Probably because it wouldn't work in practice, that's probably also why "true communism" has never been put into practice... because it cantShivarage said:
What if no one could earn more than $100,000 a year?
- Thread starter babinro
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well it probably is a lot easier in Australia, tertiary education is far more available and it largely subsidized by the government, if you have the time and smarts you can some sort of qualifcation. As for the US well, it's true you're system is broken in a lot of areas, but if something as small as a 5-10% tax increase on the rich is largely impossible to institue I hardly see any 100k income cap ever even getting out of the hypothetical stage.Signa said:
Equity =/= equality, it is generally considered "fair" to tax people differently according to their needs.ironm4id3n said:
I would think that money would start to be worth more. Wages would then revert back to comparable levels, with CEOs making the 100k instead of 10M, lower level business types and senior level high tech guys making 1k, and Starbucks employees making 8 cents an hour.
Edit: This is assuming that capitalism remains intact.
Edit Edit: I guess I didn't notice that the government gets the remaining funds. This would, as it keeps money in circulation, but prevents the general public from utiliziing all of it, possibly stabilize to a system where the government just sends out money, and it comes right back. That would be a very strange economic system.
Edit: This is assuming that capitalism remains intact.
Edit Edit: I guess I didn't notice that the government gets the remaining funds. This would, as it keeps money in circulation, but prevents the general public from utiliziing all of it, possibly stabilize to a system where the government just sends out money, and it comes right back. That would be a very strange economic system.
you'd probably have to scale everything back to be in proportion, creating a bad economic situation, possibly worse than the current one.
Considering we are at a point of discussing alternatives to the bastardized capitalism we have today; there are several alternative theories we could consider reading on.
What do you make of 'economic democracy'?
What do you make of 'economic democracy'?
People say nobody would become doctors, engineers, etc. Of course they would. There's not an unlimited number of jobs available. All the non-skilled and non-education jobs would fill pretty fast, meaning you either get a high education job or you stay unemployed. I'd also like to believe some people genuinely want to become doctors and such.
There would be a lot less doctors, surgeons, physicists and whatnot. That's for sure.
EDIT:
And sure, lots of people would still WANT to be doctors, but the cost of medical school (That 100k/year stipend for the lunch ladies, janitors, and paraprofessionals has to come from somewhere.) and malpractice insurance alone would guarantee they wouldn't be able to afford to be doctors for long.
EDIT:
And sure, lots of people would still WANT to be doctors, but the cost of medical school (That 100k/year stipend for the lunch ladies, janitors, and paraprofessionals has to come from somewhere.) and malpractice insurance alone would guarantee they wouldn't be able to afford to be doctors for long.
it doesn't depend on how much you make, it depends on how much you spend.ironm4id3n said:
liberal hippie? lol nice one, why don't you learn up on it before you start talking shit, it would abolish most of the waste that is the IRS, as the IRS takes up hundreds of billions of dollars because it's a broken system, not to mention the fact that our current system doesn't tax illegal(s) nor most of under the table shit, in which the fair tax plan would cover everyone, not just american citizens, and if you were illegal? well guess what, you aren't getting your tax rebate, so shit outta luck when you don't do things the legal way.
does that sound something a liberal hippie would support, man?
In theory this idea could actually work really well. Sorry in advance for the long post and for reference I live in the U.S.A.
For example people who are getting a lot of business could reinvest the profits in their business and that would then be deducted from their overall income. This would ensure that successful people are able to continue with their success eliminating the loss of drive for the highly skilled to do better.
After all the idea is that a single person can't make more than $100,000 a year in personal income without the rest going to taxes. Now of course there would be people who would take advantage of that as there are now. Claim an expense that has nothing to do with business as such and there you have it. Suddenly the limit isn't there. I expect that would be the case with most politicians, lawyers, and others who could work around the system. Which would lead to a second issue government oversight.
If the government oversight could be maintained and the spending mainly focused on such things as infrastructure, education, research, and manufacturing we'd be living in an ideal country. Due to less overhead in the form of extremely high wages for senior staff of companies some overhead costs would be reduced which could mean several different things. The overhead costs could be put towards profit increasing dividends, towards paychecks for those lower in the business totem pole increasing their standard of living, or it could be reinvested in the business itself.
