It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What if there was an actual income limit and other restrictions?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

It'd definitely be a lot of definitions and a huge mess. Hardly realistic in any sense - I just enjoy going over these types of things. Most discussions have some type of lesson, or something you can learn.

Perhaps I'll learn that this could never be, though more by opinion.

Perhaps I'll learn something new about economics and stocks and trade.

Etc.




posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: worldstarcountry

It'd definitely be a lot of definitions and a huge mess. Hardly realistic in any sense - I just enjoy going over these types of things. Most discussions have some type of lesson, or something you can learn.

Perhaps I'll learn that this could never be, though more by opinion.

Perhaps I'll learn something new about economics and stocks and trade.

Etc.


Well, you got me thinking..

Ill have to sleep and run more imaginations in my head tomorrow. Maybe ill come back with something interesting.




posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

In our lifetimes something along these lines will become mandatory or else we wont survive as a species.

Technological upheaval beyond imagination is dead set to forever alter everything to do with everything we know.


Now this idea that only making beyond $10 million a year to be famous space pioneering innovators its kind of wacky.

Inventors merely trying to get rich are chumps, aren't real inventors anyways. Those would be schemers.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
So let me understand this.. I could only make 100,000 a year and anything beyond that would have to go to charity? Honestly, I think you would see people make only that bare minimum amount of the 100,000. People do not work their ass off only to be forced to give it away. Maybe I'm understanding this wrong?
edit on 22-6-2017 by JodiMarie because: .



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope
Don't tell yourself the result is learning it could or would not happen. Instead, force your mind to instead say "what changes, or details can I propose or add to make this more appealing to more people" ???

Within days of Trump being elected, I did a thread on revisiting abortion laws. I started off by typing up a draft and structuring it to to appear and read similar to an actual bill or proposed legislation. Right off the bat it looks more professional, people will take it more seriously, and the seriousness of it has people thinking critically to work together on compromise. The end result was that after taking some feedback and editing it a bit, I managed to keep the core of what I was going for, and a majority of participants in the thread seemed comfortable with the end result, although there were a few who were absolutely Con. Thats ok, because its always going to be people that disagree no matter how much you try to sweeten the pie.

So IMO, I think if you learned any lesson at all, it is that some things that seem like a simple fix, are actually quite complicated once we get into the intricacies of how such a proposition needs to be fine tuned.

Honestly I have had it on my mind for some years, but the trick is to find that sweet spot where Capitalists will be ok, and the Socialists can bend for a little bit of extra.

I would love to collaborate with you on a faux legislative proposal similar to what I did in my abortion thread if you re really interested. We could work out the tax limits and fine print the details of inheritance, stock options, IRA's and corporate property and how they apply and much more!! Trying to turn ideas into legalese is something I rather enjoy even though I am not a lawyer.

Check out the template I did with the previously mentioned thread and see what I am kind of talking about. Lets brainstorm!!!



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Its funny, your not the only person thinking of the same thing.

I was going to make a post about the same thing but thought - what if we cap personal cash and investments (not including property) to 5 billion dollars. That should be enough for anybody.

I thought this may improve - democracy and business opportunities.

My brain cannot handle predicting what would happen but I thought it would demotivate people to set up monopolies, and the ability for a small group to buy governments and politicians.

Less money for each person means less power for each person = decentralized power = good.
edit on 22-6-2017 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: deadlyhope
I am ok with a cap at $10,000,000 dollars for an individual, and $100,000,000 for a corporation before the tax penalty goes up.

The kicker is to cover all the loopholes though. If an individual knows his personal income is getting to that limit, whats to just stop him from lowering his salary and just funneling all the $$$ up to $100,000,000 into his company for which he is the treasurer ??

See, there is much mroe to consider than just simply saying "here is the cap, welcome to an age of enlightenment!" We would also have to brainstorm all the loopholes that would bypass the limit and figure out how to tie off the loose ends legally without being too Communist about it.

