Instead of seeking to eliminate the super-rich, which would involve extreme measures and likely lead to societal instability, most societies focus on implementing measures to ensure that wealth and power are not concentrated to the detriment of the broader population. This typically involves implementing policies and regulations that promote economic fairness, reduce income and wealth inequality, and prevent the undue influence of the super-rich in politics and governance.
Efforts to address income and wealth inequality often include measures such as progressive taxation, social safety nets, education and workforce development programs, and policies that promote fair competition and economic opportunity for all. The aim is to strike a balance where individuals can accumulate wealth through entrepreneurship and hard work but within a framework that prevents extreme disparities and ensures that the benefits of economic growth are broadly shared.
Eliminating the super-rich as a goal is not compatible with democratic principles and the rule of law, which protect individual rights and freedoms. Instead, societies strive to create a fair and just system that allows for wealth creation while preventing abuses of power and wealth concentration.
A handful of individuals owning the entire world is against democracy and is creating instability. They write the policies they prefer, and ignore the rest.
You seem to regard the state as some kind of transcendental or otherworldly power, above and beyond the control over the material basis of society wielded through the construct of private property.
Eliminating the super-rich as a goal is not compatible with democratic principles and the rule of law, which protect individual rights and freedoms.
What type of elimination are we talking about here? Jail? Exile? Execution? Or just having their excess wealth taken away, so they are no longer super-rich?
Being extremely wealthy is, by itself, not a crime. But it would not be unreasonable to tax all income (or even wealth) above a large threshold at 50%, or even 90%. This would ‘eliminate’ the super-rich while not physically harming or punishing them.
Instead of seeking to eliminate the super-rich, which would involve extreme measures and likely lead to societal instability, most societies focus on implementing measures to ensure that wealth and power are not concentrated to the detriment of the broader population. This typically involves implementing policies and regulations that promote economic fairness, reduce income and wealth inequality, and prevent the undue influence of the super-rich in politics and governance.
Efforts to address income and wealth inequality often include measures such as progressive taxation, social safety nets, education and workforce development programs, and policies that promote fair competition and economic opportunity for all. The aim is to strike a balance where individuals can accumulate wealth through entrepreneurship and hard work but within a framework that prevents extreme disparities and ensures that the benefits of economic growth are broadly shared.
Eliminating the super-rich as a goal is not compatible with democratic principles and the rule of law, which protect individual rights and freedoms. Instead, societies strive to create a fair and just system that allows for wealth creation while preventing abuses of power and wealth concentration.
A handful of individuals owning the entire world is against democracy and is creating instability. They write the policies they prefer, and ignore the rest.
You seem to regard the state as some kind of transcendental or otherworldly power, above and beyond the control over the material basis of society wielded through the construct of private property.
What type of elimination are we talking about here? Jail? Exile? Execution? Or just having their excess wealth taken away, so they are no longer super-rich?
Being extremely wealthy is, by itself, not a crime. But it would not be unreasonable to tax all income (or even wealth) above a large threshold at 50%, or even 90%. This would ‘eliminate’ the super-rich while not physically harming or punishing them.