A maximum wage - good idea?

[nnmartin]

There is enough talk about the minimum wage but how about introducing a maximum?

This sounds like a good idea in theory as it would stop massive exploitation and inequality.

Once you earned a certain amount (say $100k/year) then any profits would have to return to the state.

How about this for a new economic and social policy?

Idealistic yes, for sure - but could it work?

 

[Revoltingest]

Bad idea.
It would not work.
But I support your choice to give anything you earn over $100K to the state.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Nothing like limiting potential to get this country moving...

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing like limiting potential to get this country moving...

Anyone who can bench press over 100# should be required to wear enuf weight such that they can't press over 100#.
Any with an IQ over 100 should wear a hat which buzzes & distracts so they can't think any better than average.
Any woman who is over a 7 on a 1 to 10 scale should be forced to wear a Ruth Bader Ginsburg mask.

 

[fallingblood]

There is enough talk about the minimum wage but how about introducing a maximum?

This sounds like a good idea in theory as it would stop massive exploitation and inequality.

Once you earned a certain amount (say $100k/year) then any profits would have to return to the state.

How about this for a new economic and social policy?

Idealistic yes, for sure - but could it work?

It wouldn't work. As soon as they made $100K, most would loose the motivation to work. Why work if you're not going to get paid? Especially in a job that you don't really care about.

More so, why shouldn't people be able to make more money? Are they not providing services that other people want? For the most part, yes.

Personally, I want to make over a $100K a year. I want to make much more than that. And if I work and earn it, why shouldn't I get it? Why should I be punished for being successful?

 

[nnmartin]

everyone would still have the incentive to earn at least 100K though - which is not a bad salary for most people.

if we look at the average wage, I am sure it is way less than this mark so how would this really be limiting potential?

If you were a high mover, then there may be some other benefits that could be thrown your way, but not money.

The money returned to the state could improve infrastructure, business and education to thus increase the value of the country as a whole.

Those who don't like it can leave the country.

how about that?

 

[nnmartin]

Personally, I want to make over a $100K a year. I want to make much more than that. And if I work and earn it, why shouldn't I get it? Why should I be punished for being successful?

because you being successful means that someone else has to be unsuccessful.

that is the way I see it as we are all drawing from the same overall fund.

 

[Revoltingest]

everyone would still have the incentive to earn at least 100K though - which is not a bad salary for most people.
if we look at the average wage, I am sure it is way less than this mark so how would this really be limiting potential?
If you were a high mover, then there may be some other benefits that could be thrown your way, but not money.
The money returned to the state could improve infrastructure, business and education to thus increase the value of the country as a whole.
Those who don't like it can leave the country.

You really have a thing about a very powerful government which would exercise great control over us.
There's a problem with that. Things would be great for you as long as your values are enforced. But
what if Rick Santorum became Grand Poobah & made his morality into law? With great power comes
great risk.

 

[fallingblood]

because you being successful means that someone else has to be unsuccessful.

that is the way I see it as we are all drawing from the same overall fund.

No it doesn't. Me making more money doesn't mean someone else is going to be unsuccessful. There isn't a finite amount of money out there.

More so, I have a right to make as much money as I can. And really, when you look at it, those who make a lot of money, usually end up giving back to the community anyway.

And again, as soon as I made $100K, I would have no incentive to work. I'm self-employed. What incentive am I going to get for doing more work, and providing a service people want?

Your system simply would not work. And if you had everyone who made over $100K leave, then how would that make the United States better? Do you think that making our most productive businesses leave the country is going to do any good? Nope.

 

[darkendless]

More so, I have a right to make as much money as I can. And really, when you look at it, those who make a lot of money, usually end up giving back to the community anyway.

Only because the government wants more of your tax dollars otherwise i'm sure they'd put up a wage ceiling.

I hate paying more tax than others on the basis that I earn more money due to applying myself to obtain qualifications.

 

[nnmartin]

No it doesn't. Me making more money doesn't mean someone else is going to be unsuccessful. There isn't a finite amount of money out there.

I can't really see how money can be produced as such.

sure, there is a finite amount. The only difference these days is that we have mass globalisation so the money comes in from abroad. So someone across the World must lose out.

