Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should there be a MAXIMUM wage?

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


This is one of those things which i believe is needed to be done to 'save' our society. But by the same token, it's not 'fair' to restrict peoples wage. If anything, they should have some kind of restriction that limits the amount of wealth a person can have. Wealth is power, it's not surprising to know that the most powerful people in the world are also the most wealthiest. When was the last time you heard of a homeless person having power? Exactly it's an impossibility.

I believe in personal liberty's, I'm a libertarian at heart, but it's not fair for people to have THAT much power over other equal beings. However, i understand those that have worked hard to gain their wealth. But there has to reach a certain point where you have so much money, you have no use for it.

It's something i would support given appropriate circumstances. I don't think you should restrict wage, but the total wealth of a person.

No person deserves that much power, no one.




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


I've thought about this before, I have another idea which could also work:
Contribution Factor Theory.

Capping a persons income would be a simple way to allow a more even distribution of wealth between people but many people will think it's not fair. I don't believe that the super-rich have really earned all the money they make. Their excessive wealth is being generated by people who work for minimum wages. That's why my contribution factor theory places emphasis on rewarding work fairly with respect to the quality and complexity of the work.
edit on 10-10-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   



The richest 1% wish that the other 99% would actually get mad enough to take a stand and force those in power to make a positive change in the world instead of watching tv or complaining.




now that is the stupidest statement I

have ever read on ATS..



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nineix
As pretty as this idea sounds, it's quite naive and simplistic.
Sure, it's be great if everyone made $50k-$100k a year regardless of whether they chose to work or not.
The people that didn't work would kill themselves off quickly from alcohol and drug use, and those that didn't would birth a new age of artistic explosion.

Putting a limited ceiling on monetary gains, however, doesn't give those who typically earn large salaries any incentive to do the best job they can. Why would anyone put themselves in a risk taking position when they can make the same income delivering the mail?
Why would anyone with a creative drive for ingenuity pinch off some world changing invention into the toilet bowl of limited returns when they can pack their bags, move to Russia, Taiwan, Australia, or any other part of the globe and sell their work for 10x or more than what they'd get at home here in a capped economy?

All the innovation, and people that do those high paying jobs will leave the country, taking their money and their ideas, and highly specialized skill sets with them, leaving us with a brain drain.

A sliding difficulty tax might work a little more efficiently where the higher the income that's made, the more it gets taxed.
Value also needs to be placed on charitable work, contributions, and sponsorships beyond the current system.

My opinion, of course.

sometimes the simplest ideas are the most effective, and it doesnt take much to see how uneffective the laws we have in place now regarding money are..
it could be a lot more than that. i think somewhere between 500,000 - 1,000,000 is resonable.
there would probably be more jobs avaliable if this happened. its would give massive stimulation to the economy.
if we implimented it tomorrow and see super rich people donating most of their money we would probably fix all economic problems
i think customers would be better treated because when theres no limit to profit most people do dodgy things to make as much as possible
if they could only earn a certain amount they wouldnt need to do these things
people will always inovate. its dumb to think people do it only for money..it would actually take innovation out of the hands of the corporations and make things more avaliable to the public.

the tax is another good option



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Rich people don't need billions. That's just disgusting. I get by on about 8000 a year. WHEN I'm working. Still been unemployed for months now. Thank god school loan stippends help pay my rent. And I have a teenage son on top of it. I've worked since 89. Min wage, you can't save money. You just can't. To me, if I EVER got more than 300 ever two weeks take home, I'd not know what to do with that kind of money. My god if i got 300 a WEEK, my son and I would be living high in the hog or whatever the saying is.

Yeah, Gates et al are really going to spend their billions of dollars in their life time. -__-
Yet people like me would LIVE a life time on a million dollars. Hell, I'd live til 80 on 500,000 dollars. Even 250,000.

Come on. Once you travel the world 20 times and buy 2 of every yacht, private jet, and so on in the world, it would get SO boring. To be able to get anything you want at a snap of one's fingers? How boring!!!!!! There's nothing to dream about. Ever. You just /do/ it.

