It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Controlled Capitalism - A maximum wage

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:03 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

The OP is hopelessly lost. Two wrongs never make a right. You don't have a right to tell people how they must spend their money. You don't have a right to tell other businesses to run their business. Its none of your business. Trampling over property rights has never worked to improve anything, once, ever.

The biggest structural change to every advanced economy in the world, especially the USA, was a shift away from capitalism to a soundly mixed economy, with a climax in 1971 with the severance of the gold standard. But not a single wage-cap supporter seems to have noticed the single biggest economic change in the world in recent history. And you wage-cap idea people are going to go around fixing things with business regulations? We don't need idea people. We need action people... people who do things and create value. Politicians are idea people who do nothing, know nothing, and accomplish only wrongs.

The widening rich-poor gap was a very predictable result of capitalism coming to an end in the USA in the early 1970s after which point the rich-poor gap ended its long trend of shrinking and instead started to grow, and since then has only grown. So, there you have a socialist progressive economic system achieving a near complete victory. The progressives built Obamacare and Medicaid, food stamps, section 8 housing, and socialist security. Then in 1970 they secured victory with printing press for an ever-growing government. Every single need is now met via socialism in the USA.

Progressives are what you call sore winners. They have won every single decade for nearly a whole century. More regulation, more taxes, more spending, and a bigger government, and its just not enough. We are still, as always, a few business regulations away from prosperity. Progressives ruin everything, like they ruin Venezeuela, and since now that worked so well, Brazil is starting to emulate Venezuela, America is starting to emulate Greece, and all because capitalism wasnt' erradicated enough. To a progressive, it couldn't be because their policy changes they accomplished could be damaging things like the rich-poor gap?

Taxes is never high enough. Spending is never high enough. Debt is never high enough. Whats worse than a sore loser is a sore winner. Enjoy your utopia, wage-cap supporting progressives, because this is as good as it gets in the next thirty years in the USA. All because of your policies just like the idea of wage-cap.

Economic justice is only for the wealthy because you need $2,000 for a lawyer for the retainer. Then the price often doubles or triples from there. How does a wage cap solve that problem, or the countless other basic failures of government?

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:11 PM
Wasn't something tangible like gold the standard which kept everything in check at one time?.

The problem here isn't money because we don't use money in the current system and have not since 1913 or so.

And by the way, this "independence day" bull# everyone is celebrating right now was partially in celebration of being free of the exact same thing that is in control of the country right now.

Banks and Corporations.

Keep on having your hollow celebrations of things that don't exist any more realistically than most things you celebrate.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:15 PM
a reply to: wayforward

I understand your reasoning to a point, as well as the OP's.

It is debt that is destroying everything here and everywhere else.

I meet business people every day that claim they worked for everything they have when they actually only agreed to pay for it when they get the money.

Ain't the same thing.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:45 PM
A few hundred American capitalists are worth 3 trillion.
Corporations are making record profits. Profits are higher than ever before. The CEO's are making more than ever before. The rich capitalists have more assets and money than ever before.

Eighty percent (80%) of all American workers are living near poverty. 80% don't make enough money to pay the rent or buy groceries without welfare. You think it's the governments fault that corporations are richer than ever before, and they pay workers poverty wages? It is the fault of government regulations, or is it time to say capitalism has failed the majority of Americans. Workers that work full time should be able to afford food without welfare. What's wrong with a ceo making 300 times what a worker makes. Paying a worker so little that they would starve to death without food stamps means that capitalism isn't working.

Just stop with the stupidity please.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:53 PM
If corporate profits are higher than ever before.
If the rich are richer than ever before.
If the stock market is higher than ever before.
If GDP is higher than ever before.

Why are Americans being paid less than ever before? Why are Americans poorer than ever before?
What else does business need to pay people enough money that they can afford to buy food without welfare?
If you work full time in America, it shouldn't matter what you do for a living. No one should be paid less what it costs to live without welfare.

Think if you sell widgets. You need to buy a widget for X and sell it for Y. If you can't make a profit between X and Y you will go out of business. Paying workers so little that they qualify for welfare means that you are taking advantage of workers. X costs what it costs. and workers should make enough money that they need welfare to buy food or pay for shelter or medical care.

The rich are worth trillions now, do they need to be worth 100 trillion before they pay American workers a living wage?

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:09 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

Ratio based business models negate the need for increasing return values. You work the ratios, and allow the flow of cash in the economy to set your rate of returns finite value.

Maximum wage, as a law? No. Not a fan of the stick without trying the carrot first. Tax structure could be arranged to tax companies that award above a certain % of their labor distributions to an individual have a higher tax rate levied on them. I mean, the tax bracket system kind of does this....but if a $1mil bonus had to be matched with an equal tax payment....

Earmark funds gained from this tax and pass them on to social programs. If companies would rather pay their executives than their people, then levy a tax that forces the issue.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 05:26 PM

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Vector99

Maybe I should just close all my companies so that I can ensure others make the money I leave available in my void and my employees can try and fend for themselves.

