Should there be a MAXIMUM wage?

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShortMemory
Seems like a simple way to end a lot of the worlds problems
And im not just talking about careers, even profits from business, stock market etc..any form of profit.
We should make it law that people can only take whats needed, nothing more. The rest can go to charity or helping the community.


Well that sounds frighteningly like socialism, but I can sympathize with your overall sentiment. The "Star Trek- The Next Generation" series had an interesting take on the society of the future, money and wealth was an antiquated ideal that had long ago been replaced with an environment where people all contributed in whatever way they could but were fully provided for regardless of their contributions. Now one might say that this would foster laziness in that people wouldn't have to work for anything, but there were benefits for those who were willing to put in the extra effort (for example, those who wanted to be stationed on spacecraft had to work much harder than average to earn a spot in "the academy" and continue to work hard throughout their education there). I think a system like that could actually work, but it's so vastly different from the rewards-through-wealth system that we have now that it's hard to imagine how to implement it. It would take a complete ground-up redesign of our entire culture, and we're just not ready for that yet.




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be shareholders. Share trading shouldn't exist. Just as a company (or group of companies) shouldn't be able to become incorporated except very temporarily for very specific large scale ventures and then they should be disbanded with complete thoroughness.


Of course that's something that would never happen. But the big time shareholders are only in it to get rich and they have no interest in the quality of life of anybody but themselves.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
One dollar for some one else does not mean no dollar for another.

I am to understand that here the maximum wage is......


Just beyond your dreams and drive.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ArrowsNV
 


I will agree that some banks, usually the smaller, less known banks, do practice unethical lending practices. However, if someone has to use those banks because no other bank with help them then that is THEIR problem... they should have been more financially responsible in the past, or they wouldn't be in that situation. Having said that, the large "name brand" banks aren't screwing anyone over. How could they? If you take out a loan you are responsible for paying it back. Period, end of story. You signed on the line, now be a responsible adult and live up to your obligations. How much a CEO makes is none of your business. Is it a lot of money? Sure it is. Is it often a ludicrous amount of money? You bet, but that is far better than having some government bureaucrat deciding the maximum wage, because I guarantee you that bureaucrat will decide that their own maximum wage should be a lot. Anyway, whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you take out a loan, mortgage, etc.. and can't pay it back then YOU shouldn't have taken it out to begin with. By the way, there really already is a maximum wage, considering that we have a progressive income tax system. The more you make, the more the government steals from you, so where is my incentive to create or innovate? Where is my incentive to work harder than the next guy? There isn't one, and as long as the government takes from me to give to someone else in the interest of "fairness" and "equality", that other person that is getting a free ride on my back won't have any incentive to work hard either.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Hmmm... lets say I get a great idea for "X".. I dunno- say "X" is new kind of combustion engine that is 50% more fuel efficient than what we have now.

But, lets just say I'm a self centered kinda guy. I know bringing this thing forward will be a lot of work, a lot of long hours, a lot of meetings, arguments, stress and what-have-you. Sure, it will do a lot of good for the world, but what good is it going to do me?? I'm not going to make any more or be any better off than if I just coast along doing whatever I'm doing and drawing the same check as the next guy.

So what would be my motivation to actually try and better the world? Its not going to make me any better off...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Redistribution of the wealth worked so well in the U.S.S.R. didn't it


Have you ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm ?
edit on 10-10-2011 by CynicalWabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
NO !!!!

the people with the big ideas would move their companies out of the US

it would be devastating



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The superintendent of the school system that i go to makes 260,000 dollars a year. And what is even more outrages is that he is getting payed this for 3 schools. In my town we have a elementary a middle school and a high school.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

NO !!!!

the people with the big ideas would move their companies out of the US

it would be devastating


Perhaps they would relocate these companies to China or Mexico?
edit on 10-10-2011 by InformationAccount because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

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....


Have you noticed all the preganant women walking around these days?

Must be something in the water.

If you keep your money invested in the market for another 40 or 50 years you should be able to cash out as the next generation babyboom reaches peak earning potential.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
NO !!!!

the people with the big ideas would move their companies out of the US

it would be devastating


Too late!



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


You would not be getting the same check as the next guy. You would be making the max which could be 1 million every year for the rest of your life.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

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?