Ideally all high earners would be getting paid the maximum amount and able to invest large amounts into their business from their profits. While they would invest more in their business to keep profits they would have to not expand too much otherwise they may lose their market hold. The extra revenue would then go to the government in taxes. While our government currently isn't something I would trust to do the right thing with such funds if they focused on spending correctly it would have profound benefits.
The benefits of this system being put in place and used properly are widespread.
Government focusing infrastructure would lead to a decrease in the cost of resource transportation both human and material.
Spending focused on education would make the costs of college go down greatly increasing the ease with which people could earn the higher costing degrees. The cost of education could even be brought down so low that student aid could pay for more than just classes and materials for them such as fuel and food for students. I went to a cheap college for two associates degrees and with my FAFSA was able to do just this. However I was, and still am, unable to afford to go to a four year college anywhere nearby due to costs. WIth the decrease in education costs it merely becomes a time issue which if people are passionate about something isn't a deterrent. How many scientists make millions a year? I can't name a single one off the top of my head.
With a focus on research spending the government would enable those who go into highly specialized degrees such as bioengineering to focus on their research without worrying about funding. This would enable people who are focused and passionate about such things to put all their energy behind it and would actually lead to an increase in productivity in such work. If funding was less limited in fields that enable scientific progress in such things as medicine and technology where would we be in mere years down the road.
What I mean by focusing spending on manufacturing is the government not merely setting forth regulations and increasing costs for manufacturers by imposing safety and health standards but covering the expenditures made to meet the standards. Another way to focus spending on manufacturing would be to cover the costs for buildings where manufacturing would take place and covering maintenance costs to insure that the facilities meet safety standards.
While there are many benefits to such a plan there are many issues that would have to be handled first. The main issue for such a plan would be finding a way to insure that government would not be as corrupt and fiscally irresponsible as our current one is. That is not to say that our current administration is to blame the whole system is and has been for decades.
To enact such a system and gain all benefits would mean not only a system overhaul for our government and financial system as well but a social overhaul that would be very unpopular to pretty much everyone in power today. While I have little hope that we will ever achieve the requirements to have such a system and have it work effectively I do hope that the human condition will not make this impossible.
For example people who are getting a lot of business could reinvest the profits in their business and that would then be deducted from their overall income. This would ensure that successful people are able to continue with their success eliminating the loss of drive for the highly skilled to do better.
After all the idea is that a single person can't make more than $100,000 a year in personal income without the rest going to taxes. Now of course there would be people who would take advantage of that as there are now. Claim an expense that has nothing to do with business as such and there you have it. Suddenly the limit isn't there. I expect that would be the case with most politicians, lawyers, and others who could work around the system. Which would lead to a second issue government oversight.
If the government oversight could be maintained and the spending mainly focused on such things as infrastructure, education, research, and manufacturing we'd be living in an ideal country. Due to less overhead in the form of extremely high wages for senior staff of companies some overhead costs would be reduced which could mean several different things. The overhead costs could be put towards profit increasing dividends, towards paychecks for those lower in the business totem pole increasing their standard of living, or it could be reinvested in the business itself.
Ideally all high earners would be getting paid the maximum amount and able to invest large amounts into their business from their profits. While they would invest more in their business to keep profits they would have to not expand too much otherwise they may lose their market hold. The extra revenue would then go to the government in taxes. While our government currently isn't something I would trust to do the right thing with such funds if they focused on spending correctly it would have profound benefits.
The benefits of this system being put in place and used properly are widespread.
Government focusing infrastructure would lead to a decrease in the cost of resource transportation both human and material.
Spending focused on education would make the costs of college go down greatly increasing the ease with which people could earn the higher costing degrees. The cost of education could even be brought down so low that student aid could pay for more than just classes and materials for them such as fuel and food for students. I went to a cheap college for two associates degrees and with my FAFSA was able to do just this. However I was, and still am, unable to afford to go to a four year college anywhere nearby due to costs. WIth the decrease in education costs it merely becomes a time issue which if people are passionate about something isn't a deterrent. How many scientists make millions a year? I can't name a single one off the top of my head.
With a focus on research spending the government would enable those who go into highly specialized degrees such as bioengineering to focus on their research without worrying about funding. This would enable people who are focused and passionate about such things to put all their energy behind it and would actually lead to an increase in productivity in such work. If funding was less limited in fields that enable scientific progress in such things as medicine and technology where would we be in mere years down the road.