I once saved up 8 weeks to buy a 300 dollar tv. And I had that tv since 03. And it was my pride and joy, big assed clunky 100 lb tv. Mine. I saved. I bought it brand new. To a billionaire, they'd turn their nose up. Oh. 300 dollar tv. /I/ have a 65,000$ 120 inch screen full wall tv. Jeeves keeps it clean while I'm out in (name country here). pft. Boring life. boring boring boring. Me, I'd rather be proud of my poor min wage 38 year old self for being able to finally bring that 300 dollar tv home than to be able to snap my fingers and have the title to the world and moon and saturn in 5 minutes.

Rich people. Yuck. They have lost touch with the precious things imo. How can they not? I sit and dream of going to New Zealand. Itll never happen ever. But I can dream about it. Rich people? "Let Jeeves watch the mansion and put the kids in with the nanny's, dahhling. we're going to New Zealand in one hour because I'm dreadfully bored....."

pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft. I'll take my 8000.00 dollars a year and be totally content with paying my rent, bills, and having just enough left over to maybe buy an ice cream treat for me and my kid once a month, and to window shop and dream and keep my imagination going than be able to have it all with a snap of the checkbook.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nineix
Why would anyone with a creative drive for ingenuity pinch off some world changing invention into the toilet bowl of limited returns when they can pack their bags, move to Russia, Taiwan, Australia, or any other part of the globe and sell their work for 10x or more than what they'd get at home here in a capped economy?



I was about to post that, too.
Its one of the biggest reasons why "tax the rich" simply doesnt work.
Rich people are really really good at moving money around the world and getting advice from accountants on how to minimise tax. Raise tax = move offshore.

You want to implement a plan where somebody regularly getting 3 million suddenly gets a pay cap of 500 thousand? The result after one year is simply no rich people living in your country. Not "officially" for tax purposes, anyway.
Same with business. Why on earth would anyone wish to start a company in your country when they can do it more profitably overseas?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nineix
Why would anyone with a creative drive for ingenuity pinch off some world changing invention into the toilet bowl of limited returns when they can pack their bags, move to Russia, Taiwan, Australia, or any other part of the globe and sell their work for 10x or more than what they'd get at home here in a capped economy?


Maybe they would do it because they don't feel the need to gain a ridiculous amount of wealth. By exploiting their ideas to the very limit they create economic inequality. No one is saying they can't profit. In fact the rare few people smart enough to come up with Earth changing ideas will probably be set for life. Who can complain about having a long term maximum wage? It's only greedy people who want more than they need will see a problem. It simply isn't right to make the masses live on scraps just so a few people can live like that. Putting a cap on a person income is obviously a very controversial idea, that is why I think it would be much easier to start distributing wealth more fairly, as in my Contribution Factor Theory. But once again it does require business owners willing to settle for wages that aren't stupidly high.
edit on 10-10-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShortMemory

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


I agree with you 100%
Not only for fat bankers and those in industry but film stars and those overpaid sports stars too. Way overpaid for what they do, when you considr some people put their lives at risk on a daily basis for peanuts.

Yes, put a cap on salaries and especially bonuses.


This has always been a pet peeve of mine but I think this is a matter of society getting their priorities in order and doing the right thing. Not a good idea to try and legislate the right thing.

Your either a disinfo agent or seriously deluded
there is no reason what so ever for this not to be policy, it would be the best policy every put in place by any government
get off your high horse, to me your not a human if you cant comprehend the suffering of millions around the world because of a small percentage of selfish people



What I am is a libertarian.

We don't like people making laws, we have enough laws... unless it is life or death.

Well that is kind of nasty, uncalled for...and speaks toward your character I imagine.
I am trying to give you a certain opposite point of view and I think I EVEN said I personally loved your idea.



Unfortunately...It isn't friggin lawful.

Your level of education is not as high as I gave you credit for.
Well at least nothing apparently stuck since debate is something we learn in elementary school.

Sorry you can't take the heat.

Now I am going to edit out any places where I may have complimented you or treated you like a normal thinking human...clearly my mistake.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by ShortMemory

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


I agree with you 100%
Not only for fat bankers and those in industry but film stars and those overpaid sports stars too. Way overpaid for what they do, when you considr some people put their lives at risk on a daily basis for peanuts.

Yes, put a cap on salaries and especially bonuses.


This has always been a pet peeve of mine but I think this is a matter of society getting their priorities in order and doing the right thing. Not a good idea to try and legislate the right thing.

