A maximum wage - good idea?

[McBell]

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.

As YOU said:

This depends on how you define poor.

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

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
poverty
n 1: the state of having little or no money and few or no
material possessions
​

For someone who makes millions of dollars, 100k is poverty.

I suspect you are thinking about the Federal Poverty Guidelines:

​

 

[nnmartin]

there you go , no chance for pleading poverty at the 100k mark even if you had 10 children to support.

So the rich millionaires could only complain that they were not able to continue living 'in the manner to which they had become accustomed' ; which is an entirely different ballgame altogether.

 

[rageoftyrael]

I don't understand your issue with people making a lot of money. I can guarantee you would change your tune if you for some reason started making millions of dollars, and the government stepped in and told you that you were only allowed to keep 100,000 of it every year. You would wonder why you had to give up your hard earned dollars, just to make other people feel better that they aren't making as much. That's basically all you are proposing here. A system that makes a poor man feel better, because now the richest of the rich aren't that much richer than them. Who gives a crap about the pathetic little dude? He needs to either just appreciate what he does have, or try harder to get more, not try and make it so other who do have more, have less. That's a little harsh, but let's be real here. I'll be honest, if i was making even 50,000 a year, i'd feel rich compared to the less than 20,000 a year i make now, but i don't begrudge a rich man his money just because he has more than me. That would just be petty.

 

[nnmartin]

I don't understand your issue with people making a lot of money. I can guarantee you would change your tune if you for some reason started making millions of dollars, and the government stepped in and told you that you were only allowed to keep 100,000 of it every year.

For sure, if I were making millions I would want to keep it, as would most people.

But this is the heart of the problem.

Human greed cannot moderate itself - it must be moderated by an external force. So we must aim to avoid these obscene earnings in the first place.

You would wonder why you had to give up your hard earned dollars, just to make other people feel better that they aren't making as much. That's basically all you are proposing here.

This isn't the idea.

It's not about making the poor man feel better, but about improving society as a whole so that the masses are not routinely exploited by the rich elite.

Who gives a crap about the pathetic little dude?

Not you, by the sounds of it.

He needs to either just appreciate what he does have, or try harder to get more, not try and make it so other who do have more, have less.

That seems to have come straight out of the 'Capitalist Dictatorship' handbook.

but i don't begrudge a rich man his money just because he has more than me. That would just be petty.

again, it is not about begrudging the wealth of someone else but, rather, showing a concern at the widening inequalities in our society which is rapidly destroying the social fabric.

The aim is to improve the lifestyles of everyone, not just those at the higher end of the social spectrum.

 

[rageoftyrael]

I'm just not seeing it, nnmartin. What is it about their being rich people that is "rapidly destroying the social fabric"?

 

[McBell]

again, it is not about begrudging the wealth of someone else but, rather, showing a concern at the widening inequalities in our society which is rapidly destroying the social fabric.

So it is the rich who rabidly destroying the social fabric?
Please be so kind as to explain exactly how...

 

[dust1n]

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.

Isn't the whole idea of the cap on income to redistribute the wealth via services and payouts? I mean, you are correct that rich people might donate less, but the poor could end up recieving more through the tax many than they could have through a foundation, which makes your point a little sloppy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't the whole idea of the cap on income to redistribute the wealth via services and payouts? I mean, you are correct that rich people might donate less, but the poor could end up recieving more through the tax many than they could have through a foundation, which makes your point a little sloppy.

Sloppy? No, I saw the unstated premise that if prosperity is punished, then fewer will seek it.
A maximum wage would sap the will to work from the most productive, & we'd all be worse off,
especially the poor. On the plus side though, we couldn't afford to wage useless wars so much.

 

[dust1n]

Sloppy? No, I saw the unstated premise that if prosperity is punished, then fewer will seek it.
A maximum wage would sap the will to work from the most productive, & we'd all be worse off,
especially the poor. On the plus side though, we couldn't afford to wage useless wars so much.

