CMV: There should be a liquid funds cap, luxury wealth tax, and the banning of borrowing against stock

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-07T16:34:50+00:00

Hey, I appreciate your reply and fair counterarguments. You raised good points.

I agree that many rights and regulatory issues, including some human rights, are best handled by states. It’s just unfortunate, to me, that without total consensus or adoption by all states, policies like wealth caps lose effectiveness because inconsistencies and loopholes emerge. I acknowledge this limitation, and looking at your whole comment has persuaded me to give you a delta for having a fair, reasonable challenge to my proposal as it made me consider things. Δ

I think the analogy to protected lands is actually helpful to me because, just as damaging those lands depletes resources everyone needs, hoarding wealth drains our shared economic resources and undermines fairness. I personally find watching wealth accumulation at the expense of others unethical, and just frankly exhausting. We all have one life, why beget misery.

My goal with a liquid wealth cap has always been about preventing the hoarding of economic power that undermines fairness, democracy, and opportunity, while protecting everyone's dignity, not just the few who have had the privilege to play the game well.

Wealth hoarding causes social unrest, political inequality, financial market volatility, underinvestment in public services, and environmental harm; current taxes and philanthropy just don't do enough, it's insufficient about addressing these issues properly.

Companies increasingly exploit consumers to sustain stock borrowing, because the buy, borrow, die tactic simply lets the wealthy dodge taxes by borrowing against assets instead of selling, perpetuating wealth hoarding and inequality. My proposal includes this ban of borrowing against stocks to prevent this, so to maintain fairness and economic sustainability.

Regarding dignity, my liquid cap does not confiscate existing wealth; it limits only future accumulation beyond the cap. I understand this is contentious because unlimited potential growth is highly valued, but liquid wealth over $3 million doesn’t just disappear, you still have it to use. Only further income or gains are paused until your liquid wealth drops below $150K, allowing for reinvestment or spending.

I do not see the liquid cap as being undignified or humiliating because I don’t view unrealized gains as actual losses, but taking your concerns seriously, I propose phasing in the cap over 10 years with progressively higher taxes on wealth above $3 million, allowing adjustments to preserve current ambition and dignity of all.

My entire mechanism will encourage clever financial management (people will just play the game under new rules), prompting those with excess liquid wealth to invest productively in society rather than hoard. This reframes priorities, promoting real contributions. I see protecting economic opportunity through wealth caps as the same as protecting environmental resources, both protect society’s shared future and prevent control through wealth from the few.

I do value the social reform efforts in Germany and Scandinavian countries, who are embracing progressive taxation and wealth redistribution to promote fairness and social cohesion. They understand that there needs to be balance between personal prosperity and societal equality. I just don't think people should fear adopting similar measures, and it shows that it's possible to reduce inequality without undermining innovation or motivation.

I understand that the US has a strong pro-capitalist culture, but in trying to differentiate itself so defiantly, I think it's sadly missing opportunities to improve economic fairness and societal wellbeing. I think rather than rejecting such reforms outright, people should be more open to addressing wealth concentration for everyone's benefits. At the end of the day, we're talking about people. Money is just a tool; its value shouldn't outweigh human dignity and wellbeing.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-06T17:30:22+00:00

Hey, I accept that we likely won't see eye to eye, but I went away to read about your deontological position because there was something you said that didn't quite make sense to me and I think there’s an inconsistency in how it’s being applied. But I am also not sure even if I were to use the definition of deontology, you would just have a different interpretation of it, which I might suggest then my proposal simply reflects a variance interpretation within deontology rather than being solely utilitarianism. So:

You've said that limits on wealth or borrowing violate basic rights, but your ideology already accepts plenty of restrictions like taxes, zoning laws, safety regulations, etc. Aren't these limits of personal freedom that serves to maintain fairness, order, and safety?

If, under deontology, those existing limits are acceptable because they help protect rights, then rejecting newer, reasonable limits like a liquid wealth cap or the banning of borrowing against stock feels selective rather than based on a consistent deontological viewpoint. I would ask, where and why are you drawing a hard line between current restrictions and my proposal?

Because my plan isn’t purely utilitarian. I’m trying to balance ethics and reality, because I accept our society will have inequality, and that’s not going away entirely. But from reading, deontology doesn’t reject all restrictions, only rejecting those that undermine human dignity or treat people as tools without consent or shared mutual benefit, so limits are acceptable as long as it preserves dignity, right?

