News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The Maximum Wage.

Started by mykcob4, January 10, 2014, 05:47:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mykcob4

As 2014 unfolds we as a nation are faced with the ever increasing problem of the rich getting richer and the rest of us losing buying power and never getting a raise. The poor are becoming even poorer and the middle class is evaporating before our very eyes.
We can try to do certain things to correct this like changing the tax laws to be fair and equitable but we run into a stonewall of opposition by conservatives and lobbiest that prevent such logical measures. The strength of this nation came as a result of the middle class becoming the largest porpotionally to the populace in world history, not as the conservatives would have you believe an unfettered unregulated capitalist system.
So I propose that the conversation should not only be about extending unemployemnet benefits that have historically done great things for the economy but addressing minimum wage. I also want to propose a MAXIMUM wage. Thats right a maximum wage.
I think that we should tackle the gorilla in the room. Top earnings in this nation are completely out of control and disproportional to reality. When top earners make over 2000 times what the lowest earner in the same company makes and they make on average nearly 600 times what the average company person makes, it's time to step in and correct the wrong that that is.
If minimum wage was say 65K per annum and maximum wage was say 650K per year the middle class would become so large that it would exceed even our wildest targets for it right now.
There is a great deal of logistics to be hammered out and this is just an initial proposal, BUT a real one. Since the redistribution of wealth that has been in effect for the decades that started with Nixon up to this point has ownly moved wealth ever increasingly into the hands of the very rich, it is time for drastic and sustainable measures.
All income should be measured accurately and accounted for to make this happen and any out of country income should be heavily penalized to prevent dishonesty. Furthermore a flat tax of 36.9 % should be implemented so everyone would pay their fair share.
I expect a lot of flack over this but if you really thought about it you might see things differently.
I would venture to guess that none of you actually make in excess of 650K a year so I doubt that you would be effected. Many of you probably make less than 65K per year so it is certain to help you out. It is clear to me that this would help the nation out a great deal as the tax base would be more than double what it is now.
Just a thought that I have been pondering for some years now.

Jason Harvestdancer

When the law of unintended consequences strikes as a result of previous market interference, the solution is more market interference.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

zarus tathra

Lots of things make sense from a bureaucratic perspective. What I'm wondering is what you're hoping to accomplish from a more grounded, material perspective. What's the impact estimation of this? Would this reduce crime? Would this reduce pollution? Would this make food cheaper for poor people? Or would this do nothing but assuage your resentment? Try looking at this from the perspective of an engineer rather than a moralist/activist.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

AllPurposeAtheist

A maximum wage of 650k would never happen without 99.99999% showing up at the .000001%'s doors with pitchforks and guillotines. Even then we'd have brand new armies with nuclear weapons being paid 599,999 to protect them from us. As much as I like the idea I'm not sure if I can see going to all out nuclear war over it..
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

zarus tathra

Okay, so that's actually a good point. If there weren't any superrich people, there wouldn't be the possibility of massive private armies.

Now we have nothing but gangs and "public" armies to deal with. Which, incidentally, are a billion times more problematic.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

SilentFutility

Most people who earn 650k and over per year are not being paid it as a wage, they are making it as profit from business ventures, owning assets and other investments etc. etc.

So in reality implementing a maximum wage in this way would limit the earnings of virtually nobody.
If what you are actually proposing is that nobody be allowed to earn more than 650k per year from all sources of income, then how do you propose to enforce this? Say someone builds up a successful business and then manages to sell it for 3 million dollars, where does this money go?

zarus tathra

?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

mykcob4

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Lots of things make sense from a bureaucratic perspective. What I'm wondering is what you're hoping to accomplish from a more grounded, material perspective. What's the impact estimation of this? Would this reduce crime? Would this reduce pollution? Would this make food cheaper for poor people? Or would this do nothing but assuage your resentment? Try looking at this from the perspective of an engineer rather than a moralist/activist.
I know many engineers and most of them, check that, all of them don't make 650K a year.
And yes over all many things would be cheaper if not eveything. Crime would go down because municipalities could afford to have adequate law enforcement and there would also be money for education and jobs programs because of the emensely enlarged tax base. It's not about activism, it's about progressive positive accomplishment. I guess that is moral, why aim for immorality.

mykcob4

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"When the law of unintended consequences strikes as a result of previous market interference, the solution is more market interference.
Ah the old market arguement. Since the SEC has been gutted under the "W" admin. and it has run amuck(sp) and all that has been accomplished is a world recession/depression, I think that finally regulating the markets responsibliy is in order.

mykcob4

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"A maximum wage of 650k would never happen without 99.99999% showing up at the .000001%'s doors with pitchforks and guillotines. Even then we'd have brand new armies with nuclear weapons being paid 599,999 to protect them from us. As much as I like the idea I'm not sure if I can see going to all out nuclear war over it..
I didn't say that it would ever be accomplished. As with most ideas on this forum it will probably never leave the pages of this board.

mykcob4

Quote from: "SilentFutility"Most people who earn 650k and over per year are not being paid it as a wage, they are making it as profit from business ventures, owning assets and other investments etc. etc.

So in reality implementing a maximum wage in this way would limit the earnings of virtually nobody.
If what you are actually proposing is that nobody be allowed to earn more than 650k per year from all sources of income, then how do you propose to enforce this? Say someone builds up a successful business and then manages to sell it for 3 million dollars, where does this money go?
Ah but if you count ALL income you would include those people. The biggest loophole in CEO earnings is income from stock holdings.

mykcob4

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The war in Afghanistan.
What about it? It has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

zarus tathra

#12
QuoteI know many engineers and most of them, check that, all of them don't make 650K a year.

That is so irrelevant.

QuoteAnd yes over all many things would be cheaper if not eveything. Crime would go down because municipalities could afford to have adequate law enforcement and there would also be money for education and jobs programs because of the emensely enlarged tax base.

So why is that everything's so expensive in the countries with lower income inequality? I'm talking about European and Asian countries.

QuoteIt's not about activism, it's about progressive positive accomplishment. I guess that is moral, why aim for immorality.

Define morality. If your idea increases people's prices and raises unemployment, how is it moral?
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

mykcob4

Quote from: "zarus tathra"
QuoteAnd yes over all many things would be cheaper if not eveything. Crime would go down because municipalities could afford to have adequate law enforcement and there would also be money for education and jobs programs because of the emensely enlarged tax base. It's not about activism, it's about progressive positive accomplishment. I guess that is moral, why aim for immorality.

So why is that everything's so expensive in the countries with lower income inequality? I'm talking about European and Asian countries.
Good point BUT there are many factors that atribute to that. In every study including a study that was started when minimum wage was first started prices did not go up. The only things that went up were productivity and commerce.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14050
I could site over 100 of these studies that all say the same thing.

mykcob4

Quote from: "zarus tathra"
QuoteI know many engineers and most of them, check that, all of them don't make 650K a year.

That is so irrelevant.

QuoteAnd yes over all many things would be cheaper if not eveything. Crime would go down because municipalities could afford to have adequate law enforcement and there would also be money for education and jobs programs because of the emensely enlarged tax base. It's not about activism, it's about progressive positive accomplishment. I guess that is moral, why aim for immorality.

So why is that everything's so expensive in the countries with lower income inequality? I'm talking about European and Asian countries.
You brought up engineers not I.