I see this argument a lot, but the thing is it's already happened where are all our manufacturing jobs ?
The way I see it let them go someone is always there to step up and if they haven't always been a have instead of have not I'd hope they remember some ethics. But at the end of the day if all the money leechers left the country wouldn't stop, it would just leave a gap where more people could thrive.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShortMemory

We all know that one dollar for one person means one less dollar for another.


Well, why don't you start? When you work, (I assume that you do), do you keep only enough to feed yourself, and give the rest away?

Because if you buy anything else, like a house or some clothing, then you are bettering yourself, and taking that extra dollar from many in the world who don't even have food.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
there should be no max cap on wages. the source of outrageous salaries must be understood. a ceo basically decides himself how much he earns. that's just nuts. the position of shareholders in corporate decision making must be strengthened drastically, this requires adjusting current laws and regulations. as with all regulations the problem is that a country that passes stricter regulations faces the danger of company headquaters leaving the country. this discussion was big here few years ago, but people voted it down for said reason.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I'd hate to see a maximum wage. I'd like to know that if I come up with the next iPhone or some other cool idea, that I could make it and sell it, then be filthy rich. Why not? It's my idea, right? People aren't forced to buy it. But, if they want it, they pay for it and that's the way it is. If there is no incentive, then you may as well pack it in, and call it a day. We'll be stagnant for the next thousand years.

Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
How can we impose a Maximum wage and still be in keeping with the Constitution?

How can we limit the promise of the "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?"



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I get paid a set salary and then commission, so I have a carrot dangled in front of me to sell more of what we do each month to earn extra, is this an incentive to do so..........yes. If you are lucky enough to be employed then you are because you can do that job, if you want extra then excel at what you do to reap a share of the profits you generatate for your employer.

I'm no whizzkid lawyer, banker, stockbroker etc, I work within the Sign Industry, I'm 45 yrs old and my ethos ever since I started working at 16 was to do the best you can and then go the extra yard, firstly for job security and then the extra earnings.

There should be a set limit on basic earnings, any extras earned will be from your performance and rightly so regardless whether you sweep the streets or run a multi national corp, this way you ensure you get workers rather than jerkers n shirkers.

Wolfie



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by InformationAccount

Originally posted by ShortMemory

We should make it law that people can only take whats needed, nothing more.

We all know that one dollar for one person means one less dollar for another.

What do you think?


I think you wish to punish those who are the most intelligent, best educated, have the best connections and come from well established families.

The real problem is that wealth is not being distributed in an equitable manor. If the worker ants were compensated fairly for thier efforts they would have more money to pay taxes.

No there should not be a maximum wage, thier should be an equitable distribution of capital and a social services system that provides benefits to everyone in an equitable manor reguardless of thier ability to purchase said services.


The problem is it is not always the most educated, intelligent or hardworking people that make the money they need. In fact a recent study found that many successful people had psychopathic tendencies, their lack of empathy allowed them to make the cut throat decisions that allowed their success.

Going by this model (and it's clearly not true of all the wealthy) we may say that the cruelest people get all the wealth while the more caring among us don't take advantage of other peoples' weaknesses which encourages poverty!

Obviously there are some sweeping generalizations in that statement but it does bother me when people automatically equate money with intelligence or a hard work ethic - I'm not saying these qualities don't contribute to success, course they do but there are many other issues to consider.


SM2

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
so who is to decide how much money I need? Some worthless politician? Who is qualified to make that decision? What is deemed a "need" in this equation? Will you allow me to own my own property? Or will that be issued to me? What if I need a method of personal conveyance? Will your politician decide which automobile I need?

A policy like this while it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, is a disaster in the making. Sounds like something a bunch of stoned teenagers though up after having a discussion with the burnt out hippy parents of one of the teenagers. Flower power man. Lets have a love in and fight the institution man.

While I do think that some salaries are insane, at the same time, good for them. It seems like people are not truly outraged at the salaries, but jealous of them. So instead of sitting there thinking of ways to steal someone elses wealth, why don't you folks, redirect your energies into getting a piece of that pie yourself. Hell, do it the old fashioned way, and steal someone else's idea. it worked for Steve Jobs,Bill Gates and thousands of other people. Stop complaining and get off your butt and make your own money.





top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join