NatureOfWealth

What is a useful definition of wealth which is worth achieving?

having more than the Jones.
keeping up with the Jones and having the resources to have the things you want and the ability do the things you want to do and never having worry where your next meal is coming from.

What kind of wealth brings happiness?

All the studies agree. Contentment increases with wealth up to a point. Wealth as in definition 2 improves ones satisfaction in life. All the evidence agrees, however, that individual income has little direct relationship to subjective well being (SWB) above the level at which basic needs can be met. Extreme wealth, has little effect on contentment and is sometimes shown to be a counter indicator to happiness (e.g. winning a lottery).

What kind of wealth is it reasonable for us all to strive for?

It is ridiculous for us all to seek to be wealthier than everyone else. Only one person can win that game. Chances are it won't be us. It is a losing proposition. What is reasonable for us to strive for?

A life of leisure. More leisure time is possible due to automation and tools that empower individuals.
Being able to get things we want, not just what we need.
Being able to do what we enjoy, not just what we need to do to survive.

Were the citizens of the golden ages of Greece and Rome and modern Kuwait wealthy?

virtually unlimited leisure time
feasts constantly
ability to travel at will anywhere they choose
grand accommodations
plentiful art and entertainment

If that's not wealth, whatever it is, that's what I want for all of us.

The ancient wealth was dependent on slavery. In Kuwait, it depends on low paid foreign (mostly Iraqi) labor. The new wealth of the information age is supported by automation.

Is their more wealth today then there was 100 years ago?

It is said that adjusted personal income is doubling about every 50 years since the dawning of the industrial age. It is not clear to me however, that the middle class is really living any better than our fathers or their fathers. I see a loss in leisure where two parents must work to support a household. Crime and other indicators of discontent have actually risen.

At the same time there is clearly much more wealth that there was before. The size of the middle and upper classes has increased dramatically and there are individuals controlling more wealth than existed in entire country 200 years ago.

Is wealth a finite resource?

By definition number one, there can be only one winner in the wealth game.

Worldwide economic growth, however, dramatically shows that total wealth by any other measure has increased by leaps and bounds worldwide. Value can be highly subjective, but the abundance of whatever society values is its wealth. There is no ultimate limit to the value we can create.

If I create value as perceived by consumers, the only limits are the size of the market and the ability of the consumers in that market to buy my product. They will have the money if people by their products. In this way, economic activity creates value. I buy a car, the auto worker buys products of others who can then afford my product. If we as a society promote economic activity rather that tax it, there is no limit to the potential growth.

Will taking from the rich and giving to the poor make us richer on average?

No. Do the math. Everybody will be poor. The markets initiated by the rich and then mass produced for the masses will seise to exists. Progress will come to a stand still as their will be no investors for new enterprises. We will starve and wipe ourselves our by disease and war. It is not a ZeroSumGame.

Are the resources of our planet sufficient for everyone to live well?

Our shared resources represent an almost unlimited value if used reasonably. Should we accept the responsibility to invest these resources profitably, nobody that isn't driven to consume resources unreasonably or keep up with the Jones will have to work. From the air we can see clearly that our planet is mostly undeveloped and unutilized. With a little common sense we can support many times the current worlds population with less environmental impact than there is today. We can enable our individuals to fulfill their dreams to the extent that they do not violate the freedoms of others or destroy our planet and populate the galaxy and beyond.

I want enough to help my kids in school and getting started. I'd like to be able to go skiing, I'd like to take a vacation, I want time to pursue my interests. That's the kind of wealth I want and believe everyone deserves.

Will the future be one of wealth or despair? I believe that if we can apply our CollectiveIntelligence to enforce our SocialContract, and invest in FutureValue, we will create the next great society with unprecedented personal wealth and freedom. But this will only happen if WE are driven to make it happen. -- JimScarver

To a point, taking from the rich and giving to the poor has shown effective. Crippling the rich in such a way that destroys their advantage or disrupts the rankings of wealth has shown ineffective. In a democracy where people pay taxes, government is a consumer product. Policies bend to the forces of supply and demand much in the way that consumer prices do. Voting is choosing to pay for some policies, and not for others. In the Western world, we have purchased governments that redistribute wealth because the majority of us, the comfortable majority, do not want our human brothers and sisters rotting in the sewer. It would be smelly and unsightly. Economy has dictated that this redistribution takes place in roughly the most painless way. That 'tax brackets' exist seems in accordance with the priority that as many people as possible have enough wealth to be comfortable, and enough wealth to have everything they need and many of the things they want.

-OutRadulous

Indeed, taxing the poor is a crime but taxes on income and sales are also bad. In a chaotic system like the economy, taxing its positive indicators leads to fluctuations and downturns. Think of the wealth that might exist if the economy susstained growth without ression. Think of the weath that could exist if government did not put 9 out of ten businesses out of business and take the proprietors homes for back taxes. It is naive to think the current system of taxation enhances weath in any way.

Enterprises and Individuals that are sucessful could be taxed to assist the poor. But it should be a last resort, perhaps only in the event of a depression as was the case when income taxes were introduced. We have a responsibility to tax scarce resource utilization if we hope to susstain our planet. Taxing income and sales is wrong.

JFK's tax reductions actually increase tax revinue by the enconomic activity it generated. Bushs may do the same if we avoid war. The common sence of taking from the rich to give to the poor is naive in complex chaotic economies. --JimScarver

It is true that Money represents credit, not value. In the sixties lots of us though about alternative economic systems. Most of the chit systems seemed to just be another form of money, with grass roots origin rather then government control. Most were based on some kind of barter credit. It seems to me that to be valuable in the NewEconomy a new currency would represent trust and value rather than just another form of money representing credit. An open market would assign value to chits that anyone could issue representing some future value. --JimScarver

Note: In the United States, income tax was first introduced as a way to pay for War. The American Civil War. After the war, it was found to be unconstitutional.

Having been introduced and successful once before, income tax was brought back as an additional way for the government to get cash into its coffers later.