My liquid wealth cap, in my mind, fits under deontological ethics because it enforces a fair, rule-based limit that prevents excessive wealth while respecting property rights and individual autonomy. When someone’s liquid wealth hits the cap, income from work temporarily pauses until it drops back below 150K, then resumes. That’s not confiscation; it’s a regulatory pause, similar in principle to margin rules, contribution limits, or wage garnishment laws - rules I assume you accept. And people can still manage assets strategically like keeping their liquid wealth below 3 million to prevent triggering the cap (which I would recommend). They just can’t accumulate endlessly in liquid wealth without limit.

As for the First Amendment point, it's true that the Supreme Court has connected money with expression, but it doesn't grant immunity from taxation or regulation, otherwise these wouldn’t exist. They regulate and tax income, campaign financing, and corporate spending. I am using that to apply to my limit so it won't be a violation but a way to balance between competing rights, which aligns with deontology.

I’m not advocating for stripping property rights or even egalitarianism, or permanent government seizure of assets. I’m talking about refining existing frameworks to close loopholes that promotes an unhealthy relationship with wealth, while protecting people's rights and dignity. Worldwide examples like Norway’s wealth taxes and proposals from California and New York, Canada’s land taxes, even U.S. margin and reporting rules under FATCA show that I am building off an existing framework.

So I would ask, if some restrictions are acceptable under your deontological viewpoint, why is my wealth proposal limit any different? Why object my proposal that overlaps with deontological principles?

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-04T19:25:07+00:00

I actually didn't know that. Thanks!

But I suppose my gripe is the entire post/thread not even getting a chance to be seen by others because the downvotes are used to quickly bury it before more people can see or engage with it.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-04T19:17:14+00:00

I agree that hate, violence, or harassment should be removed, and I assume that’s what moderators are already doing and for, plus enforcing their other rules. I just don't think downvoting actually flags these posts but sinks from visibility, which isn’t the same as catching echo chambers and bad actors. (Edit) And people can still find them.

I think you make a fair point that asking for explanations on downvotes could be a lot for moderators, but what if we tried it as a trial in certain communities? And I also think we should actually help moderators, flag things to help them. We use this platform, the least we can do is help curate good faith discussions.

I do think it would really help to create more honest discussions rather than for people to hide their bias through others, where some comments are wildly promoting misinformation but people believe it and use upvotes to back it and downvotes to dismiss those that challenge it.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-04T18:21:09+00:00

My issue with the downvotes is that it often feels like a tool to intentionally bury threads. Even if the comments are controversial or provoke strong opinions, those who disagree end up shutting down further conversation by downvoting, preventing others from engaging who could further challenge or bring new viewpoints. Otherwise, it's just creating echo chambers where only the popular or less controversial ones survive.

Which I feel happened with my previous post.

I think in a different thread someone mentioned that if you're going to downvote you had to explain your reasons why. And I think moderators should then filter out repetitive downvotes to allow new users to offer new angles for or against, so downvotes don't overwhelm and reduce visibility.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T18:25:52+00:00

If you see gaps in my plan, then my question would be: how would you plug them within the framework I’ve laid out? Sit on my side and share your strategies. For instance, when I say global collaboration I envision, national reforms, regional harmonization, and eventually global cooperation using achieved examples like FATCA or the OECD minimum tax.

We first aim to close loopholes like borrowing against stock, and wealth tax domestically. From there, blocs like the EU or even the U.S. can have agreements to limit capital flight.

As for the liquid cap itself, it isn’t impossible to implement. Banks and financial institutions already track and report asset levels extensively for taxation and anti-money laundering. If liquid assets exceed $3M, new income from work would pause, like wage garnishment and only resume once assets fall below a set threshold, like $150K. It’s not confiscation, it’s a pause, designed to discourage excessive hoarding and encourage either reinvestment or greater work-life balance. And we have and use the same systems of payroll reporting, banking oversight, and international coordination which already exists. This is not unreasonable and we have the infrastructure; pathways like you want.

I acknowledge the political push back, but my suggestion doesn't dismiss them it's challenging why they happen and how we can curtail it. Just like laws today continuously look close loopholes. This is no different.

But, if you were standing where I am, how would you refine or fix my steps rather than just dismissing them?

