A maximum wage - good idea?

[rageoftyrael]

The problem i see here is the automatic assumption that if a man has a lot to eat, he must be taking food from the man next to him on either side to pull it off. That can be true, in some cases, but it isn't always true. I guarantee there are small business owners who make over a hundred thousand dollars a year, and they aren't screwing over their employees to do it. They just have a good product or service, and are doing well. Now, you implied that i didn't want to give anything back. that's a ridiculous assertion, as i never said that. If i'm making millions of dollars, i'm probably paying at least hundreds of thousands in taxes, so i don't see how i would be being selfish in that scenario.

Also, how is a man making a lot of many inherently cause another man to have less money?

 

[nnmartin]

If i'm making millions of dollars, i'm probably paying at least hundreds of thousands in taxes, so i don't see how i would be being selfish in that scenario.

A lot of course depends on the tax rate.

Let's say it is 40% though.

Then if you are making millions as you say, for example $10 million/year then you are still left with 600,000 - that is a very large sum.

How could one man possibly need that amount?

Also, how is a man making a lot of many inherently cause another man to have less money?

Apart from the basic pizza analogy I gave earlier, it is normally the case that when a business makes a great success another one must lose out.

Think of a top football player. He earns an obscene amount so as a consequence all the ticket prices, cable tv subscriptions and products advertised by himself and his team must go up.

This is paid for by the common man.

 

[Reverend Rick]

A lot of course depends on the tax rate.

Let's say it is 40% though.

Then if you are making millions as you say, for example $10 million/year then you are still left with 600,000 - that is a very large sum.

How could one man possibly need that amount?



Apart from the basic pizza analogy I gave earlier, it is normally the case that when a business makes a great success another one must lose out.

Think of a top football player. He earns an obscene amount so as a consequence all the ticket prices, cable tv subscriptions and products advertised by himself and his team must go up.

This is paid for by the common man.

You forget that a professional athelete is only going to work for a very short time. When the retire, their body is worn out and later in life they will many times experience much pain and suffering.

 

[Revoltingest]

You forget that a professional athelete is only going to work for a very short time. When the retire, their body is worn out and later in life they will many times experience much pain and suffering.

There's only one fair way to handle this & other situations. Everyone's pay should be the same....let's say $50,000 per year.
Government could force employers to hire every working age adult, & provide them with dignified & meaningful work for this fair wage.
Whatever shortcoming the worker has, the employer should accommodate with assistants, tools, workspaces, transportation, etc.
Of course, I know that some workers would be lazy. Government would put them in prison, which would motivate the others. And then
there are workers who don't have the education or intelligence for their chosen profession. Let's say a kid with below average smarts
wants to be a neurosurgeon, then the employer would provide extra supervision. If ever an employer pays an employee over $50,000
per year, then this must be harshly dealt with. The death penalt would keep'm honest. Call it Revoltingtopia. I'd never live there, but
I'm willing to run it for the citizens, eg, nnmartin.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

The high tax rates were also accompanied by compensating tax write-off schemes, eg, 15 year accelerated depreciation with generous recapture provisions.
The tax rates in IRS charts don't tell the whole story. Note how revenue per year as a fraction of GDP is rather unrelated to the wild top marginal tax rate swings.
File:CBO - Revenues and Outlays as percent GDP.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course, we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

To set a higher limit is the politics of envy.
It should not matter to any one what another can earn.
Their concern should be with what they earn themselves.
And what they need to do to achieve it.

The common Good, whether services or aid are supported by taxation.
Provided Taxation is fair, proportionate and correctly applied. ( which it rarely is)
The rich will not only have all the advantages of wealth but also contribute the greatest part of the taxation.

This system encourages wealth and also provides for the needy.
Correctly managed it is self sustaining, and beneficial to the rich and those in need.

The difficulty is controlling the balance....

 

[Penumbra]

The high tax rates were also accompanied by compensating tax write-off schemes, eg, 15 year accelerated depreciation with generous recapture provisions.
The tax rates in IRS charts don't tell the whole story. Note how revenue per year as a fraction of GDP is rather unrelated to the wild top marginal tax rate swings.
File:CBO - Revenues and Outlays as percent GDP.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course, we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

Composition of tax revenue over time:
CHART OF THE DAY: The ‘47 Percent’ Pay Their Fair Share | TPMDC

Payroll taxes have been the silent increase. That's a tax burden on workers and employers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Composition of tax revenue over time:
CHART OF THE DAY: The ‘47 Percent’ Pay Their Fair Share | TPMDC
Payroll taxes have been the silent increase. That's a tax burden on workers and employers.

Yeah, yeah.....what about my Revoltingtopia proposal?

 

[Penumbra]

Yeah, yeah.....what about my Revoltingtopia proposal?

Which one in particular?

The one where there's a flat tax and everyone gets $10k?

 

[Revoltingest]

Which one in particular?
The one where there's a flat tax and everyone gets $10k?

No, no....post #104.

 

[Penumbra]

No, no....post #104.

Well no, I don't support post 104 at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well no, I don't support post 104 at all.

And after I slaved over a hot keyboard for several minutes.....tsk, tsk.

 

[Kerr]

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 ?

If they earn 1 million a month and have 83% tax then that is over 100k.

 

[McBell]

But the current economic set-up is absurd.

How is it absurd?
Those who make lots of money should not be allowed to make lots of money?
That sounds like something a poor nonthinking person would come up with in order to justify theft of the rich mans money.

Instead of stealing the rich mans money, you prefer they not be allowed to become rich in the first place.

One wonders what you think will happen when you tell all the rich people that they have to give up all their money to be as poor as the "maximum wage" allows them....

 

[nnmartin]

You forget that a professional athelete is only going to work for a very short time. When the retire, their body is worn out and later in life they will many times experience much pain and suffering.

The same could be said for many professions, yet the workers in those ones are generally on a low salary.

examples: soldier, builder, miner, farm worker, laborer, policeman etc...

do they get 7 figure salaries just because they may be worn out by 35?

I think not.

 

[nnmartin]

Yeah, yeah.....what about my Revoltingtopia proposal?

It does not seem to be a very realistic proposal to me.

 

[nnmartin]

If they earn 1 million a month and have 83% tax then that is over 100k.

I am fairly sure though, that in the 1970's there were very few, if any, people earning this kind of figure. (even taking inflation into account)

It seems like one of the functions of the system was to avoid this kind of accumulation in the first place.

 

[nnmartin]

One wonders what you think will happen when you tell all the rich people that they have to give up all their money to be as poor as the "maximum wage" allows them....

This depends on how you define poor.

Do you honestly believe that 100K/year would constitute poverty?

 

[McBell]

This depends on how you define poor.

Are you not the one who is constantly whining about others playing with semantics?

Do you honestly believe that 100K/year would constitute poverty?

To someone who makes multi-MILLIONS a year, yes.

Of course, since between my wife and I we are lucky to hit 28,000 a year, your proposed 100k/year seems far to rich....

 

[nnmartin]

if you made multi-millions you would only feel poor for a short period as you adjusted to your new income of 100K , but you would not actually be poor.

There is a definition of poverty out there somewhere, and 100K would always be way above this level.