Should there be a MAXIMUM wage?

reply to post by SM2


As I understand the OP you would still get to choose where you live and other such choices. It's not to hard to understand how it would work, if the maximum wealth limit was say one billion dollars that would still free up a lot of cash and provide a healthy motivation for the work force to aspire too. After all how many of us are going to make a billion?

I don't think the OP was endorsing an 'everybody earns the same' pay where we all get under 50k a year and dished out a property by the government, more the freeing up of hoarded money by the ultra rich.

As for businesses going overseas, I can't see this not happening if such a policy was implemented. One could argue that there would always be someone else to fill the void but all of the best would ultimately go overseas and the creativity within the country would become stagnant. The only way I can see around this would be to install values in the young that promote staying in the county as an honor. It would take a massive cultural shift to make this idea work but it could be done.

There are those that are so proud to stay in and build their own country that leaving for extra money is simply not an option, I believe it would take a culture of epic patriotism to achieve this end though.

Ok, so you say, but ultimately, who would decide how much money I need. Who would decide how the equation was set up and what is a need? Furthermore, who are you to tell me how much money i can make? It is none of your business how much money an individual makes, and if you actually think just because there is maximum wage, that those same companies will in turn pay the lower paid more money, then, you are just naive.

I do not think we should have money at all. Hopefully after people lose their Ego's we can learn to help each other instead wanting to profit off each other. Funny looking colored paper is a slave tool.

Peace to all.

The American Dream = NO MAXIMUM WAGE!

Anyone who believes wages should be capped is a communist. All these young idiots occupying Wall Street have no clue what they're asking for. Herman Cain is right. They're barking up the wrong tree. Obama and the socialist Democrats are the root of their problems.

yes you should.. outstanding logic...

I read every post in this thread and I don't think that anyone is really following this idea to it's end. It's an interesting topic that has me thinking. Maybe the old adage is true? Money is the root of all evil. Well money is great, it's fun to save and spend and it is impossible to do with out at this stage in our evolution.

Is limiting ones power to do negative things with it a good idea? Of course. But how do you do it in a way that brings health and happiness into everyones lives while keeping the incentive to work hard or be driven to do the important jobs?

Let me tell you about a friend of mine from Cuba. She is one of the worlds top researchers in cancer treatment. She makes about 30 dollars a month. She gave a speech last week at Harvard. Her life is unfathomable to me. She tells me that a bottle of cooking oil is two dollars in her country. She lives with her whole family, three generations of a family that has worked and shared all together. She loves her life and would not dream of living in a country like the USA though the opportunities, and things available here are great in her eyes.

Here's my first point. People around us are so disheartened by the world we live in now that they already don't want to work. Examples are all around us of people who worked very hard all of their lives and saved every penny and have absolutely nothing to show for it. Their children are faced with the same heavy burden and the same odds as their parents were. Why not sell drugs or take advantage of others for profit.

Take away the incentive to become richer and more powerful than the next guy and you would find that people compete to make the biggest contribution to the next generations. You would find that people stop caring about profit and start caring about the environment.

The world is now a tiny place facing major environmental challenges, and nothing is going to get done about it until the ability to use money in negative ways is checked. People of the world need to get back to a place where every decision is based on how it will effect the seventh generation and that will not happen until money ceases to be the most important thing in everyones lives. This will never happen until some kind of monetary balance is forced onto the public by the governments of the world.

Greed is an unfathomably hard thing to fight, but we brought it on ourselves. The freedom to grow unchecked into a super rich entity by anyone who has the luck and mind to do it has brought us to such a state of unbalance that we are here today with no answers as to how to fix it. The world cannot be more unbalanced than it is today, when it comes to money.

Someone mentioned animal farm, a few posts back, but look what happened to US. This country is full of people lining the neighborhoods who are all alone in their houses with the blankets pulled over their heads, having panic attacks, because they cannot imagine a way out of the monetary predicament they are in. Every one of them is all alone in this, yet the blocks are filled with people in the same predicament. Money has effectively separated us from our communities and neighbors. It is with these neighbors that we should be looking for comfort and security and a sense of community. The only way that we can become acquainted again with our extended families is if there is some form of restriction put on the negative impact that comes by money.

