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

Maddhew

Cancelled
Feb 9, 2007
4,619
3,351
AFL Club
Sydney
Type in cost to end world hunger and its what google comes up with. United nation estimate

Kind of an amazingly small number in comparison to how many trillions the pentagon has lost (8.5 trillion, not billion...)since '96
$30b is a lot of money sure, but seems low. Is that to give everyone hungry person a quarter pounder, or to provide sustainable food sources for all?
 
Sep 21, 2009
16,583
14,728
AFL Club
St Kilda
Type in cost to end world hunger and its what google comes up with. United nation estimate

Kind of an amazingly small number in comparison to how many trillions the pentagon has lost (8.5 trillion, not billion...)since '96
Google says it's $30bn per year.
That would make a lot more sense than $30bn solving world hunger.

http://borgenproject.org/methods-for-ending-poverty/

Looks like a good idea. But I still can't see where/how it's all laid out.
 
Last edited:
Sep 21, 2009
16,583
14,728
AFL Club
St Kilda
Well yes, per year.

You would not expect 30b. To feed humanity forever
You didn't really put it across as per year...
It's why I found it strange.

Still seems low
$1500 from every Australian, could feed the entire world's hungry.
I doubt the $30 a week could feed themselves
It doesn't really have a time frame on it.
It's more about setting up areas for sustainability.
Seems more wishy washy then factual. But I've not looked too deep into it.
 

CountryRace

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Oct 25, 2014
5,683
2,879
https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
AFL Club
Fremantle
You didn't really put it across as per year...
It's why I found it strange.


It doesn't really have a time frame on it.
It's more about setting up areas for sustainability.
Seems more wishy washy then factual. But I've not looked too deep into it.

If you take the money the pentagon has 'lost' since '96

you could feed the planet for 283+ years ...
 

CountryRace

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Oct 25, 2014
5,683
2,879
https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
AFL Club
Fremantle
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.

I do understand the system.

The only restriction is a personal cap of either one billion or $240million. In theory.

It would not effect big business. Only individuals, but only at a very high point. Simply, after the certain level you would have to sell shares or money made, would go to the proposed cause for the worlds poor

If one has 240 million - the luxurious industries could still sell products in the ten million range.
 

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
18,274
19,359
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
I do understand the system.

The only restriction is a personal cap of either one billion or $240million. In theory.

It would not effect big business. Only individuals, but only at a very high point. Simply, after the certain level you would have to sell shares or money made, would go to the proposed cause for the worlds poor

If one has 240 million - the luxurious industries could still sell products in the ten million range.
You can't see how this would be abused?
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,544
4,361
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I do understand the system.

The only restriction is a personal cap of either one billion or $240million. In theory.

It would not effect big business. Only individuals, but only at a very high point. Simply, after the certain level you would have to sell shares or money made, would go to the proposed cause for the worlds poor

If one has 240 million - the luxurious industries could still sell products in the ten million range.

i don't understand how this is meant to help someone at the bottom of the food chain, especially those that scratch around in the dirt to get by.

if you limit the amount any individual can own, all you do is provide greater opportunity for other, super wealthy people to amass capital until they too reach your 1B/240M limit. meanwhile at the bottom people still have * all. all you would achieve is spreading the pie around at the top of the food chain.
 

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
18,274
19,359
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
i don't understand how this is meant to help someone at the bottom of the food chain, especially those that scratch around in the dirt to get by.

if you limit the amount any individual can own, all you do is provide greater opportunity for other, super wealthy people to amass capital until they too reach your 1B/240M limit. meanwhile at the bottom people still have **** all. all you would achieve is spreading the pie around at the top of the food chain.
Please stab me now because we are going to agree on something! It will actually result in less displays of philanthropy as most entrepreneurs lose motivation once they reach the limit.
What about Nathan Tinkler? He was worth over a billion dollars at his peak. If he had to give this away, he would be bankrupt for sure, instead of being down to virtually millions!
 
If you take the money the pentagon has 'lost' since '96

you could feed the planet for 283+ years ...

Do you not realise that if you fed the entire world population for a year that it would result in another population explosion and we'd be back to square one soon enough? Understand the principle that food equilibrium leads to population growth. Only a food deficit limits birth rates.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
Do you not realise that if you fed the entire world population for a year that it would result in another population explosion and we'd be back to square one soon enough? Understand the principle that food equilibrium leads to population growth. Only a food deficit limits birth rates.

so why are birth rate lower in countries with better access to food and water?
 

RightorKhan

Team Captain
Feb 9, 2015
597
257
AFL Club
Geelong
Because that's not strayan campaigner. Beer, asbestos fumes and big shiny hi vis vest is what I say to that proposition.
The problem with capping people is it creates opportunity for other people to compete in the market, this is bad for monopolies.

How can the 1% be served accordingly if the other 99% are given a fair opportunity to compete? We need uncapped wealth to lock people out of revenue possibilities that only the 1% are entitled to.
 
Back