Hold on, killer, I hadn't got to OP yet. I'm not sure If I'd support a full-blown, Huey Long, maximum wage, but if I did, it would probably be near 10 percent of GDP, or somewhat. Outside of that, a somewhat balanced, but progressive, tax-rate should be implemented, in such a way that vital public functions operate smoothly and openly. I suspect that a hundred thousand dollars is a lot more in nmartin's country than our own.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hold on, killer, I hadn't got to OP yet. I'm not sure If I'd support a full-blown, Huey Long, maximum wage, but if I did, it would probably be near 10 percent of GDP, or somewhat. Outside of that, a somewhat balanced, but progressive, tax-rate should be implemented, in such a way that vital public functions operate smoothly and openly. I suspect that a hundred thousand dollars is a lot more in nmartin's country than our own.

Worry not....I know that the likes of you would never support such foolishness.

 

[Revoltingest]

For your viewing pleasure....
[youtube]9lqgIsG4BDI[/youtube]
The Venture Bros.: 21 Goes For It - YouTube

 

[Yerda]

A maximum wage would sap the will to work from the most productive, & we'd all be worse off,
especially the poor.

I know it sounds like a self-evidenct truth, but is there any research available on that issue?

You imply that total production would fall as a result of a maximum wage. That sounds reasonable, but it might not be true.

Do the highest earners actually produce more? If so, how much more?

Does productivity rise in proportion to absolute earnings?

Does the will to work rise linearly or does it level off at some stage?

Would a smaller disparity have an effect on the productivity of lower earners?

Cheers.

 

[Yerda]

There isn't a finite amount of money out there.

I suspect you are mistaken.

 

[dust1n]

Worry not....I know that the likes of you would never support such foolishness.

Seeing how 100k dollars a year hardly would count for prospering in this general area, such a small limit would likely cause impoverty of everybody. But at least there is all of those public funds to address it. Now we just need an honest politician. I nominate Mystic.

 

[dust1n]

I suspect you are mistaken.

I was thinking that, too. If there is an infinite amount, where the hell is it all sitting, unused?

 

[dust1n]

For your viewing pleasure....

Dustin's Invisible Harim.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know it sounds like a self-evidenct truth, but is there any research available on that issue?

Undoubtedly. But I'm too lazy to search it out.

You imply that total production would fall as a result of a maximum wage. That sounds reasonable, but it might not be true.
Do the highest earners actually produce more? If so, how much more?

Every place I've ever worked, I've noticed a strong correlation between unproductive workers & their low compensation.

Does productivity rise in proportion to absolute earnings?
]Does the will to work rise linearly or does it level off at some stage?

It's easier to illustrate the opposite. Cut someone's pay, then watch their attitude & productivity fall.

Would a smaller disparity have an effect on the productivity of lower earners?

In my experience, giving someone a raise does not lead to greater productivity.
But if a raise is warranted, then not giving it to them will lead the to find another job with higher pay.

 

[fallingblood]

I suspect you are mistaken.

We continue printing more and more money. If we run out of money, we can just print more. There may be consequences of that, but we can still always print more.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was thinking that, too. If there is an infinite amount, where the hell is it all sitting, unused?

At any given point in time it, the money supply is finite.
But it's effectively infinite because government can print any amount,
& their stated policy is to print it faster than the economy expands.

 

[dust1n]

We continue printing more and more money. If we run out of money, we can just print more. There may be consequences of that, but we can still always print more.

You could keep adding 1 to a quadrillion. It's still a finite number.

At any given point in time it, the money supply is finite.
But it's effectively infinite because government can print any amount,
& their stated policy is to print it faster than the economy expands.

The government can't print any amount. And in doing near infinite sums, they would effectively destory the economy, in which money won't exist. I'm just not really sure in what way the money is infinite? It can be printed in giant sums over time, sure. That's not what infinite means.