Society/Culture Why is there not a salary cap, for life?

[Seeds]

The problem is, this is highly unrealistic

How so?

 

[JD11]

Free agency: When your kid turns 12 they become an RFA and if some wealthier parent wants to give your child a better life you'll have to match their offer. At age 16 it's open-slather. Of course, you'll receive a compensation pick from a cohort of second graders for any child lost on free-agency.

 

[CountryRace]

Free agency: When your kid turns 12 they become an RFA and if some wealthier parent wants to give your child a better life you'll have to match their offer. At age 16 it's open-slather. Of course, you'll receive a compensation pick from a cohort of second graders for any child lost on free-agency.

The omish (sp) have something like this

 

[Present Not Past]

The omish (sp) have something like this

Do you mean Amish?

 

[Pie eyed]

If you taxed the mega rich to the level you aspire there would be no mega rich, and probably more people needing charity.

How do you know to which level I aspire?
It simply suits you to imply...

 

[Summer Nights]

I understand the words merit and privilege, am just trying to get the context to understand what you mean.

Say a baby dies, because it has no food. (Oxfam claim 18000 kids die per day, from mostly preventable causes) the baby has done nothing to deserve bread. It doesnt merit food. It has not worked for it. unmerited privilege? In an proper capitalist consumer paradigm this is indeed good caused the worlds richest thousand people should not have a salary cap, as any sort of salary or asset cap is very bad in capitalist theory as the far right understand it. Even if it only will effect one thousand, of the worlds 7 billion.

Under a pure Darwinist view or true capitalist (remember, not the current situation in the democratic so called captlaist west, if you have been paying attention, bailouts etc. ). you are entirely correct.

I am just asking it this situation right. Or fair. Or just. O moral?

Why - should there not be an asset cap? That takes money for said dying baby after a rich man have already got one billion? Why did us humans go about creating a United Nations and human right concepts (food etc.) if such ideals clash they with unmerited privilege?

Your English is poor. I find it painful to read and mentally reconstruct your messages to make sense of them.

 

[Lebbo73]

That sounds a bit extreme to me.

What about the less radical idea of a cap at around the $24,000,000.00 or $1,000,000,000.00 range?

Say goodbye to the entrepreneurs and technological advancements. Thanks CR!

 

[Pie eyed]

Free agency: When your kid turns 12 they become an RFA and if some wealthier parent wants to give your child a better life you'll have to match their offer. At age 16 it's open-slather. Of course, you'll receive a compensation pick from a cohort of second graders for any child lost on free-agency.

This is a real idea which could take off, especially if that compensation pick is optional...?

 

[Pie eyed]

Do you mean Amish?

I love this board.
It's a mute point you make about the Omish....all just hyperbowl.

 

[CountryRace]

Say goodbye to the entrepreneurs and technological advancements. Thanks CR!

can you explain how this would be the case?

 

[Lebbo73]

can you explain how this would be the case?

For starters, what can you achieve with $240k when some projects take billions of dollars to bring to fruition?
Where is the motivation to innovate once you reach the cap if you know some greedy leech is going to steal your money?

 

[CountryRace]

For starters, what can you achieve with $240k when some projects take billions of dollars to bring to fruition?
Where is the motivation to innovate once you reach the cap if you know some greedy leech is going to steal your money?

A company could still have billions, just not an individual. Hence schemes requiring billions would still be possible

It's not 240k

I am proposing a scheme where there is a cap at two hundred and forty MILLION (not thousand).

Or billion.

You could still sell iPads or pet rocks, but after certain point like 240 million the extra money would go to the poor

When you reach one billion or 240 million, why do you need more?

It's not going to a greedy leech. It's going to buy a starving baby food to save an innocent life.

 

[Summer Nights]

I vote no to OP's proposal.

 

[CountryRace]

I vote no to OP's proposal.

On what grounds

 

[Schache It Off]

A company could still have billions, just not an individual. Hence schemes requiring billions would still be possible

It's not 240k

I am proposing a scheme where there is a cap at two hundred and forty MILLION (not thousand).

Or billion.

You could still sell iPads or pet rocks, but after certain point like 240 million the extra money would go to the poor

When you reach one billion or 240 million, why do you need more?

It's not going to a greedy leech. It's going to buy a starving baby food to save an innocent life.

The idea that one must have their wealth confiscated above a certain limit will be further abused in the future. What's stopping politicians reducing that threshold to say...150 million? 100 million? 5 million? Again, there is something wrong with your proposal - You are allowing the state to confiscate people's wealth to what you think is best. Don't you think that if say we lowered tax rates, we would have more disposable income to give to charities to help out or do you think government can only help the poor and that charities is a feel good thing only?