What I mean by focusing spending on manufacturing is the government not merely setting forth regulations and increasing costs for manufacturers by imposing safety and health standards but covering the expenditures made to meet the standards. Another way to focus spending on manufacturing would be to cover the costs for buildings where manufacturing would take place and covering maintenance costs to insure that the facilities meet safety standards.
While there are many benefits to such a plan there are many issues that would have to be handled first. The main issue for such a plan would be finding a way to insure that government would not be as corrupt and fiscally irresponsible as our current one is. That is not to say that our current administration is to blame the whole system is and has been for decades.
To enact such a system and gain all benefits would mean not only a system overhaul for our government and financial system as well but a social overhaul that would be very unpopular to pretty much everyone in power today. While I have little hope that we will ever achieve the requirements to have such a system and have it work effectively I do hope that the human condition will not make this impossible.
Well I'm fairly certain that there would still be doctors but they'd be few and far between since most people would have jobs in the "butter" zone where you do the minimal amount of work for your 100,000 a year. Doctor's jobs kind of suck and its really expensive to become a doctor. Hell the 8 or more years of college would probably take at least a decade to pay back with such a low salary. Economics would also be kind of odd. There would be an absolute notion of expensive rather then a relative one and I'm not sure how that would affect things. Additionally, assuming no household earning cap its quiet likely that children would be forced to get jobs as soon as possible to try and improve the overall cumulative income when the parents hit a cap.
If I undestand correctly, you propose that any effort worth more than 100.000/yr go unrewarded for the person in question.babinro said:
I think no one would put the effort unless forced (Communism anyone?) Progress would slow down dramatically, back to the pre-industrial age probably as people would unavoidable find ways of not really putting the effort although appearing to.
At the end this would probably lead to a revolt to get the limit abolished.
I don't like the idea of an arbitrary limit on what you can make. It's seems like the wrong message to send to people. Trust-fund babies aside, imagine you working your ass off on a business that you've dreamed about for years, finally make it big, and then the government collects all the oodles and oodles of money that are a direct result of your efforts, just because they assume anything over $100,000 implies EVIL!
I want to be rich. I imagine a fair amount of other folks want to be rich too. I don't expect it to ever happen, but having the opportunity to make lots of money is always a nice thing to have.
I want to be rich. I imagine a fair amount of other folks want to be rich too. I don't expect it to ever happen, but having the opportunity to make lots of money is always a nice thing to have.
I think you all underestimate basic human ambition. Communism-esque ideas like this always ignore that a lot of people (maybe even half or even a majority; I wouldn't be surprised at either) want to make it big, so to speak. Especially in America. Most of them won't, but they like having that unattainable goal. I think there would be some pretty widespread dissapointment/disillusionment/"What's the point of doing anything anymore" feelings among the populace.
So, here's a slightly different solution. Let any income over the $100,000(I'm assuming this is ending, after insurance/business expenses/required taxes stuff, otherwise this idea is even worse) be used by the earner in any non-personal way they see fit. They can donate to charity, build a park, fund the invention of a time machine, whatever, as long as it can benefit others. You avoid the problem of a crappy government getting ludicrous tax income, and the people losing the money don't feel like they're losing it. Seeing the money float off into a pool of government taxes is disheartening; seeing it become a public park with your name on it would be fulfilling.
So, here's a slightly different solution. Let any income over the $100,000(I'm assuming this is ending, after insurance/business expenses/required taxes stuff, otherwise this idea is even worse) be used by the earner in any non-personal way they see fit. They can donate to charity, build a park, fund the invention of a time machine, whatever, as long as it can benefit others. You avoid the problem of a crappy government getting ludicrous tax income, and the people losing the money don't feel like they're losing it. Seeing the money float off into a pool of government taxes is disheartening; seeing it become a public park with your name on it would be fulfilling.
Here's an idea, tax everyone according to what they have as a blanket amount. No "low earner" threshold. No "high earner" tax breaks. Nothing. Everyone pays the same proportion of tax and earns an amount dependent on their position and effort.
High earners will pay a greater amount of tax, but at the exact same proportion as everyone else.
High earners will pay a greater amount of tax, but at the exact same proportion as everyone else.
To the people saying there would be less professionals:
Why? Isn't $100,000/year still something that requires a good college education to get into? What job that is easier to get into than an Engineer, Doctor or Lawyer makes $100k/year or more?
Why? Isn't $100,000/year still something that requires a good college education to get into? What job that is easier to get into than an Engineer, Doctor or Lawyer makes $100k/year or more?