A maximum wage - good idea?

[Revoltingest]

Why should those who are ambitious in a capitalist sense be more financially rewarded anyway?

It serves a greater good than rewarding slackers.

In a lot of these cases these higher earners and not actually contributing to the productivity or betterment of society.

The system isn't perfect, but none are. In your favored communism, complete boobs rise to the top too.

for instance you may be a landlord with many empty properties because not enough people can pay the rent.
How is this increasing the wealth of the nation?

It doesn't. But it's interesting that you should bring this up. One of the reasons that empty properties cannot be sold is that
the capital gains tax would exceed the net proceeds from the sale. In MI, we don't even have any profit, but because we're
paid in devalued dollars, there are more of them. The IRS calls that "profit". So assets must remain in the hands of those
who haven't the highest & best use for them. And this all occurs at tax rates lower than what you propose.

 

[nnmartin]

Rent and property ownership is a tricky area for sure.

Now , these glitches in the market whereby you can't sell because you lose out, would surely make a good case for socialised government housing.

I don't mean in the sense of Stalin-like tower blocks for all , but certainly housing of some kind for all.

No one need be homeless and those reaching the higher levels of the wage band could buy into government subsidised houses that would be protected from the glitches in the market.

Ideally, houses could not be bought or sold as commodities or bought for the sole purpose of renting.

This should protect the housing stock from the absurd realities we are faced with today - ie: many people either homeless, living in very poor conditions accommodation wise, or spending far too high a percentage of their income on rent/mortgage - whilst thousands of good properties remain vacant.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rent and property ownership is a tricky area for sure.
Now , these glitches in the market whereby you can't sell because you lose out, would surely make a good case for socialised government housing.
I don't mean in the sense of Stalin-like tower blocks for all , but certainly housing of some kind for all.
No one need be homeless and those reaching the higher levels of the wage band could buy into government subsidised houses that would be protected from the glitches in the market.
Ideally, houses could not be bought or sold as commodities or bought for the sole purpose of renting.
This should protect the housing stock from the absurd realities we are faced with today - ie: many people either homeless, living in very poor conditions accommodation wise, or spending far too high a percentage of their income on rent/mortgage - whilst thousands of good properties remain vacant.

I'm sure glad I don't live in your world.
It' sounds way too perfect...a very enforced perfection.

 

[blackout]

I'm sure glad I don't live in your world.
It' sounds way too perfect...a very enforced perfection.

Stepford Wives Perfect?

 

[YmirGF]

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 sounds more like the inane drivel of the financially demented that it sounds like a workable plan. You are assuming that humans are mere cogs in a well oiled machine that will never break from their allotted task. Do you seriously think that many people would go for this? Even if you managed to somehow convince people to go along, just how long do you think they would remain content with such a rigid system? Likewise, who is to say that "the state" will spend your limited funds wisely?

For all his bluster, have you ever wondered why Warren Buffet has not made out a check for $10,000,000,000 and handed it to the US treasury? Yet the same Warren Buffet has GIVEN billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The answer is simple. Warren doesn't trust the government to spend his money wisely. That also might be why his companies have fought the IRS for nearly a decade because he feels he has already paid his "fair share".

 

[nnmartin]

Stepford Wives Perfect?

this housing idea is really not so bad when you think about it.

what is wrong with this system of 'houses for all' anyway?

 

[nnmartin]

Do you seriously think that many people would go for this? Even if you managed to somehow convince people to go along, just how long do you think they would remain content with such a rigid system? Likewise, who is to say that "the state" will spend your limited funds wisely?

The trick will be to avoid the excesses of society which cause people to want more merely for the sake of it.

Certain lifestyles will not be attainable and any kind of negative influence to the system will be discouraged.

Certain Libertarian 'freedoms' will of course have to be curbed in the name of true Democracy.

But this is what it will be - Social Democracy 21st Century style.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Not sure how you can have a social democracy, not as you are stating it. For one, you've already admitted that many wouldn't like your ideas, even if you perceive them to be good. So, if they became enforced, that wouldn't be democratic, would it? I imagine you add democratic to make it sound better, but you really are just proposing a communist state. And i for one am already annoyed at how the usa is slowly slipping towards that very state as it is.

 

[nnmartin]

Not sure how you can have a social democracy, not as you are stating it. For one, you've already admitted that many wouldn't like your ideas, even if you perceive them to be good. So, if they became enforced, that wouldn't be democratic, would it?

Well they call most Western nations democratic and there are many things you cannot do by law.

What is the difference between restricting wages and restricting all the usual things that we are used to being prohibited?

I imagine you add democratic to make it sound better, but you really are just proposing a communist state.

I am not proposing full blown communism because if that were the case most wages would be more or less the same.

(and btw, Communism and Socialism are democratic systems , but that is probably a separate thread)

I am opting for a form of far left Socialism , in which there will still be some private property and the chance of reasonably high earnings. (perhaps the figure of 100K could be upped slightly)

And i for one am already annoyed at how the usa is slowly slipping towards that very state as it is.

The USA 'slipping towards' Communism - that is ridiculous!:thud:

 

[Koldo]

Maximum wage? Sounds good to me. Also sounds unrealistic in our culture obsessed with the "virtues" of capitalism and consumerism.

Exactly my opinion.

 

[YmirGF]

The trick will be to avoid the excesses of society which cause people to want more merely for the sake of it.

So, you are in favor of re-educating people to adopt this plan? The thing is, where do the "helpful tips for selfless living" stop and "you will be assimilated" Borgian utopia end? Likewise, who, pray tell, decides, but more importantly, how long would it be before the masses are no longer consulted?

Certain lifestyles will not be attainable and any kind of negative influence to the system will be discouraged.

Nice, so you want discrimination built into the system. Freakin' brilliant. I am so impressed.

Certain Libertarian 'freedoms' will of course have to be curbed in the name of true Democracy.

No doubt. One can only ponder when people are no longer consulted and simply told what to do and when to do, and dammit, be happy about it too. I'm afraid such thinking is reflective of an appalling lack of appreciation of human nature.

But this is what it will be - Social Democracy 21st Century style.

Sounds more like the crib notes for Mein Kampf. "First they came for the rich..."

 

[Yerda]

Aye so, I think we all pretty much agree that a maximum wage seems unworkable even if it was desirable. There's got to be better routes to fairness. Fairer ones.

 

[nnmartin]

Sounds more like the crib notes for Mein Kampf. "First they came for the rich..."

your quote seems to be the wrong way around though!

"First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
​

source: Wikipedia
​

 

[McBell]

your quote seems to be the wrong way around though!

source: Wikipedia
​

 

[nnmartin]

is that all you've got?

 

[McBell]

is that all you've got?

Omg...

please stop...


I need to catch my breath....

Laughing so hard...

Boy when you miss something you don't half *** it...

 

[nnmartin]

How about adding something constructive to the debate - that would be more interesting.