Now you talk about helping the poor - I don't know if I can be bothered for the argument or if it should be saved for another thread but we can help the poor through loosening of regulations, taxation, labor policies (Eliminating the minimum wage) and encourage savings instead of mindless spending. I am just throwing these ideas out as other alternatives that can be in the best interests of all individuals in the nation, lessening government burden while caring for the unfortunate.

Is there any reason why you picked 240 million? Was it a random figure you thought would work?

 

[CountryRace]

Just random

Seems like a lot

 

[blackcat]

Say one, was only allowed to have 240 million dollars

And everything (or 99.99% perhaps) extra, went to some sort of United Nations fund for people suffering from war or natural disaster.

Would this be a terrible idea?

It is not as if we live in a 'perfect' state of capitalism currently



http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfre...talism-unless-we-denounce-its-false-prophets/

http://www.fairytalecapitalist.com/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/04/27/too-big-to-fail-distorts-capitalism/

one of the incentives of capitalism is the competition and ladder and status it confers. I think this incentive is a key plank. you remove this plank, you remove one of the fundamental tenets (which is incentive)
*sub incentive that is.

what is more pertinent, is the philanthropy culture. it is not the billionaire net wealth, it is how one exhausts those resources. if you are a resource imbiber of mammoth proportion, even if you made a few billion, you are still exhausting the limited resources of 2015.

what the yanks do have, is their philanthropy culture. it might be another name for consumption of "philanthropy status, emphasis on status", and for "assuaging non-catholic guilt", and for "keeping yourself out of gaol". so it is just consumption by another name. it is just that you are not the one expending the resources.

 

[medusala]

what is more pertinent, is the philanthropy culture.

How to get progressive wannabes frothing at the mouth. The fact that lower taxes and higher levels of philanthropy are strongly correlated really shits them.

 

[CountryRace]

1. The richest 80 individuals own as much as do all of the poorest half of humanity.

2. During 2009-2014, the wealth of the 80 richest people doubled, yet the wealth of the bottom 50% declined slightly.

http://economics.uwo.ca/people/davies_docs/global-wealth-databook-2014-v2.pdf

 

[Lebbo73]

1. The richest 80 individuals own as much as do all of the poorest half of humanity.

2. During 2009-2014, the wealth of the 80 richest people doubled, yet the wealth of the bottom 50% declined slightly.

http://economics.uwo.ca/people/davies_docs/global-wealth-databook-2014-v2.pdf

Blame the central banks and various governments over the last 100yrs!

 

[Summer Nights]

1. The richest 80 individuals own as much as do all of the poorest half of humanity.

2. During 2009-2014, the wealth of the 80 richest people doubled, yet the wealth of the bottom 50% declined slightly.

http://economics.uwo.ca/people/davies_docs/global-wealth-databook-2014-v2.pdf

How much did the population of the bottom 50% increase by?

 

[Schache It Off]

Blame the central banks and various governments over the last 100yrs!

Government with it's favoritism, Corporatism, central banking and central planning have helped escalate the income inequality Countryrace fears.

Therefore the obvious solution is to have more government.

 

[medusala]

1. The richest 80 individuals own as much as do all of the poorest half of humanity.

Lazy bastards.

#musttryharder

 

[Long Live HFC]

Government with it's...central banking and central planning have helped escalate the income inequality Countryrace fears.

could you elaborate on how central banking has "escalated" income inequality?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

A company could still have billions, just not an individual. Hence schemes requiring billions would still be possible

It's not 240k

I am proposing a scheme where there is a cap at two hundred and forty MILLION (not thousand).

Or billion.

You could still sell iPads or pet rocks, but after certain point like 240 million the extra money would go to the poor

When you reach one billion or 240 million, why do you need more?

It's not going to a greedy leech. It's going to buy a starving baby food to save an innocent life.

Simplistic view. you are not understanding capitalism. Capitalism is about supply and demand.
You look at presidents and CEO's getting ridiculously high incomes as pure greed of the individual. This is nonsense.
They have ridiculously high salaries because mouth breathing investors who are only interest in profits agree to pay them anything so long as they can line their own pockets.

and this is where you run into a problem, are you going to restrict dividends? If yes, your insane as that's what's needed to attract investors into the system. and if not what's to stop the rest of the money hungry investors who only give a s**t about profits deciding to pay those that are going to line their profits through shares instead of cash?

plus lets say you managed to police this cap correctly, what happens to the industries which only cater to the mega rich? like luxury boats, private jets, mansions, etc, etc. these things cost tens of million to buy and tens of millions more to maintain and run in pristine condition. they are not products people "budget for" they exist purely for people who never even think about the cost.

so now we are affecting people who aren't billionaire's livelihoods.