A Maximum Wage

[LouisCK]

Would you be in favour of it?

Essentially, any individual in our country can only earn X amount of money in any given year. Whether it be by investments, employment or begging on the streets. Just a capped amount of income per year, anything you make over that you have to give away either to charity, your mates, family, whatever. If, like Gina Rinehart, you are not only super rich but also friendless and family-less, you donate it to the education system. But you have to give it away.

I reckon it would be awesome.

 

[The Passenger]

i think this would be a bad idea. it's hard to gauge what effects it would have because it would directly effect only a tiny % of people, but there are a lot of people motivated to become part of the 1%.

i would like to see the another tax band for the super rich. Something like ~55% for 350k+.

if you wanted to implement you're idea you couldn't really say to people you've got to give it away. not going to be feasible to enforce. it would have to be a 100% tax rate above a certain amount.

 

[Sanders]

Of course the sub median prospects would be in favour, that's obvious regardless of if you're pro or con

I think it would be great if you fancy turning into an eastern bloc communist country.

 

[LouisCK]

Of course the sub median prospects would be in favour, that's obvious regardless of if you're pro or con

I think it would be great if you fancy turning into an eastern bloc communist country.

I'm well above the median though.... disgustingly so if I'm being honest.

 

[Scotland]

Yeah, nah.

Let's go the other way and implement a maximum taxation amount.

I earn $20k, I pay nothing. I earn $50k, I pay a few thousand. I earn $100k, I pay $30k. I earn $10m, I pay almost half of it. How is that fair? At what point does being a net contributor start to take the piss?

I've pondered how society would be with lower tax rates and a much simpler tax system - ie corporate tax rate = top bracket income tax rate, no hiding income in trusts etc. There are far too many loopholes for people to get out of paying tax, and our tax system encourages people into asset hoarding ("investment") rather than income generation. Imagine if every $5k or $10k per year that is written off on tax on a negatively geared investment property was invested into something productive. People just won't do that because they gain more (to the detriment of others) in holding assets which rise in value than generating income which will just be further taxed.

Also someone like Gina Rinehart doesn't earn that much, all things considered. She owns a shitload of stuff, but if her $10b empire increases to $20b she doesn't have to pay tax unless she capitalises it. I'd happily see all her mining leases taken off her and given to someone else. Not that I dislike mining - far from it, I just don't like her.

 

[Scotland]

i would like to see the another tax band for the super rich. Something like ~55% for 350k+.

This happened in the UK. The move to a top rate of 50% above £150k was so successful they changed it back to 45%.

 

[Sanders]

I'm well above the median though.... disgustingly so if I'm being honest.

So you can produce evidence of your large charitable donations to bring you down to a less disgusting median level?

 

[LouisCK]

So you can produce evidence of your large charitable donations to bring you down to a less disgusting median level?

I don't personally believe in charity, due to its origins and its function as a method of propaganda against higher taxes on the wealthy.

I pay the top tax rate, a lot more than my fair share I'll add. I'm a contributor.

I'm not trying to say people on 150k-250k should be giving up their wage. I'm talking more specifically about people on 2-3 million and up per year. There's just no need for anyone to make that kind of money per year. I spend a lot of my money, because it isn't MY money, its just money. It belongs in the system, it needs to move around to be of benefit to society as a whole. Just hoarding it is greedy.

I live a fantastic life on what I make. I'll probably make less at times through my career, and sometimes more, but either way, I work hard and pay a lot of tax for the benefit of a high wage and a safe society where services are delivered really well. I'm happy with that. But it surely has to get to a point where its just taking the piss?

Mind you, I agree mostly with Scotland's points. My OP is completely unrealistic, just a talking point. Scotland's ideas are much more realistic, and a corporate tax in line with the highest marginal rate is ideal for a start.

 

[Sanders]

I don't personally believe in charity, due to its origins and its function as a method of propaganda against higher taxes on the wealthy.

I pay the top tax rate, a lot more than my fair share I'll add. I'm a contributor.

I'm not trying to say people on 150k-250k should be giving up their wage. I'm talking more specifically about people on 2-3 million and up per year. There's just no need for anyone to make that kind of money per year. I spend a lot of my money, because it isn't MY money, its just money. It belongs in the system, it needs to move around to be of benefit to society as a whole. Just hoarding it is greedy.

I live a fantastic life on what I make. I'll probably make less at times through my career, and sometimes more, but either way, I work hard and pay a lot of tax for the benefit of a high wage and a safe society where services are delivered really well. I'm happy with that. But it surely has to get to a point where its just taking the piss?

