What if no one could earn more than $100,000 a year?

[SwagLordYoloson]

The mining Industry in Australia would die. Most of their educated employees earn 120,000 +. Maybe the US needs reform, because of your insane wage gap, but most of the world doesn't, you guys can stop forcing your beliefs on others some time or another.

 

[superstringz]

Probably massive deflation. 100K/yr is now CEO pay, I'd probably be making maybe 3K/yr. Since everyone has less money, we all start skimping, business declines, prices get competetive, and the people who had millions in the bank are now gods because of the aforementioned deflation. The people who were up to their eyes in student debt before are now dorsally violated. The rich get richer no matter what you do.

Unless we also became socialists *shrugs*

 

[Veylon]

You'd have two things happen. First off, those people who enter the high end fields for the purposes of making money would choose easier jobs that cap at the same level. Why spend eight years learning law if you can make the same with three of management without as much tuition fees? The ones that remain would be those who really want those careers and already have the ability to pay off the debts.

The second thing is that employers would try every available reward to try to skirt the cap and attract quality workers. Longer vacations, stock options, location/work preferences, gifts of fudged value, insurance, employing family members, etc. A system might also develop where business give free schooling in exchange for a guaranteed term of employment.

I also wonder how this would work for the self-employed. Notch didn't make a million in salaries, but through selling his game. Is he only allowed to sell X copies, or does the government take everything after $100k? What about those playing the stock market?

 

[similar.squirrel]

The world would probably become like Scandinavia, which would be a good thing.

But that idea is a dirty Socialist idea. Shame on you for having it.

 

[Signa]

I see only good coming from a measure such as this. Anyone complaining that over $100,000 isn't enough is just a spoiled brat. There probably should be some exceptions for those with multiple kids, but I'm living with under $20k, and I'm doing alright. Culturally, we have become so greedy and self centered, that almost EVERYONE feels the need to live in a mansion with a 90' TV and a car worth more than I'll make in 10 years. We need to move away from that, because it's so shallow and it's driving a rift between the rich and poor.

Yeah who the fuck needs social programs, colleges and non-profit organizations?
bunch of greedy bastards!!!

You sound like a troll and already got a warning, but I'll bite.

See, I don't know where you got that from what I said. In fact, what I meant would probably mean MORE of what you said. I'm saying that the American way of life is too frivolous, and any extra money a person collects gets put towards the government, which in turn would support those programs. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong and should shut up, because I'm not under the impression that you were here to contribute to a discussion about good idea[footnote]good idea on paper, just as communism is a good idea on paper. Of course what we are talking about here is a hybrid capitalism and communism, but we need to start discussing things like this because one day pure capitalism is going to be just as bad for America as communism was for Soviet Russia[/footnote].

 

[tmnnerd]

i'm interested that the main reason people are giving on here for this not working is that there would be a decline in the number of doctors etc. surely this isn't a bad thing? by which i mean such a system would weed out those who go into a profession such as medicine for nothing other than the money. the way i see it, if you are studying medicine for no other reason than the starting salary then you are saying you care more about money than the people in your care and that would be a complete betrayal of the hippocratic oath and the ethos of care and medicine.

this also applies in a way to other professions; in Edinburgh in Scotland the council is having trouble with an under construction tram "network" which has spiraled in cost and been marred by allegations of high salaries and mis-spending, all of which is coming from the public's pockets. surely then a cap to stop the CEOs siphoning all the cash would be no bad thing.

basically what i'm trying to say in a poorly constructed way (i've just got up) is that if you want to do something then you'll do it no matter the financial rewards, if it interests you then the work is its own reward. or at least that is how it works here in the sparkle kingdom.

 

[ironm4id3n]

I see only good coming from a measure such as this. Anyone complaining that over $100,000 isn't enough is just a spoiled brat. There probably should be some exceptions for those with multiple kids, but I'm living with under $20k, and I'm doing alright. Culturally, we have become so greedy and self centered, that almost EVERYONE feels the need to live in a mansion with a 90' TV and a car worth more than I'll make in 10 years. We need to move away from that, because it's so shallow and it's driving a rift between the rich and poor.

Yeah who the fuck needs social programs, colleges and non-profit organizations?
bunch of greedy bastards!!!

You sound like a troll and already got a warning, but I'll bite.

See, I don't know where you got that from what I said. In fact, what I meant would probably mean MORE of what you said. I'm saying that the American way of life is too frivolous, and any extra money a person collects gets put towards the government, which in turn would support those programs. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong and should shut up, because I'm not under the impression that you were here to contribute to a discussion about good idea[footnote]good idea on paper, just as communism is a good idea on paper. Of course what we are talking about here is a hybrid capitalism and communism, but we need to start discussing things like this because one day pure capitalism is going to be just as bad for America as communism was for Soviet Russia[/footnote].

your not "wrong" i dont believe there is a "wrong" with such a hypothetical argument, im just tired of people thinking that you can just put a limit on capitalism like that...
Generic democratic quote: we need to tax the rich more so the poor can have more money"
YEAH! thats great.. i agree, lets tax the rich or make a salary limit, but that doesnt mean that that money is gonna go straight to you... or even some guy on the street..