After a time with this money cap idea, I am sure that we would commonly decide to raise the maximum wages. We would play with the idea, as it would not and could not work the exact same for everyone in every walk of life. But maybe by then we would have learned some lessons about what is important and what is not, in life. It might be a good start if not the exact answer.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that this idea is not THE answer that the world needs temporarily to get us through this stage of evolution. We need a strong slap in the face as the human family and we need it now. Those of us who are used to having things we don't need, need to experience what it is like to do without for a while. We are going to experience it one way or another, or our children will, you can bank on that.

Someone said here earlier that the 1% wish the rest of us would stand up and take the rest back and change things, or something to that effect. Well I would like to believe it's true, and I think it may not be so far from the truth. What would happen if we all stood up and said "I do not want what I do not need"? Maybe if those of us with little stood up to say this, then those of us with much would stand up and say it as well.

Given the ability to get an education, move about and communicate freely, I think most people would be happy to make only the money that they need to live, and to have a little fun doing what they find entertaining.

Originally posted by ShortMemory
reply to post by ArrowsNV

 

theres no logical reason at all to make super profits

That is a completely false statement. Where do you think the money comes from to start up new businesses, reward investors who took the risk and for research and development of new products?

There are two types of people in general. Makers and Takers. Makers create everything, build everything and fund everything. Takers complain, moan, whine and belittle the Makers while demanding the Makers give them everything for nothing.

When the Takers take over, it all comes tumbling down. The former USSR as case in point.

Originally posted by SM2
Ok, so you say, but ultimately, who would decide how much money I need. Who would decide how the equation was set up and what is a need? Furthermore, who are you to tell me how much money i can make? It is none of your business how much money an individual makes, and if you actually think just because there is maximum wage, that those same companies will in turn pay the lower paid more money, then, you are just naive.

I'm not saying I agree with the proposed policy but I don't disagree either - need to look into the pros/cons more. I would however argue that it is my business how much an individual makes when the number is obscene as it impacts upon my life by way of inflation and control of the money supply. I'm not talking about your average multi millionaire either, I have no wish to pry. I'm talking about your multi billionaires and if you don't believe that they impact upon your life in someway through controlling the markets then you are naive too sir. And if you do believe that they impact on your life but still think it is none of your business then I don't believe I can take you seriously.

reply to post by ShortMemory


Instead of trying to figure out how to take the fruits of others labor, why not build something yourself? Do something yourself? Most of the rich are first generation and many came from poverty.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Most of the rich come from poverty. I'm having a hard time believing that. Sure maybe a small percentage but "most".

Your gonna have to back that up with proof.

Maximum wage = minimal work.

If there were a maximum wage standard, all of our techies, inventors, investors would disappear. Why is it in all of these anti-millionaire threads nobody talks about the ridiculousness of paying athletes and actors millions of dollars, often for less than six months work? Why is it OK that Angelina Jolie gets paid $20 million to read someone else's words, yet Buffet should be punished for his wealth that he created on his own intelligence because he's a CEO??

Football players make millions for playing a game, once a week, for five months! Gates, Buffet, Jobs, wall street brokers, et al., actually use their brains, risk a lot of money, and hope it pays out....which if you are smart enough and shrewd enough it does.

Look at the price of baseball tickets. It used to be the all-American sport that almost every family could enjoy. Now, for a family of four, you're looking at over $350. Which is largely dictated by players' salaries.

It just irks me that nobody ever mentions celebrities wages and the sheer ridiculousness of what some of them get paid to play a game or read lines. And yes, we pay a portion of that also. In rising ticket costs, movie prices, etc.

Lmao according to the yes men there should be a maximum wage.
It seems a little excessive to me, there should just be limits on how much money can be sitting in an account without being used for anything. It's not the flow of large amounts of resources through the hands of the few that causes problems on its own, it's the hoarding of a large percentage of that wealth by those people.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by ShortMemory
reply to post by ArrowsNV

 

theres no logical reason at all to make super profits

That is a completely false statement. Where do you think the money comes from to start up new businesses, reward investors who took the risk and for research and development of new products?

There are two types of people in general. Makers and Takers. Makers create everything, build everything and fund everything. Takers complain, moan, whine and belittle the Makers while demanding the Makers give them everything for nothing.

When the Takers take over, it all comes tumbling down. The former USSR as case in point.

edit on 10/10/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

you guys just dont have a clue. please look at the top salary earners and tell me how many "makers" (entrepeneurs) you'll find. they are mostly takers, taking advantage of the lack of check and balances within corporations. but hey, dream on - go for that carrot.

Originally posted by ShortMemory

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by ShortMemory

 

Being a Liberal I have to say you should not cap the money anyone can possibly make either.

