist system is undergirded by pecuniary incentives to innovate, improve, and produce. If you take those incentives away, the most productive members of society will not produce as much.

Some people are saying that billionaires shouldn't exist. I'm not so sure. If we create a high marginal wealth tax at each 5 or 10 billion dollar bracket, and someone still manages to retain tens of billions of dollars, then they're producing a massive amount of value that should only be celebrated.

[StacyRoberts]

Can you imagine that Bill Gates would get wealthy again or Warren Buffett? They would be lauded as heroes! They already are for suggesting something similar, just at death. They give away so much already and are loved for that.

What if they were that person twice our three times! The most productive people will have a new incentive to create tremendous value again!

Very soon I will get a warning from hn that I'm posting too fast. I Don't know when that will be but I will respond when I can. I love the constructive dialog.

I really do believe in this plan.