I think for personal income, $10,000,000 is a very reasonable annual maximum. If thats too low, just figure out how to funnel the rest through a company or charity you are still in control of.


I guess that would rule out buying a $10 million dollar house or apartment.

I think you may be like Dr Evil who wanted to extort the world for $1 million dollars like it was a lot of money. Some apartments in Manhattan go for $10 Million.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I think it would be a great idea. It might stifle extreme greed.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

What would the content of a plan for getting such a law through congress and the senate? - otherwise .................



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Little Caesars would have no reason to have ten thousand locations - other people with their own pizza ideas could grow until they cap them and their kin at a million a year.



You see thats a perfect example of extreme greed in my book. It would give more opportunity for other people to establish businesses.

Why should we support irrational greed - allowing people to make/take business beyond what they need for their own needs. What we need is a sustainable society. $5 billion (personal wealth) is plenty incentive to produce, create and pursue things. It won't stop that. Of course companies and businesses can have much higher limits, and or may not need to be limited at all.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I think a better approach would be to set a maximum ratio from the top earner to the bottom earner within the business. At least in the corporate and large business models.

That way you could still earn as much as possible but the profits made would also go to those below you as well within that business. The top CEO or owner would still make the most but for them to make more so would the people below them.

That would give incentive for everyone to increase the profits together and share in the rewards. Rather than a few people at the top sucking up all the profit and the people below being exploited.

Anyone at the top who's so greedy as to not see the importance or obligation of sharing the profits to everyone involved in making them is just an A-Hole anyway.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Our whole society is based on capitalism and those who earn the most have more money than.they know what to do with, and yet they hoard the "gold" like the dragons of faerie tales.

There's nothing currently in our imagination that could realistically prevent this from happening, companies cannot be capped without preventing growth or production.

Personal caps on income wouldn't be feasible either as prices would still place certain items in the hands of the wealthy vs the poor.

The only viable option would be to make all income equal across the board but this would be met with much resistance because performance isn't equal. One person could make everyone else do the work and still receive the same pay. I think most here have had at least one coworker like that.

On the other hand, those workaholics that put in above and beyond their responsibilities would no longer be compensated according to their work.

I think something should be done but i don't think caps are the answer nor forcing anyone to give up pay to charities. While some are legit, there are many that aren't.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

I'm not suggesting caps like what you're describing at all. Maximum ratio isn't a cap on how much you can earn. It's more like mandated profit sharing within businesses.

Some places now have ratios of 300:1 or more which is just insane. Nobody says that all jobs are equal or deserve equal pay. But can you really honestly say that the guy at the top is worth 300 times the other people working in that business???

I mean if they are really that much less valuable then why are they even there??? If they are worthy of having a position in the company they should also make profits from the company as it increases or decreases in it's profits.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

I'm not suggesting caps like what you're describing at all. Maximum ratio isn't a cap on how much you can earn. It's more like mandated profit sharing within businesses.

Some places now have ratios of 300:1 or more which is just insane. Nobody says that all jobs are equal or deserve equal pay. But can you really honestly say that the guy at the top is worth 300 times the other people working in that business???

I mean if they are really that much less valuable then why are they even there??? If they are worthy of having a position in the company they should also make profits from the company as it increases or decreases in it's profits.


It's possible that i misunderstood your aim.

Profit sharing should be considered mandatory. There was a story not long ago regarding an entrepreneur in Seattle i think it was. He took a pay cut and gave his workers raises. This act increased productivity and profit.

No CEO or higher up is worth so much more than his base employee. Perhaps caps should include income bracket caps between the highest and lowest paid as well.

With so much talk of healthcare, why not make it mandatory for insurance to be paid out of the profits rather than it being put into charities? Investing in the employees is an investment in the company. This could include child care, health savings, bonuses, and other things.