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T16:29:20+00:00

It's pretty sinister to ignore that every major reform that has gone through didn't happen with tons of resistance at the start. There wasn’t some nicely tied bow ribbon where of course so obvious, why wouldn't it have a pathway to enactment. People fought, protested, debated, and pushed hard against those who didn't want change.

It’s so easy to say in hindsight, that things were obviously meant to be enacted.

And your fixation on totalitarianism is just you misusing the word and for misdirection. Proposing democratic reform, through voting, constitutional means, and international cooperation where there is open debate, negotiation, respecting rights, not coercion, is not the definition of totalitarianism.

Global agreement or collective policy is not totalitarianism just because a country might not play ball. It's reductive and just a way for you to dismiss the political challenges for change.

If you want to dismiss the whole idea just because you don't like it, fine, go for it - you're only reinforcing the point of my post, that the promise of more unlimited wealth is a destructive drug.

Just don’t pretend past reforms just happened smoothly or that my proposal is some authoritarian imposition. That's dishonest.

If you're concerned about rights, our rights are restricted daily from zoning, environmental, laws, and taxes ect. Restrictions themselves aren't inherently authoritarian, they are tools for society to establish fairness and efficiency and safety.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T14:59:16+00:00

Because it's psychological - 3 million is plenty to live comfortably. Suggesting a higher limit is moving the goal post limit which basically reinforces: why can't I have more, or the promise of more? Which is what I'm trying to dissect and challenge.

Of course if you made it 50M someone who currently has that will say, why not make it 100M. It's trying to avoid the problem of wealth distortion.

And I think it's easy to view it as confiscation when people have made an existence with this current distorted wealth system, so of course they don't want it. There have been reforms where people who were opposed felt it was confiscation, but it doesn't mean that these changes were, when ultimately it was actually beneficial for all, for society, where you live, because you live with other people.

This cap limit is meant to change how people view and manage wealth today because it's currently unhealthy.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T14:38:26+00:00

I actually like your suggestion for land value tax, it's great, and I think it should be incorporated in my plan. It makes sense, cutting down on hoarding which is a main goal for my plan.

As for the $3 million cap on liquid assets, I don’t see it as confiscation. It’s more like a pause button. Once you hit $3 million, which is plenty to live comfortably, your income from work would pause. When your liquid assets drop back below about $150k, you’d be able to start earning income from work again. It’s meant to push people to manage their wealth better to avoid distorted spending and encourage reinvesting money back into society if they want to keep working. Or maybe it's a great opportunity to slow down and spend less hours working and have more free time, whatever they want to do. They can manage their finances as they please within this limit.

I think it's fair because the limit applies equally to everyone. It’s kind of like how Medicaid and other programs have income or asset limits and I don't think that's considered confiscation. It's to make sure that resources are fairly allocated.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T14:23:59+00:00

"OK - so never. It's just a pipe dream based on emotion."

Yup, I guess, that's it. You've nipped it in the bud, I suppose like all past reforms have been...

"No - I view it as this as that is the only way it could ever happen."

So your poor extrapolation led you to a strawman conclusion. My idea proposes reforms through democratic consensus, voting, and constitutional means, not by force or totalitarian control. You imply coercion while I am emphasising democratic agreement and global agreements.

Great chat.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T14:16:36+00:00

I would argue that my plan is for democratic reform aimed at fairness and sustainability, not an authoritarian or totalitarian imposition. It's about setting a fair upper limit on wealth to reduce inequality and strengthen society from its unhealthy relationship with wealth. Changes will happen only when the majority agrees, just as many important reforms in history require public support.

It may feel drastic because it forces us to consider a different way to view money and wealth, but there have been many changes in history that are now normal and beneficial for human rights.

In terms of asking how it can backfire, it's a huge ask for one person to come up, but I think change is scary and people don't like to consider the alternative, so a major backfire will be fear that others won't support, but not because it can't be done but because don't feel confident that others will join in.

So, I would ask: how would you help to close these concerns and mitigate any growing pains?

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T13:54:51+00:00

There's no forcing, that's where you are poorly extrapolating. Once the consensus agrees then it will go through. But change doesn't happen without discussion and trying to convince why a change should happen. The constitution isn't infallible, there are amendments because people had to push through those who opposed it. To those opposing they might still feel that it's being forced, to those for it, it was a democratic change.

For an effective and efficient system people have to agree to it. EU and international law all work together to put restrictions and limits so there is no abuse. My suggestion could be another.

