- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,405
- 19,537
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
The big question is "Why do they get away with this?"
Society/Culture Why is there not a salary cap, for life?
- Thread starter CountryRace
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The answer to the OP is if there were a "salary cap" on earnings or asset ownership, there would be a resultant cap on effort and innovation.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,344
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Not to mention the huge cost of paying "watchdogs" over the cap to police those under the cap and the corruption which inevitably comes with that and the even more inevitable illegal payments and benefits outside the cap.
Truth be known the only person who would end up under the cap is the OP and rightly so.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #104
yes, theoretically possible (
yet - the 'effort and innovation cap,' would take place only when the innovated has reached a cap of one billion dollar, or 240 million, or whatever the very high mark will be.
as opposed to the current situation?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #105
Summer Nights
Norm Smith Medallist
- Banned
- #106
Unmerited privilege? Sod off. I believe that generating agricultural, industrial and technological revolutions provides just privilege at society level. Much of the rest of the world's societies have benefited from these revolutions.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #107
what do you mean?
Unmerited privilege? Sod off.
as in a child with no food, should not be given food, so a billionaire does not have one less dollar in his statement?
I do agree humans have advanced somewhat. The point is - should be a cap at 1 billion or 240 million
Summer Nights
Norm Smith Medallist
- Banned
- #108
Unmerited privilege means unwarranted privilege. I'm saying that western society deserve the privileges that they have due to the advances that they've made for themselves. That picture is so racist against whites to say they don't deserve the wealth that comes with their discoveries.
Most of the world's population has grown and enjoys higher utility than they otherwise would have due to western ingenuity.
That's why sod off.
I agree in an inheritance cap though. That's all.
Most of the world's population has grown and enjoys higher utility than they otherwise would have due to western ingenuity.
That's why sod off.
I agree in an inheritance cap though. That's all.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #109
and what process was that
Summer Nights
Norm Smith Medallist
- Banned
- #110
The revolutions that I mentioned.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #111
anything else?
Summer Nights
Norm Smith Medallist
- Banned
- #112
They're the main things.
I wasn't talking about an actual cap. I was talking about the deleterious effect a "salary cap" would have on people making an effort and being innovative.
If we can get away from policing human nature such as the inclination to love and be sexual attracted to whomever we want, then we have to do the same when it comes to wanting to do better and succeed. There's many reasons socialism is 0-for in practice.
On the other hand, people of all political persuasions should continue to put pressure on the mega-rich to fund much need charity works.
If we can get away from policing human nature such as the inclination to love and be sexual attracted to whomever we want, then we have to do the same when it comes to wanting to do better and succeed. There's many reasons socialism is 0-for in practice.
On the other hand, people of all political persuasions should continue to put pressure on the mega-rich to fund much need charity works.
The mega-rich tend to make up an elite group in society who pretty much do whatever they please. They will generally only act when their peers do as well - so any outside persuasion is pretty useless. And the ones engaged in the persuading usually end up being accused of attacking tall-poppies or of having wealth envy.
Well, I know how personally and physically damaging being accused of tall poppy syndrome can be...
Most rich people want to make more money, and therefore need to keep making products and/or services which appeal to the masses in some way or form. So to think the many cannot positively affect the few is problematic and not terribly helpful.
Most rich people want to make more money, and therefore need to keep making products and/or services which appeal to the masses in some way or form. So to think the many cannot positively affect the few is problematic and not terribly helpful.
Gus Poyet
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 1, 2012
- 9,253
- 4,056
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
- Banned
- #116
Yeah because the state doesn't already steal enough of our money from us in the guise of taxes and fines.
Way to encourage people to work hard to provide for their families future.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,344
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
LOL.
That's without a cap....
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,344
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
If you taxed the mega rich properly there would be no need for charities.
If you taxed the mega rich to the level you aspire there would be no mega rich, and probably more people needing charity.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #120
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?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #121
Slavery?
Colonisation?
General rape of resources and wealth for the worlds most vulnerable over thousands of years?
Did the royal family for example gain by honourable means?
Not all super rich got to such a point via merit and talent, like Steve Wozniak.
Caps are not the way to go. Taxing or removing unjust ways of acquiring wealth is a better option.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #124
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?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #125
The problem is, this is highly unrealistic
