Should there be a Wealth Cap?

by Walter Rhein

I’m tired of billionaires. I’m tired of billionaire heiresses with terrible TV shows that only became famous for leaking a sex video. I’m tired of billionaires paying off porn stars, conspiring with the Russians and running for president. I’m tired of any “get rich” advice that doesn’t include the phrase, “inherit everything you’re worth.”

What’s the point of billionaires anyway? In all seriousness, how do they help us? And don’t tell me that they are irreplaceable, because if you work for a billionaire, the first thing they tell you is, “everyone is replaceable.” From experience, I know that they get mad when you respond, “then who is replacing you?”

For an economy to function, money needs to flow. People who get money and instantly spend it on a Domino’s pizza are good for the economy. People who get money and put it in a vault to go swimming in later (it’s a ‘Duck Tales’ reference for the recently hatched), are worthless. In the circulatory system of economics, billionaires are the equivalent of a blood clot.

So why don’t we have a cap on individual wealth?

Most of you who aren’t idiots can agree that there already is a hypothetical limit on how much money a person can have. That limit is the total amount of money in the world. Yeah, you’ll all sit there and say, “but that will never happen-nobody will ever have all the money,” but that’s not the point. You also can’t have a car going the speed of light turn on its headlights. These are THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS people, Einstein figured out relativity doing that (and he wasn’t a billionaire… so there goes the “billionaires are geniuses” argument).

So now that you dimwits understand that there IS, in fact, a hypothetical limit, let’s consider the consequences of a person having ALL the money: Worldwide economic collapse. If only one guy has all the money, then there is no commerce. Well, that sucks. Our governments better do something to prevent such a horrific outcome. But what can they do?

Anti-trust laws!

Check! See boneheads, governments ALREADY do things to curb the generation of catastrophic wealth. What I’m arguing is that they should do MORE. What would happen if we set the limit of individual wealth at say… 100 million dollars? In all seriousness, how many people would that affect negatively?

I don’t have 100 million dollars, it’s fine by me.

How many people would it affect positively?

Well, the money you take from the rich and give to the poor (like both Jesus and Robin Hood advocated by the way) would do a lot of good. Also, the people left with “only” 100 million wouldn’t be able to continue their human slave trade operations, or be able to bribe our politicians, so it’s a win-win.

Here’s something I don’t get. People always say, “prayer should be allowed in schools” as if that is going to radically fix the whole world, but when you suggest using the government to force people to act in a way that’s generous (basically the plot of the Bible), then people flip out. People are dumb.

If we took more money from the rich, then we could have better education and fewer stupid people. Also the rich only have all that money from the drug trade, human slave trafficking, and stealing the pensions of hard working individuals. Dang it, that’s MY money! I want it, and if the government ain’t going to get it for me, I guess I’ll have to go and get it myself!

I’d prefer the more democratic solution though. It’s cleaner and fairer. Hey, majority rules, and when the minority is broke enough they start breaking out the guillotines. Can’t we have common sense prevail for ONCE?