A maximum wage - good idea?

[nnmartin]

I would be much more in favor of a fair tax structure than restricting potential earnings.

this is close in theory to the maximum wage idea though a little short of the mark.

Now we could have a progressive taxation which gradually went up with earnings to a nearly 100% figure.

In fact , in the UK in 1976 the top tax band was 83% under the Labour government.

Now the problem with this is that earnings are still not restrictive so a top executive or business owner could still earn an obscene sum before tax.

This money must come from somewhere else - ie: out of the working man's pocket - so his wage must go down to compensate.

So,we must limit the maximum earnings and not leave it to the government to chase up the people's money from the high earners as this would be an unproductive use of government time and administration.

 

[nnmartin]

Really, if we put a cap on how much someone could make, other companies would welcome those companies. Mainly because that would be more money for them. And really, many of these companies, suc as Microsoft, Apple, the technology sector and automotive sector, would do just fine somewhere else.

This is easy to solve.

Any big company such as this would simply be Nationalised.

Profits would go to the State to improve the country for all.

 

[nnmartin]

Nmmartin- By putting a maximum cap on wages, you will also punish the poorest of the poor. The reason is quite simple. The vast majority of money donated and foundations set up to help the poor are done so by the rich. Put a cap on wages, and that is less money and fewer foundations set up. Many of which don't just help our citizens but also those in other countries.

We would have government run welfare schemes instead.

Foreign aid would not figure greatly under this system unless the other country shared our ideology.

Also, you basically screw over small business owners. I personally would be screwed over in such.

How would it negatively affect you?

 

[nnmartin]

It's a fantasy land.

I could create my own fantasy land (in my mind and on the forum) as well...
but why bother? It would be very different than nnmartinsville,
but every bit as much a fantasy.

let's see it!

why not start a new thread, titled something like 'Ultra Violet Utopialand'

I would be interested.

 

[nnmartin]

Originally Posted by nnmartin
because you being successful means that someone else has to be unsuccessful.

And how does limiting the maximum a person can make change that?

because no-one can draw out more than their fair share from the National supply of money.

Just straightforward logic.

In a 12 slice pizza, if Mestemia has 8 pieces then there are only 4 left for the rest of the forum.

But if he only is allowed 1 - then we all get to share 11.

of course , in the real world we would need many more slices to start off with.

 

[nnmartin]

Imposing a maximum wage would amount to tyranny.

Capitalism as it stands is a tyranny.

The Rich dictate to the Poor , yet hide behind layers of artifice and deceit.

Most people on this thread are even calling this democratic system that I am proposing to be some kind of dictatorship but it is clearly the opposite.

Most of us in the West have been conditioned into believing the lies of the moneyed elite that to achieve happiness we must have more money than the next man.

All sorts of positive sounding euphemisms are used to make us follow this reasoning.

'be a success', 'chase the American dream' , 'do what it takes' - they all sound good but merely exist in order to segregate - and maintain the status quo ad infinitum.

The status quo in which the corrupt greed mongers play master to the slaves.

 

[rageoftyrael]

I'm simply not a huge fan of the world you are painting, nnmartin. Many of the ideas you have put forward are clearly ways of taking away freedoms from people. I prefer capitalism, in spite of the obvious advantages it gives to the rich, because it still gives people a chance to have a better life. I personally would like to be rich, not because i want to do better than anyone else, but because i wouldn't mind never having to worry about paying rent, being able to enjoy expensive hobbies, etc. and so forth. Essentially, if i am able to come up with a new service, and it makes millions of dollars a year, why should i then have to give my company up to the government?

 

[nnmartin]

let's not forget that it was the government system that allowed you to become so rich in the fist place so it seems fair to give it some back.

or do you prefer to just take and not give?

and as for these exepensive hobbies you want, can't you just see that many of them are purely fabricated wants.

Would you really want that top of the range Mercedes if it had never even been invented, or how about that $100/gram caviar. There's no need for all of this - do you think people in the past were all miserable because they couldn't buy the latest Calvin Klein after shave....I doubt it somehow.


As for capitalism , for most people it only gives them the illusion of a better life. This illusion is what keeps the system running.

And under my system you would never have to worry about paying rent anyway.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm simply not a huge fan of the world you are painting, nnmartin. Many of the ideas you have put forward are clearly ways of taking away freedoms from people. I prefer capitalism, in spite of the obvious advantages it gives to the rich, because it still gives people a chance to have a better life. I personally would like to be rich, not because i want to do better than anyone else, but because i wouldn't mind never having to worry about paying rent, being able to enjoy expensive hobbies, etc. and so forth. Essentially, if i am able to come up with a new service, and it makes millions of dollars a year, why should i then have to give my company up to the government?