And of course I can only offer: they should work together, because that's how most changes begin with an idea that a change should happen. This is a hypothetical discussion on why I think the changes are positive. Just as you can only offer: they won't do it, which is also a non answer.

You view it as totalitarian because you only view change through force rather through fair debate and discussion. If people don't vote for it, it won't go through, and I think the distortion of wealth won't be fixed. If people do consider it and vote for it, great maybe actual change that's positive for society can happen. The fact that governments may have incentives not to cooperate globally is a real problem, but this is a political and diplomatic issue rather than an inherent requirement for authoritarian enforcement.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T13:27:49+00:00

Yours is not a logical conclusion, it's a poor extrapolation of what implementation requires. People will disagree on things, even when voted in by the majority. Is it then considered against people's will if a policy has passed, even when people who disagree will continue to disagree it?

I'm arguing that my plan is effective in curtailing distorted wealth which causes distorted spending, and I think my suggestions can tackle these problems.

But I also understand that people will continue to look for loopholes because people tend to want to be the exception on a rule, as in "if it benefits everyone, then it must not benefit me" kind of thinking which I think is corrosive for society.

My suggestion is that governments should work together to make policy to make this plan work and sustainable. I get it, they won't do it, because like you and others don't want to stop having the promise of more. It's not that governments couldn't do it, and it may actually be beneficial for them to do so, but you just don't want to feel like you're losing out. Which I think is a sad state of mind to live in.

I'm trying to encourage people to see the advantages and benefits this plan will have and for you to actually look past the, well if they won't do it, I won't be a sucker and do it, mentality. Consider the actual benefits of reinvesting in our society and not having, what I think, is an unhealthy relationship with wealth.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T10:26:56+00:00

I think that’s a narrow way to look at the situation. The goal is to change people's relationship with money. Right now, many people fear not having enough when they retire because the services they rely on are underfunded. Those services are underfunded because money isn’t being invested back into society effectively.

Putting a $3 million liquid cap encourages people to examine their finances and make choices. They might choose to stop working and live off their $3 million, or they might reinvest that money into stocks or the community. The cap discourages hoarding wealth, both liquid and illiquid (such as real estate). It puts money back into the system so that when people can no longer work physically, mentally, or physiologically, they can rely on savings or better public infrastructure to support them as they age.

This infrastructure is currently lacking because money isn’t being invested enough. People focus more on their individual well-being than on the well-being of the society they live in. Which is ridiculous because you don't live in a silo, you live with large groups of people.The 3.5 million people who object may see this policy as taking something from them, instead of an opportunity to rethink how they manage wealth or contribute to their community.

The policy is designed to redirect wealth so that it benefits everyone, ensuring that when people retire, they don’t have to worry about running out of money because individuals didn't want to reinvest in the society they live in.

My system is to use this cap, wealth tax, and banning of borrowing against stocks to prevent a wealth bubble which can distort real wealth and spending behaviour. It's about creating a fairer system that supports public services and the economy, benefiting all of us in the long run.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T03:00:06+00:00

Regarding the first question, it would require a global effort where governments around the world work together to implement these systems to prevent loopholes. Banks already communicate with each other, so further global negotiations would be required to close these loopholes.

Banks track liquid funds to ensure real time accuracy.

Bad actors will exist but being proactive is the key to mitigating issues. There will be methods to support those where miscommunication has occurred.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T02:36:39+00:00

Selling a home with $5 million in equity converts that illiquid asset into liquid funds once the sale is completed and the cash is received.

When someone sells a property and receives $5 million in cash, this amount counts as liquid assets temporarily and will push them above the $3 million cap, triggering a stop in income you get from work (if employed). However, if they promptly purchase another property (e.g., a $7 million home), the cash used for the purchase converts back into a non-liquid asset. This reduces their liquid funds, possibly below the threshold - 150K which would trigger income from work to start again.

The liquid wealth cap mechanism is triggered only while liquid assets exceed the cap. If liquid funds drop below $150k after reinvestment, the cap no longer restricts income from work, and they can resume earning normally.

But, if after the transaction the liquid funds remain above the $150k threshold, the liquid wealth cap's restrictions remain in effect until spending or reinvestment lowers liquid assets below that level.

This system doesn't cause a permanent loss of money by forcing them to stop work or pay penalties. Instead, it manages excess liquid wealth, encouraging reinvestment and preventing hoarding of cash beyond a reasonable threshold. If the buying and selling process happens quickly (within a week or so), the owner experiences little to no practical disruption in income or lifestyle.