This is the rich man attitude by the way. DO IT, CLOSE THEM. you think someone won't be there in a second to pick up what you stopped? are really a sad case. You think YOU are the reason people have jobs.

Man, you are something. You advocate shutting companies that I happened to build and hand to other's to run as a responsible thing because I have done it well?! You are sad. Good luck and make sure you close your business before you die and make sure you don't do too well because then you will have rich man attitude…….

Also to directly address this, your perception is so flawed you should run for political office. I DO run a business. It profits on average (depending on contracts) about 100k per year. I employ THREE PEOPLE. I PAY THEM 25 THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR EACH.

Yes I took a different approach towards business. I could EASILY drop my guys to 10k a year, putting an extra 45k a year in my pocket. I didn't do that. I figured out costs and legalities to hire them and keep them as independent contractors. They don't contract anything but the job I send them to. They also make no less than I would (after taxes of course).

So yea, i have an idea. I work a full time 38k a year management job because I want to pay my employees fair. Granted, I kick ass at my restaurant job, so most of that work can overlap with my business. Do your employees make 25k a year for 30-35 hours a week of work?

I'm happy to make less and say I pay 3 people very well rather than your road thinking you are important and what you do or own couldn't be replaced in a heartbeat. Your jobs could be replaced that fast, mine couldn't.

I DO run a business. It profits on average (depending on contracts) about 100k per year. I employ THREE PEOPLE. I PAY THEM 25 THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR EACH.

If you pay four salaried workers (including yourself) and you profit about $100,000 per annum, how do you pay yourself the same as your contractors? Also, you somehow have an over inflated sense of what running a company like yours is. You hire independent contractors not employees; there is a huge difference between the two. I have a suggestion, your proud of what you've built so expand your small business and employ more people, deal with the taxes and financial institutions, write a proper business plan to raise capital for your venture into running a real company and then try to lecture me.

I NEVER have had a handout in my life. Have endured many trials and tribulations and taught myself through trial and error how to build and maintain a successful business. You act like running a paper route is somehow worth of praise and I am somehow the bad guy. I grew up dirt poor and have made some comfortable money the hard old fashioned way; I am proud of my achievements and I am proud to be in the top 1%. Every one of my companies has an excellent retention rate because they are treated with respect and fair wages well above the average for their positions. I have had two natural leaders working for me that I have helped to finance and build their own companies which are now slowly growing and we still give them work. When you have completed .001% of any of that, then try to judge me. You may be my peer as a fellow human being; however, you are NOT my peer in business!
edit on 3-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: pesky punctuation n'stuff

edit on 3-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:15 PM
Meh, Marx figured it out a long time ago... too bad his ideas were never properly implemented. It's amusing how few people have read him, yet are so firmly against him... or think the repressive societies using his terminology were actually 'Marxist.'

Something different will have to be attempted if we are to continue existing... we can make any world we want and nobody has to suffer or spend their lives as a slave to an overlord... economic security is as free as we can be as humans.

We should be taking care of each other... period.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:56 PM

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Isurrender73

You don't need any minimum or maximum wage what you need is free competition and a congress that is not run by the established Oligopolies.


Free competition has lead to 1% owning 50% of all global wealh.

Deregulation has proven to be a failure that only benefits a few. The 99% were far more successful when the corporations were regulated.

This is a historical fact.

Actually no its not, if you are talking about the US and most modern countries. There hasn't been a free market driven by true competition in modern times. What we have had is a oligarchy which has done precisely what you have said.

You calling the US a free capitalist society is like calling China and Russia communist society.
edit on 57731America/ChicagoFri, 03 Jul 2015 20:57:34 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:58 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

Funny, but my skepticism know no bounds. No sarcasm either.

You ignore the published unemployment and inflation rates prior to Reagan during the Carter Administration and offer no explanation other than "I saw it first hand".

Destroyed our economy, eh? Revenues to the federal Gov't soared, partially due to the lowered tax rates, both individual and corporate. (Again, you ignore the individual rate breaks.) Those extra monies in the private sector hands was spent, in expansion, in hiring, in consumer spending.

You do not say how these acts destroyed the economy either, just that they did.

I do not believe you in the slightest, sir.

Anyone who suggests that capping CEO pay does anything for the economy other than appeasing the extreme left is a blatant panderer. That comment, alone, negates any credibility you might have had.

edit on 3-7-2015 by nwtrucker because: clarification

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:27 PM

originally posted by: Isurrender73
We need to return to the controlled capitalist system we had in place before Regan. And make the following changes; implement a maximum wage, eliminate the FED, eliminate all private banking, eliminate the IRS and move to a flat tax.

I like the idea of a maximum ratio but it doesn't actually fix the problems. Lets take a small business example like a Mom and Pop store. The owner might be getting $20/hour but under the maximum ratio that means their employee who is getting $7.45 is completely within the guidelines and if the ratio were say 10:1 that owner could still increase their wage, quite substantially in fact while completely failing to address that their employee isn't making enough money.

