The Maximum Wage.

[zarus tathra]

We're not talking about the minimum wage, we're talking about a "maximum wage." The minimum wage is irrelevant to our discussion.

And fine, it's "complicated." So why can you simplify things to the point that you can say "rich people are the problem?"

[zarus tathra]

You brought up engineers not I.

What? I'm just asking you to look at things from a more calculated, material perspective. I'd even be satisfied with speculation, as my "joule standard" thread attests. What's so hard about trying to be at least somewhat quantitative about this? You're talking about "income." So let's talk numbers.

[mykcob4]

We're not talking about the minimum wage, we're talking about a "maximum wage." The minimum wage is irrelevant to our discussion.

And fine, it's "complicated." So why can you simplify things to the point that you can say "rich people are the problem?"

Rich people aren't the problem per se. The problem is that the income is disporportional to reality.

[zarus tathra]

Okay. Now how would reducing their wages actually solve things in a more specific sense? "Making their earning proportionate to reality" is pretty abstract. I can think of a few things, but I'd like to see you give it a go.

And if the income of rich people is the problem, then how is it that you can say that "rich people aren't the problem?" Their income is kind of exactly what makes them rich.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Myckob, its OK,  sorta, in theory. In practice the uberrich are going to pay armies to crush anyone who opposes them. EVERY war ever fought has been over MONEY AND POWER. Get around that.

[mykcob4]

Okay. Now how would reducing their wages actually solve things in a more specific sense? "Making their earning proportionate to reality" is pretty abstract. I can think of a few things, but I'd like to see you give it a go.

And if the income of rich people is the problem, then how is it that you can say that "rich people aren't the problem?" Their income is kind of exactly what makes them rich.

Its not that they are rich that is the problem at all. It's that their greed isn't in check. And I am not talking about their wealth I am talking about income which are two very different things. Wealth is what you have and income is what you keep getting. I said there are a lot of logistical things to work out but it isn't practical to try and solve those things here. I maximum wage would be administrated in much the same way as a minimum wage in general.

[mykcob4]

Myckob, its OK,  sorta, in theory. In practice the uberrich are going to pay armies to crush anyone who opposes them. EVERY war ever fought has been over MONEY AND POWER. Get around that.

Not the Trojan war. That was fought over condums.

[Jason78]

I also want to propose a MAXIMUM wage. Thats right a maximum wage.

I support the idea of an effective maximum wage by using a system of taxation that makes those with the greatest means proportionally responsible for their social contribution.

[GSOgymrat]

I agree that wealth inequity in the US is a problem that needs to be addressed but one obvious concern with capping income is that the wealthy and savvy business owners will immigrate to countries with more favorable tax codes.

[Sal1981]

I agree that wealth inequity in the US is a problem that needs to be addressed but one obvious concern with capping income is that the wealthy and savvy business owners will immigrate to countries with more favorable tax codes.

They're already doing that with overseas EPZ.

[josephpalazzo]

On a more sound economic basis, a cap on salary earned is more appropriate. Once you reach that maximum, you're taxed at 100% on anything earned above the max. Also, I would make all income taxable at the same rate, regardless where it comes from a salary or interest on bonds, or capital gain, or transfer payments, etc. This max income could be raised every year to take into account inflation. This in effect would bring more people into the middle and upper class, still giving incentives for people to work productively.

[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.

I see you didn't understand what I wrote.  That's ok, I didn't expect you to - you actually think the US is a free market economy.

And you apparently also think that a bad regulation that helps the wrong people is an absent regulation, that mal-regulation is deregulation.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

We're not talking about the minimum wage, we're talking about a "maximum wage." The minimum wage is irrelevant to our discussion.

And fine, it's "complicated." So why can you simplify things to the point that you can say "rich people are the problem?"

Actually, the smaller of the two Green Parties in the US has a proposal that ties the maximum wage to the minimum wage - max is 10x min.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There are two concepts of wealthy in play, and those who want to engineer away the wealthy (because for some unknown reason they think it is fair an moral to be unfair and immoral) never quite get the proposals to do what they want.

First is net worth, the second is income.  There are people with great accumulated net worth who actually don't have outrageously exorbitant incomes, because they don't need them.  Just a few hundred thousand a year to maintain their position.  Then there are people who have very large incomes, but much smaller net worth.  There are doctors who have six figure incomes, and most of it goes to pay for their student loans and their mortgage leaving a disposable income that is quite middle class.

So which of the two do those who wish to eat the rich really want to eat?

[Johan]

Its not that they are rich that is the problem at all. It's that their greed isn't in check.

If you think limiting salaries to $600k is going to keep greed in check, let me remind you that when he died, Steve Jobs had a net worth of $8b to $10b depending on who you believe, and he was receiving a salary of $1/yr. Now I'm not suggesting that Steve was greedy. But I think its worth mentioning that if Steve could do it, every single one of these other fucks you want to limit is going to be able to do it to. So limiting salary does nothing.

If you want to accomplish what you're talking about, you would need to limit total compensation and even then you'd have a tough time plugging all the loopholes. But for the life of me, I fail to see how doing that would have a positive impact on anyone. You're not going to make the poor less poor. You're not going to make more entry level jobs available. All you're going to do is make it more tricky for those with the highest level incomes to be compensated.