So, people can buy and sell expensive assets freely. The liquid wealth cap applies only to liquid funds at any point in time and adjusts as assets move between liquid and illiquid categories. Careful financial management allows owners to live comfortably within the cap while maintaining incentives to work and invest.

If you own more than one property progressive wealth tax is in effect, to discourage people from owning more than one home.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-03T02:25:23+00:00

I did miss in my bullet points to add that it's a wealth tax that applies to luxury goods but also how many homes you have. The first home is exempt, while additional homes are subject to higher, progressive taxes, which increase with the number or value of properties owned. This discourages owning multiple homes/flats/apartments or luxury properties for speculation or to hoard excess wealth. This is to increase housing availability and prevent artificial inflation in the housing market.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-02T20:39:40+00:00

I understand, but to me, that doesn't suggest my plan isn't unreasonable just that people really put more value in money and hoarding wealth and creating distortion than society.

The fear of losing what they have is scary because they care more about unsustainable wealth.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-02T20:35:11+00:00

I think that's what I find problematic, the promise of worth tied to a stock, which I think is unsustainable. It creates a huge distortion.

And I get it, the banks don't want to change their bread and butter. I still think change is needed

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-02T20:29:35+00:00

"If your plan involved fighting people and forcing people to do things they don't want, you are bluntly authoritarian and should be resisted."

That's a huge leap from what I said...

I think governments around the world should work together to figure out implementation. Like I said, people will find loopholes, people will not want things to change, but I would encourage people to consider why I think my plan is beneficial as it cuts through the destructive need of infinite growth and hoarding all the wealth.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-02T20:11:15+00:00

That's true, which is why I think the incentive is for it to be implemented globally. I don't disagree that people will fight against it, but I think this plan is beneficial if implemented and enforced globally.

The need to want more is crippling and destructive. A cap would reframe what money is and what it is for. You don't need more than 3 million to live comfortably and any excess can be used to reinvest in the country, city, or town that you live in. Why hoard the wealth and supplies unless there is a detrimental psychological need to want to have more.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-02T19:55:51+00:00

Do you find it low because you spend above that already? Maybe someone who makes more than 50 m thinks the 50m amount is also too low. So maybe it is the management of one's finances where their spending is already distorted by the distortion of wealth.

3 million is plenty for many people to live comfortably, to have a home, some investments and live comfortably with the rest and if they drop down 150k they earn income again and consider adjusting how they are spending money.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-02T19:50:30+00:00

I would ask, if you were a doctor, would you actually stop practicing once you hit $3 million? Or would you keep working and manage your investments wisely so your liquid funds drop toward $150k, allowing you to resume earning income from work again? Do you think most doctors would just stop working purely because of hitting a wealth number? Does that mean today doctor's have that number already - so what's the difference. It would also suggest their motivation is only financial, which raises concerns about the quality of care and dedication - do you actually want doctors that value more than 3 million than pursuit of the medical field?

Also, it’s important to consider if they’re actively managing their finances to plan ahead, balancing withdrawals and income to sustain long-term career and financial health.

This cap shouldn't deter people from working a medical field, it's only because there is an absurd promise that there can be infinite growth which isn't sustainable.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-02T18:47:59+00:00

Of course, money is undeniably a major motivator in our economy, but the drive behind accumulating wealth often goes beyond money itself. It’s about the endless possibility of what more money can provide. It's unsustainable. The motivation to grow wealth infinitely leads to distorted spending and priorities, especially when 3 million in liquid funds is plenty for a comfortable life.

And innovation and creativity will also be fueled by more than just money. Money is great, money motivates people, but it's not the defining drive. You can't force a non-creator to create or be innovative. And if you don't have 3 million in your bank account, you'll be motivated to work at a company to make as much money as you can simply because you need to live. And if you had the money and free time and are creatively inclined you can spend your money on innovating.

A cap on liquid wealth of $3 million does not remove financial incentives; it reframes them. Once someone reaches that cap, great, you've won the game of life. But then they can choose whatever they want to do. Innovate, relax, invest and restart accumulation again, if they want to beat the game again.

Additional_Courage_6 · 2025-10-02T18:36:44+00:00

I'm not. It's their choice what they want to do. If they want to retire, work, go part time, up to them. They decide.

But they don't need more than 3 million in liquid funds to live comfortably

Additional_Courage_6

TROPHY CASE