A maximum ratio only works in conjunction with a minimum wage, it isn't a replacement for a minimum.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:14 AM
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'd rather take the 1980's and 1990's again than go through this poor excuse for an economy.

Things weren't that peachy before Reagan either. Carter, Nixon and LBJ did a good job of destroying the economy. IMHO LBJ and Nixon did the most damage with the excessive spending by LBJ and Nixon having to go off the gold standard to pay for it.

A lot of people spout that in the golden era of the 50's taxes were 90 percent and everything was peachy. Well there were so many deductions and loopholes in the tax code we actually create more tax revenue now than we did then. The rich weren't paying 90% hardly.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:09 AM
a reply to: stolencar18

I worded it wrong, my business has an annual revenue of 100-110k after all expenses except payroll. All that revenue goes into payroll. Sorry I confused you, I didn't think it would really be hard to figure out what I meant though.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:13 AM
a reply to: stolencar18

What mcdonalds anywhere pays its non management employees 25k a year? It's more like 9-11k. Poverty line is set around 13k. How is 25k a bad salary again? The work my guys do is pretty simple and on their own schedule. None of them work other jobs, so apparently it's not all that bad.

My restaurant management job? Yea I know I'm way underpaid, but I enjoy the job and they are very flexible so I take the 38k with bonus no problem.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:20 AM

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: notmyrealname

Again, I wouldn't ever call spending money working. My guys make 25k a year, same as me. Do you pay your employees the same, or remotely close to what you make? I'll answer for you, you own an asian business so nope, not a chance in hell you do. Keep telling yourself you are part of the solution though, it's good for the ego.

This makes you a failure in business. How can you not see that? When the best you can possibly do is beat the poverty line you're not doing it right.

So my business (which hasn't failed yet) is a failure because I don't tow the normal line? Explain this please? By the way, I easily could drop 2 of my guys, pay the other one 10-15k a year and pocket the rest IF I so chose. I CHOOSE not to.

Barely beat the poverty line? You know the poverty rate in the US is$11,700 a yearright? How is a wage nearly 250% more "just beating" the poverty line?

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:59 AM
a reply to: Vector99

[Do your employees make 25k a year for 30-35 hours a week of work?]

if 35 a week every week, that's not even 14 an hour.

How do you live with yourself? That's not a living wage. Where's the magic $15 an hour

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:01 AM
a reply to: bobstark

[Eighty percent (80%) of all American workers are living near poverty. 80% don't make enough money to pay the rent or buy groceries without welfare. ]

So, 80% of Americans are on welfare?

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 06:15 AM
a reply to: jacobe001

I don't disagree re the lobbyists. Every vested interest has lobbyists these days. Not just banking.

These groups, often at odds with each other, have used this mechanism to enhance their positions. Obviously.

That doesn't connect with Reagan and this ridiculous thread title-I'm allowing the OP was just waving a red flag in front of the bull in the hopes of heated response- the premise isn't remotely logical if for no other reason that once a wage cap is introduced for a select few, that would explode into wage caps for all of us. Give that control to a PR controlled/social media empowered group? A pathetic concept.

It doesn't merit any further response time.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:47 AM
I agree with maximum wage, if I was in charge it would be $300,000 per family member per household annually.
So single guy 300K but if you have a wife and 3 kids it would be 1.5 million. Now you ask if you exceed that where does the rest of the money go, 100% taxation split between county/state/country.
This would mean no billionaires only millionaires. You also set up a wage system based on age at 16 you make $5/hr. it automatically goes up 1 dollar per year, by 26 you must make $10/hr by 36 $20/hr by 46 $30/hr where it maxes out. From there the company can choose to pay you up to your maximum allowable wage based on the number of family members and your spouses income.
People might say well that would kill the drive to do better, I did disagree by 46 you better have skills or nobody is going to hire you.
Also companies could give bigger perks for loyalty to the company like longer vacations for example at 10 years service you get 2 months annually.
You work for the same company for 20 years they buy you a paid vacation to an exotic location for a month stuff like that.

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 10:41 AM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

[You also set up a wage system based on age at 16 you make $5/hr. it automatically goes up 1 dollar per year, by 26 you must make $10/hr by 36 $20/hr by 46 $30/hr where it maxes out.]

What if you're lazy? "Aw, man, I can' wait til I'm 36 years old, dude. Livin' large, yo!"
What you're suggesting is communism.

There would be no incentive for young people to excel, or invent, or innovate.

If you tell me I can't have more than X, then X is all you'll get out of me.

If I can have whatever I earn, I will put forth X, Y, Z and onward.

How much can I "keep", if I can only earn X?

If I reach a certain wealth level, does the government sweep in and take the excess?

It's my money that I earned, why should someone else decide what I can have?

Even if you install the system you suggest, take every dime from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, etc. those people will rise to the top of the heap again.

The people who expect something for nothing will stay at the bottom. If you're salary is capped or increased by age, the incentive for growth is quelled.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in