Exactly, Look at Mark Zuckerburg,

All a young person has to do is create an I-phone app and sell a million 99 cent versions.

 

[nnmartin]

ok, in theory that sounds great - but how likely is it for the average man on the street?

It is a little like me asking you how often you win the lottery.

 

[Reverend Rick]

There is a whole lotta I-phone apps out there. Someone has to be making money.

 

[Revoltingest]

ok, in theory that sounds great - but how likely is it for the average man on the street?
It is a little like me asking you how often you win the lottery.

Wild success in business typically doesn't befall the average man, which is why they're called "average".
The market place favors smart & hardworking people.
Some schlubs aren't blessed with the traits of success & good fortune.
Unfair, to be sure, but I see no reason to bring low the wildly successful.

 

[Kerr]

ok, in theory that sounds great - but how likely is it for the average man on the street?

It is a little like me asking you how often you win the lottery.

Not entierly. If you are know programming and if people likes the program you made then it would work. The issue is people like me who dont want an IPhone because we are paranoid .

EDIT:

I would like to add that I understand what you want. I have grown up in a socialistic family and have sympathize towards that political direction. But I think there are better ways to do what you want then a maximum wage. Mainly thinking of figuring out good tax levels and so (the state gets money and people get money over after takes so they can have a good life).

 

[McBell]

because no-one can draw out more than their fair share from the National supply of money.

But you are still going to have those who have more and those who have less.
Setting a maximum on how much someone can have does not eliminate that.

Just straightforward logic.

Not really.
You are ignoring several facts in order for your "straight forward logic" to work..

In a 12 slice pizza, if Mestemia has 8 pieces then there are only 4 left for the rest of the forum.

But if he only is allowed 1 - then we all get to share 11.

of course , in the real world we would need many more slices to start off with.

In the real world you will always have some who have more than others.
So your idea just does not work in the real world.

 

[blackout]

let's see it!

why not start a new thread, titled something like 'Ultra Violet Utopialand'

I would be interested.

Maybe I will one night when I'm not too tired.

But only because I like the the name of my New Utopian domain. :flirt:
It's so trippy! Frubals.

 

[nnmartin]

But you are still going to have those who have more and those who have less.
Setting a maximum on how much someone can have does not eliminate that.

That is true - but the objective is not to make everyone exactly equal.

It is more to get rid of the extremes - ie: one man earning millions for being able to throw a ball through a hoop whilst a low level policeman struggles to keep his family afloat.

Can you not see the wrongs here?

In the real world you will always have some who have more than others.
So your idea just does not work in the real world.

yes, within reason this is ok.

But the current economic set-up is absurd.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that imposing a maximum wage would limit the total wealth in a society. If you are concerned with the growing gap between rich and poor -- as anyone who values freedom and liberty should be -- there are probably better ways to deal with that issue than to impose a maximum wage. Redistribute the wealth through taxation and social programs, for instance.

 

[nnmartin]

OK, let's try and work on this idea.

fist if we increase the taxation we could virtually arrive at the same point.

In an example I gave earlier I mentioned that the tax in the UK in 1976 for a top earner was 83%- so I can't see how anyone could have earned much more than this 100K mark anyway (adjusting for inflation etc..).

So why was this abolished ?

 

[Penumbra]

OK, let's try and work on this idea.

fist if we increase the taxation we could virtually arrive at the same point.

In an example I gave earlier I mentioned that the tax in the UK in 1976 for a top earner was 83%- so I can't see how anyone could have earned much more than this 100K mark anyway (adjusting for inflation etc..).

So why was this abolished ?

First, if you want to make $100k but over 80% of your income is taken away, all you have to do is earn millions. Top earners don't earn hundred of thousands; they earn millions.

Secondly, was it 83% of their whole income, or only 83% of income above a certain point?

The U.S. has had very high tax brackets in the past. (We're currently near the lowest top tax bracket over the last century). But even during times of high income tax, it's a matter of taxing really high levels of income only above certain levels. The whole tax percentage, therefore, ends up being considerably below the top tax rate.

 

[nnmartin]

I can agree with the gist of what you are saying here, and this gives more fuel to my 100K idea.

because , as you say , a top earner can still make millions and have way too much, and also increase the poverty levels of the common man.

A 100k ceiling really should stop this form of corruption.