Should there be a limit - or a cap - on how much money a person can make or possess?

• I support a Marxism-Leninism approach to government, plus my own thoughts. I've been pondering at the idea that there should be a limit - a cap if you will - on how much money a person can possess/make. I calculated that the world's top 100 richest people control $1, 735, 000, 000, 000. That is nearly $2 trillion of money in the hands of 100 people. Should 100 people be allowed to control that much money? Such a figure could eradicate a lot of the world's poverty, fight the war against cancer and other diseases, et cetera. Even if each one of those 100 individuals kept a $1 million - more than enough to live off - there would still be over $1.5 trillion in excess money that could be used more productively. Oprah, for example, makes over $300 million. Does one person need that kind of money? Should Tiger Woods be allowed to control $100 million? The most obvious question that people ask me is, "Who has the right to take their money?". Obviously that depends on your point-of-view. I believe that an international organization - like the United Nations - should be able to put that money to the issues facing the world, namely poverty, a lack of water in certain areas, etc. I am curious as to what your thoughts are. Should there be a cap on how much individuals can make or possess? What should be done with that money if you agree with there being a cap? Please be respectful in your response.

• Answer:

  I've definitely thought a lot about this too. It's always bothered me that compensation is so disproportionate; in some cases it clearly doesn't reflect the amount of effort put forward. Should someone be able to make a movie that millions enjoy and be able to collect many more millions as a result? I would say "sure why not"... until you look at the specialist physician who spent 17 years in school and will never make that much in his or her lifetime. Clearly my answer is leaning towards "yes", but in order for that to work, this "cap" would have to be based on an objective, measurable, and fair criteria that nearly everyone can accept as reflective of the effort put forth to achieve your position. Perhaps a standard maximum based on the highest attainable level of education would be appropriate... people would be free to pursue any career that interests them and make as much as they like, but they will not be allowed keep more than those who have sacrificed 17 years of their lives and accumulated a vast store of knowledge that they put to use helping the people around them every day.... There's also the matter of who decides what to do with the extra as you mentioned. I believe that greed, although perhaps not inevitable or natural, is still something of an obstacle. Until we've reached a level of social development and adjustment that makes greed a non-issue, a computer program that automatically pays our salary and allocates resources based on a standard template of social need would work nicely. That way, many intellectuals could be charged with making an agreement on that standard template of social need. It could be reviewed periodically to ensure society's needs are indeed being met... much the same way democracies elect their officials, but this change would be based on a rational, informed assessment, rather than who can garner the most votes.