More so, I have a right to make as much money as I can. And really, when you look at it, those who make a lot of money, usually end up giving back to the community anyway.

I believe that people only think they have a right to things because that is what they are used to. If you were born into a system in which one could only earn 100K then it would be fair to assume that many would see that one had no right to earn above this.

And again, as soon as I made $100K, I would have no incentive to work. I'm self-employed. What incentive am I going to get for doing more work, and providing a service people want?

You wouldn't have an incentive to work more , that is true.

But someone else could then work in your place whilst you did something else.

Your system simply would not work. And if you had everyone who made over $100K leave, then how would that make the United States better? Do you think that making our most productive businesses leave the country is going to do any good? Nope.

I can see two solutions here.

1. People can leave but not take their money with them (thus they would be likely to want to stay)

2. They would not be allowed to leave.

This seems like a reasonable policy.

 

[nnmartin]

You really have a thing about a very powerful government which would exercise great control over us.
There's a problem with that. Things would be great for you as long as your values are enforced. But
what if Rick Santorum became Grand Poobah & made his morality into law? With great power comes
great risk.

This system would still allow for elections and publicly appointed bodies so it's not necessary for it to be a dictatorship.

 

[nnmartin]

Only because the government wants more of your tax dollars otherwise i'm sure they'd put up a wage ceiling.

I hate paying more tax than others on the basis that I earn more money due to applying myself to obtain qualifications.

so what do you think of the 100k maximum?

if you are talking about the progressive taxation system here, then this new economy with the wage ceiling would go some way to combating this.

 

[Revoltingest]

sure, there is a finite amount.

At any given point in time that's true, but the US gov expands the money supply several per cent faster than the economy grows.
So if we produce the same or more, there is more money.

1. People can leave but not take their money with them (thus they would be likely to want to stay)
2. They would not be allowed to leave.
This seems like a reasonable policy.

It seems more like a N Korean forced labor camp to me.

 

[fallingblood]

So your solution for keeping businesses here that would most likely move because you put a cap on their wages is to force them to stay here? And you don't see a problem with that sort of idea?

 

[blackout]

100k? lol.

You're not living in economic reality.
(Neither are you living in the NorthEast with 4 kids.)

 

[darkendless]

so what do you think of the 100k maximum?

if you are talking about the progressive taxation system here, then this new economy with the wage ceiling would go some way to combating this.

100k is too small.

I'm no expert on taxation but I do get annoyed looking at how much I get taxed a week when if I worked at McDonalds i'd earn a comparative amount because i'd get taxed significantly less.

 

[blackout]

100k is too small.

I'm no expert on taxation but I do get annoyed looking at how much I get taxed a week when if I worked at McDonalds i'd earn a comparative amount because i'd get taxed significantly less.

Yeah right? Does that 100k come tax free I wonder?
And does it rise equivalently to the cost of living?
And does it take into account the vast difference
of the cost of living in different areas of the country?
Does it take into account the number of dependents being supported?
And does it take into account that some people's careers
basically ARE their whole life?
Always on call, always scheduled, always training, always practicing, always improving, continued schooling,
updated techniques, always thinking, replanning, reworking, designing... a whole life revolved around a career....
Like surgeons, entertainers on the road, researchers, inventors.. etc etc
Directors of large projects and organizations....
Who the hell's gunna do that without compensation.
As in, it's a 24/7 affair.....without pay.

And besides, people who actually contribute to society at Large,
or give something of Large importance, or draw Large crowds...
should be compensated, AT LARGE, by the society they have produced for.

I will pay certain individuals for their work.
I will NOT pay the government for their work however.
duh. And why should I?

 

[blackout]

You know what it means?

It means that the very best people in their fields,
will work less, reaching less people,
thus having less of a wonderful and important impact on the people,
society and world around them.

You may have to settle for a less competent surgeon,
a less competant researcher,
a less competant educator,
a less competant contractor/builder/architect.... etc etc.

I mean... if you can't actually PAY them for their work...
they may as well have an extra day off or two. (or three... or four...)

 

[Reverend Rick]

Why should I be punished for being successful?

It makes about as much sense as rewarding unsuccessful folks, we have been doing that for years.