Your either a disinfo agent or seriously deluded
there is no reason what so ever for this not to be policy, it would be the best policy every put in place by any government
get off your high horse, to me your not a human if you cant comprehend the suffering of millions around the world because of a small percentage of selfish people



What I am is a libertarian.

We don't like people making laws, we have enough laws... unless it is life or death.

Well that is kind of nasty, uncalled for...and speaks toward your character I imagine.
I am trying to give you a certain opposite point of view and I think I EVEN said I personally loved your idea.



Unfortunately...It isn't friggin lawful.

Your level of education is not as high as I gave you credit for.
Well at least nothing apparently stuck since debate is something we learn in elementary school.

Sorry you can't take the heat.

Now I am going to edit out any places where I may have complimented you or treated you like a normal thinking human...clearly my mistake.



your not a libertarian, your a human. and a human should care about his fellow man.
the one problem our race has faced since society begun is greed. everything bad stems from greed and this would stop it
if you really think its ok for people to make billions because others are suffering i worry about you and i hope you can see the error in your ways. people say that money isnt equal to anything like gold anymore..ill tell you what money is equal too..power
and no one needs power over other people, they only need to be able to take care of themselves and their basic needs.
im against most laws but not logical ones that would actually help
your getting influenced to much by what people have told you and emotion..

its not uncalled for, you clearly dont care about others and are extremley narsasistic.
and i didnt see that comment you wrote untill after i posted

of course its not lawful, because its exactly what tptb dont want..and if it was to come into place the balance of power would become spread equally..corporations would loose the stranglehold they have on our governemtns..and you wouldnt need to be against laws because we could pass only needed ones and not the ones we all hate and are forced on us.

clearly your level of education is laking because i seem to remember one of the first things i learnt was repsect for my fellow human being and to not be greedy.

i can take the heat but i cant take people who seriously encourage what your saying
im sorry but i deny ignorance

go for it



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
not really......
some people, reallly gifted people, have made their fortunes honestly and with integrity and they have used that wealth to benefit society...

but....
the gov't does throw alot of money towards the corporate entities and there would be nothing wrong with placing a few strings on that money!!! if they want a grant, or tax break, the gov't contract, well, the gov't just asks for a record of their payroll, particularly the wages.....if the pions on the payroll are making so little that they'd be eligible for gov't handouts (or are in india or where ever making pennies on the dollar) while the big fishies are earning obscene amounts, well, no, they don't get the money from the gov't unless they want to restructure the payroll so that either no one on their payroll would be eligible (and yes, if the positions are filled with people who are working full time, we assume that they have kids and families!), or that the big fishies aren't getting paid more than 75% more than the pions!

that way, well, they aren't really forcing anyone to change the way they are running their business, if the business don't like it, they can always not take the money!!!! they can consider the gov't handouts to their employees as their federal allocation of money!!!!
the problem isn't what they are paying the big fishies really, it's that they are giving out these high wages, at the expense of the little fishies in the business, knowing full well that most of those little fishies will find an alternative resource to fill in that gap, and too often that gap is filled with gov't funds through social programs!



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

some people, reallly gifted people, have made their fortunes honestly and with integrity and they have used that wealth to benefit society...

but....
the gov't does throw alot of money towards the corporate entities and there would be nothing wrong with placing a few strings on that money!!!


Individual talented people are not the problem, the machine is the problem.

Grandma owns stocks in corporations, Uncle larry and Aunt mary have 401k's and pension plans that are invested in corporations, the city of Clydesdale has it's city workers pension plan invested in corporations, inbreed trust fund baby Anne really is an idiot but her investment broker who is invested in corporations is not, Brother Jed has a life insurance policy that holds stocks in corporations....

Well educated Lucy and well connected Adam work for a corporation and wish to increase their stock option price so they hire lobbiests.

Lobbiests work for corporations and pay for elected leaders to be re-elected.

The paper pushers who work for the government machine want to keep their cushy pension so they support anyone who supports the system.