It should be made known and public however so people can decide if this is the type enterprise they want to support but I think it should be legal to pay whatever in wages, unless of course they are getting any public funds.

edit on 10-10-2011 by newcovenant because: I can't seem to see or spell anymore.

people would still be able to make more then they need, so whats the problem
if it means that everyone in the world can live properly and within their needs whats the problem?
you could actually increase the mimimum wage with this idea
so it would be better for everyone

What you state assumes that there is an unlimited supply of money. There isn't. One of the huge failings of capitalism (and those with huge bank balances know this!!!!) is that the solution to an economy is growth which is only possible if there is an unlimited supply of resources OR a limited number of people consuming resources. Before the indians and chinese started to become consumers the vast majority of resources were consumed by the western minority. The same model is now untenable.

So here we are with limited resources and limited money supply. How do you have a viable economy? Quite simply the money supply MUST be more evenly distributed (whew sharp intake of inevitable breathe there!), the economy MUST be based on sustainability NOT growth (oh no we have been rumbled cry the intelligent greedy industrialists/bankers/politicians).

Capitalism is dead but no doubt we will have a few wakes as the greedy try and get their hands on as much as capital as possible before even the stupidest person wakes up!

The idea is "crap" because: In a "fiat" currency world where no hard physical assets change hands one dollar for fatcat is not a dollar taken from a peon.Nor is legally denying the fat cat the dollar going to necessarily put it in to the peons hand.

No. Despite my reply above! What you need is a a fairer tax system where every individual pays exactly the same tax (a calling cry of the right) and at the same time replace the welfare system with a single post tax allowance. The following for the UK (I have checked the government figures by the way....very boring number sbut very informative as well)

Tier 1 : Tax gross income at 43% for EVERY citizen from birth to death.
Tier 2 : EVERY citizen gets 5200 per year post tax. There is no welfare , no child benefit NOTHING, this is it. One variance is that this state allowance increases from 800 at birth (child benefit) to 5200 at age 18.
Tier 3 : EVERY citizen can take 1/100th of NET RPI adjusted tax paid as income at any time. This accommodates the complaint about higher tax payers getting lower pension,benefits etc. It also takes account for people who have worked ALWAYS getting more that somebody who never has.

Calculation checks, based on the above:

* The average earner has EXACTLY THE SAME NET TAKE HOME PAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* The government has EXACTLY THE SAME NET INCOME FOR PERSONAL TAXES AND WELFARE!!!!!!

The advantages are quite numerous:

1. Accountants are unnecessary, the system is soooooo simple.
2. Welfare cheats cannot cheat.
3. Tax dodgers cannot dodge.
4. Administration is ZERO (or practically)
5. There are NO welfare income traps. No matter how much you earn you will ALWAYS be better off.

For companies (still working on the numbers):

Tier 1 : tax rate proportional to the difference between highest and lowest paid.
Tier 2 : like personal Tier 2, every company is entitled to a rebate per employee (encourages employment)
Tier 3 : like personal tier3 , encourages payment of taxes as an insurance scheme.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Most of the rich come from poverty. I'm having a hard time believing that. Sure maybe a small percentage but "most".

Your gonna have to back that up with proof.

After a twenty year study, Thomas J. Stanly, Ph.D and William D. Danko, Ph.D, released their findings in a book titled The Millionaire Next Door. They found that 80% percent of America’s millionaires are first generation rich. This book was published in 1996 and is a best seller. They have all kind of stats in the book related to people who build wealth and those who don’t. It’s an interesting read and points out that the majority of the rich don’t live like those on TV.

reply to post by topdog30


I believe the first gen part but that most were poor I have a hard time with. Maybe just different ideas of what poverty is.

Actually the millionaire club is not as exclusive as it once was.

reply to post by daskakik


I don’t know how many come from poverty, I’m sure there are some. I know it can be accomplished though. I’m trying to make the point that it wasn’t handed down to them as a lot of people seem to think. It’s still believe it's quite an accomplishment to reach millionaire status. They used that as the cutoff for their study they began in the 1970’s.

reply to post by topdog30


Interesting because I was just playing around with a calculator that adjusts dollars for different years and 1 million of 2011 dollars would only buy you 175K in 1970.

According to this U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires

There are 3.1 million millionaires. Thats almost 10% of the population but only 40,000 of them has more than 30 million. That must be the new bottom limit to get in the club.