Mind you, I agree mostly with Scotland's points. My OP is completely unrealistic, just a talking point. Scotland's ideas are much more realistic, and a corporate tax in line with the highest marginal rate is ideal for a start.

So other people, not you, should fulfil your social goals?

You are a true socialist after all. Congrats!

 

[LouisCK]

So other people, not you, should fulfil your social goals?

You are a true socialist after all. Congrats!

I already fulfil my social goals: I work hard providing a valuable service, I pay a reasonable sum in tax (probably more than I should ideally) and I appreciate the fact I live in a safe country with great services.

I'm not sure how you reached any other conclusion. Unless you consider yourself a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, rather than another worker.

 

[Footypie32]

We would probably lose all our skilled workers overseas. Nobody would bother investing in any new companies/products. Very few people would start their own businesses. Does this idea include assets? I agree that the current system is broken, but I couldn't see this working.

 

[Sanders]

I already fulfil my social goals: I work hard providing a valuable service, I pay a reasonable sum in tax (probably more than I should ideally) and I appreciate the fact I live in a safe country with great services.

I'm not sure how you reached any other conclusion. Unless you consider yourself a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, rather than another worker.

No you fulfil the minor social goals you are prepared to contribute to, and as this thread shows you have greater ambitions that you expect others to meet

The true socialist disease: you have run out of other people's money.

 

[crownie]

how dare people work hard and become successful

 

[Poseidon]

GET AWAY FROM MY MONEY PINKO

 

[DrVanNostrand]

 

[Thistle]

Terrible idea. Their would be no motivation to work harder and improve if you know you have reached the limit. Plus people who earn that don't get it through laziness and luck, they work hard and make a lot of sacrifices which should be rewarded.

 

[radiojake]

Terrible idea. Their would be no motivation to work harder and improve if you know you have reached the limit. Plus people who earn that don't get it through laziness and luck, they work hard and make a lot of sacrifices which should be rewarded.

That is a fallacy -

Also, does that imply that those who are not financially well off haven't worked hard or made sacrifices?

The hegemony of capitalism is very seducing, which is why so many people subscribe to it so easily. But you are a fool if you think it is anyway an adequate or just way to distribute resources.

 

[Harvey Leadpipe]

Silly idea. A super-luxury tax or a revision of the GST would have more effect. Someone who wouldn't batter and eyelid at dropping coin on a BMW 7-series or a Ferrari will still buy these items if they were 10% more expensive. Nearly everyone's spending habits are directly related to their earning power. People will be pay a more reasonable level of tax based on their consumption rather than what they earn. Of course there would always be exceptions to the rule, but there wouldn't be too many $1.0m+ p.a. income earners driving home in their 25 year old Honda Accords to sit down to a plate of nearly expired mince from Coles. Don't need to encourage any more tall-poppy syndrome into this country.

 

[JuddsABlue]

lol'd at the OP constantly making subtle references to how he pays too much tax, in the same thread where he's talking about greater taxes for the wealthy

OP what you fail to realise is if you ever reach the bracket of 2-3 million earnings, you'll have the exact same viewpoint as you do now except it should be the blokes on 10 million a year that pay more, because you already pay enough as it is

 

[Stratton_Gun]

What exactly is a communist?

 

[HugeJohnson]

You would then take away people's incentive to work hard and grow their business etc. Would have a pretty profound effect on the development of infrastructure and advances in technology IMO

 

[radiojake]

You would then take away people's incentive to work hard and grow their business etc. Would have a pretty profound effect on the development of infrastructure and advances in technology IMO

Baloney.

So those people who will never even get close to making a large salary have no incentive to work hard? Do they not work hard to feed themselves and their families already? Do only rich people work hard?

 

[The Passenger]

You would then take away people's incentive to work hard and grow their business etc. Would have a pretty profound effect on the development of infrastructure and advances in technology IMO

it depends if it is specifically income, or the amount of money a business could earn, which just wouldn't be feasible. and then what that income level is.

i don't think it would have as much impact as people think, unless of course the cap was something like 300k, but i don't think it's a good idea.

 

[JuddsABlue]

Baloney.

So those people who will never even get close to making a large salary have no incentive to work hard? Do they not work hard to feed themselves and their families already? Do only rich people work hard?

only rich people take massive risks to create business, which employ the people you're talking about

people wont take thoses risks if they know theyre earnings are capped and achievable through other means of less risk/investment

 

[treefingers]

What exactly is a communist?

Read the Communist Manifesto.