War is sexy and everyone is a whore.
edit on 10-10-2011 by InformationAccount because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
A problem that I have with the wealth cap is that I need at least 30 million dollars to build a self sufficient sustainable clean renewable energy producing, completely off the grid home on 100 acres of property with a secondary underground bunker also completely off the grid so I never have to worry about every dealing with people when I don't want to.
How can I develop a sustainable clean renewable energy home if we have caps on everything.
I don't want some bling bling Hamptons retreat, or a mansion in Beverly hills. I just want a nice safe private retreat on lots of land with plentiful resources far away from everyone else with an underground bunker.
Is that too much to ask, or must I conform to the expectations of everyone else because wanting to feel safe and isolated from everyone else is considered selfish and greedy?

edit on 10-10-2011 by nineix because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
OK I've thought about this some more and I have to agree with the people saying income shouldn't be capped. Think about it this way. No one should be able to dictate what we can and cannot do, beyond the limits of law that is. And yes I know the law often suppresses freedoms but that's not relevant for now.

Here's an example of what I mean. Lets say I find a huge chunk of gold on my property and I wanted to cash it in. If the Government tried to claim I had no right to all that money because it would exceed my income cap, I would consider that to be a serious breach of my freedoms. I would say it's a classic TPTB scam.

Even though I think it would do a lot of good, ultimately I can understand why an income cap would be an unwise idea. There's no way rich people are going to hand over the assets anyway. If you put all their extra money into some sort of fund which provides incentive it may possibly work, but I highly doubt it.

As I said. A fairer distribution of wealth to begin with is a more realistic and fair idea. The only reason people acquire such a disproportionate amount of wealth in the first place is because it's distributed so unevenly. Many people work hard their entire lives but have nothing to show for it. It's just plain wrong.
edit on 10-10-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: spelling



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by newcovenant

This has always been a pet peeve of mine but I think this is a matter of society getting their priorities in order and doing the right thing. Not a good idea to try and legislate the right thing.


If we never legislated the right thing, black people would be sitting in the back of the bus still...

Just saying.

Good night folks, off to bed.
edit on 10-10-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)


This is an excellent point and true. I have brought THAT up myself many times and (already starred your earlier post) ...but one has to do with basic human rights and another has to do with limiting the amount of money a person makes. I know we are all outraged and rightly so but I don't think they are the same kind of thing.

Who is to say if you did that, the poor would ever see the savings? It is like the lottery money was going to go to education. Somebody else got rich on that.

Another poster had an idea that was good I think it was where in the framework of a company employee wages must be proportionate to officers in a formulation that remains the same throughout the ranks of the company.

That would be legal and force companies to pay lower wage earners more if they want to pay an exorbitant amount to the executives. It might have to apply to some predetermined formula but I think remedies like capped wages is like ordering white people to ride the back of the bus to restore equality instead of just letting the blacks ride in front.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I agree. Well said.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


You know nothing about me.
That's about all I care to say.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by InformationAccount
 


and just the demographics of the boomers is enough to make all those pension funds, iras ect....quite worthless unless one is nearing retirement age now!!!
I'm a tail end boomer, and I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't have mattered what was done with my money, by the time I reach retirement age, my older brothers and sisters of that generation will have been cashing in those iras, ect.....to the point where my holdings would be devalued....
that is a problem I think that is unavoidable....



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I wouldn't say "a maximum" wage persay. More like they souldn't make x amount more then thier least paid employee. If a CEO wants to make mega buck he'll have to pay his employees more.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Hmmm, interesting. You could even make it a very generous maximum so that people could still get filthy rich, just not 'super-hardcore-world resource draining-mega-crazy' rich like a few do now...

I don't know how well such regulation would survive over time, but it's certainly an interesting proposition.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Certainly CEO pay levels are way out of scale as compared to the wages of the average worker. You can say the same about the Hollywood Class of Actors and Actresses, Professional Athletes, University administrators, College Football Coaches making 7 figures in the big divisions etc etc.

It is not just the corporations at work here. That being said it is NOT the job of the govt. to get involved here either. This should be up to the corp. shareholders, the consumers etc. Sadly, we just keep playing and paying along. Ticket prices skyrocket and we keep paying for movies and sporting events, product prices increase on on non essential items and we keep paying just to have the latest and greatest gadget evolution. (planned obsolescence).

They are getting paid because they have been permitted to do so... Stop buying the !@#$ that you don't need and can't afford!!






top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join