Just additional thoughts. It's not free healthcare... but rather than government subsidies, these would be like "bonuses" given for tenure or at performance reviews like raises but these are in addition rather than in lieu of actual raises. These would act as discounts toward health insurance so instead of $500/mo it might be $300/mo with the discount for a family of 4 with all normal benefit offerings. This is of course assuming the employee opts in and is applicable for the whole year starting when enrolled in next cycle. This could potentially make it possible to reduce employee payments down to $0 at some point based on tenure and work history. This would have to be placed in such a way as to prevent a company from cutting loose an employee who qualifies for such benefits. So incentives would have to exist to prevent too much syphoning off of profits into this type of scheme.
edit on 22-6-2017 by AkontaDarkpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

Here is a couple of interesting articles on the maximum ratio idea.
maximum ratio vs. minimum wage

Should U.S. copy Switzerland's attempt at maximum ratio

I don't agree with using it as a cap by tying it to the federal minimum wage. I think if a business wants to pay it's CEO 50 milllion bucks they should but they should be paying their janitors 2.5 million a year then and no one in between the top and the bottom should make more than 10x the person below them. A 20:1 ratio seems perfectly fair.
Besides I would be much more inclined to help my employer succeed if it meant I benefited also. I would probably go out of my way to ensure the company I worked for did as well as possible.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

Here is a couple of interesting articles on the maximum ratio idea.
maximum ratio vs. minimum wage

Should U.S. copy Switzerland's attempt at maximum ratio

I don't agree with using it as a cap by tying it to the federal minimum wage. I think if a business wants to pay it's CEO 50 milllion bucks they should but they should be paying their janitors 2.5 million a year then and no one in between the top and the bottom should make more than 10x the person below them. A 20:1 ratio seems perfectly fair.
Besides I would be much more inclined to help my employer succeed if it meant I benefited also. I would probably go out of my way to ensure the company I worked for did as well as possible.


No doubt! This is what that entrepreneur found when he took a pay cut. Now THAT was a smart business decision. If only this idea would work instead of having dragons hoarding all the gold...

Some children just never learn the art of sharing..



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

To be fair, most jobs which are not food, shelter, protection based are a result of a civilisation with too much money and time (Arts etc) so for example, rich person sets up a film production company, creates jobs on all levels within the company. The abiltiy to make more money to supply "stuff" which we dont need but want (latest iPhone anyone? Bored of your Xs? then get the Xx!).

As for the local production, some small towns can pull this off, but due to poverty lines, some families cannot afford the mum and pup prices, its a sad fact that even if you did limit the top end, this would not help the bottom end, it would most likely cause wage drops due people not wanting to use "their riches" only to be limited instantly so less jobs = less money per job.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Sensible Income related taxation, higher percentage for higher earners with a limit on that of course so that they COULD break the glass ceiling, taking away there aspiration's would be very bad for all economy's but taxing them since they make there wealth off of the back of the economy is very fair indeed.


So income cap equals very bad idea unless it is a short term emergency measure at a time of economic instability and is not intended as a permanent solution to a given problem, it is one of those that in the long term would do more harm than good to an economy.

Afterthought a cap based on the percentage of a nation's wealth is actually a good idea to prevent any individual from undermining democratic institution's by becoming bigger than them, even if that cap was half a percent of a nation's total wealth it would still mean they could become obscenely rich but limit there ability to take over a country as the Rothschild's have done many time's in the past - all well and good if there is altruism at work but altruism and money men do not tend to walk in the same circle's.
edit on 22-6-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I'm curious why we would not have growth?

We'd have extreme competition.. Wouldn't we?

The goal would be to grow to gathering a million a year... Then paying each person in your family a wage of a million a year.


And when almost everyone has $1m a year, a gallon of milk costs $50, other goods priced similarly, so rampant inflation and no growth...and the gap between haves/have nots grows tremendously (my theory, not stating as fact).



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I'd have to ask, just what is the outcome that you are hoping for, outside of sticking it to the rich???
first, I'd like to point out that we ended up with employer based health insurance the last time we capped the wages and salaries. more than likely, I think that they'd just find a loophole or two get around your law in a similar manner...
what the heck, provide the top ceo's with their own company owned mansion to live in, whatever..

what exactly is your gripe about some people managing to earn lots of money???



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join