 

[Signa]

I see only good coming from a measure such as this. Anyone complaining that over $100,000 isn't enough is just a spoiled brat. There probably should be some exceptions for those with multiple kids, but I'm living with under $20k, and I'm doing alright. Culturally, we have become so greedy and self centered, that almost EVERYONE feels the need to live in a mansion with a 90' TV and a car worth more than I'll make in 10 years. We need to move away from that, because it's so shallow and it's driving a rift between the rich and poor.

Yeah who the fuck needs social programs, colleges and non-profit organizations?
bunch of greedy bastards!!!

You sound like a troll and already got a warning, but I'll bite.

See, I don't know where you got that from what I said. In fact, what I meant would probably mean MORE of what you said. I'm saying that the American way of life is too frivolous, and any extra money a person collects gets put towards the government, which in turn would support those programs. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong and should shut up, because I'm not under the impression that you were here to contribute to a discussion about good idea[footnote]good idea on paper, just as communism is a good idea on paper. Of course what we are talking about here is a hybrid capitalism and communism, but we need to start discussing things like this because one day pure capitalism is going to be just as bad for America as communism was for Soviet Russia[/footnote].

your not "wrong" i dont believe there is a "wrong" with such a hypothetical argument, im just tired of people thinking that you can just put a limit on capitalism like that...
Generic democratic quote: we need to tax the rich more so the poor can have more money"
YEAH! thats great.. i agree, lets tax the rich or make a salary limit, but that doesnt mean that that money is gonna go straight to you... or even some guy on the street..

Fair point. My stance is that *something* needs to change now, because as capitalism as it is now is being subverted into something dark and unamerican. Just the fact that those with the most money (corporations being treated as individuals for campaign support) are now in power to dictate policy says to me that if things *don't* change, we aren't going to have anything you can call a respectable country.

It's all a pipe dream anyway. For this to work as beautifully as I picture it, it requires the government to properly redirect those extra funds. I'm certain that with the government as it is now, those extra funds will be redirected into their own pockets.

 

[aba1]

Pffft, no one would set a salary higher than $100,000 to avoid losing money to the government. In addition, greedy people would find a way around it with bonuses, under the table deals, and other loopholes. For example, politicians have their set salaries, but they make far more (or get items of value) from bribes/lobbyists/"endorsements"/"donations"/etc. Not to mention the stock market and all that jazz.

I'm not sure if it would result in a decrease in doctors. I have to wonder what the cost of education would be if everyone only made that much, because donations to schools would be a lot rarer. I mean, in an optimistic world, the price of everything would go down, but honestly it would also mean that luxury items and really expensive technology would not be developed because no one would have the money to buy it.

Anyways, interesting idea, but it would never follow through in practice. Everyone wants.

I would have to assume with all the extra income the goverment would offer free college or university like how it is in a good few countries in Europe

 

[Kakashi on crack]

I can't think of a profession that gets 100,000 a year, except maybe football players(soccer) that get that on a weekly basis.

My dad's a senior developer at Verizon (think office job, mostly software/networking/IT) and makes about 93,000 a year.

Similarly I plan to go into engineering which typically has a pay salary ranging from 60k to 130k depending on how long you've been in the business and whom you work for.


If everyone couldn't make more than 100,000? Communism (joking)

Joking Aside... Well, if no one could make more than 100k a year, I would imagine that the world would spiral into chaos as C.E.O.s would quit, the weapons industry would malfunction due to not making any money and China in its developing cheap-ass state would take over the world. Rising prices for oil wouldn't matter as oil companies would say "we aren't making profits, screw it" and shut down, social healthcare would finally be enacted (one of the few positives) due to the drug/health insurance companies not having the millions of dollars to bribe republican politicians in the U.S. Drug cartels would flourish for a short time before dieing out because no one would be able to afford drugs and then finally the economy would stabalize in which 100k would be the equivalent of a C.E.O. and the average American with minimum wage working conditions would now make 1.50 an hour. *takes deep breath*

 

[SirDoom]

If you put a cap on it, then you'll run into a minor problem.

Being a doctor, lawyer, engineer, scientist, or any position like that takes one hell of a lot of time and effort (and often a big initial investment as well). Plus the work is a lot harder. Sure, some people would still want to do those jobs, but there comes a time when it just isn't worth it for most people. Can you honestly tell me that if you were a doctor, you would be on call 24/7, work 12+ hours a day, have a very hard job where one screw up could cost a life, and do it all for the same pay as a guy who has an office job filling in spreadsheets? Because that is what this would equate to. The seniority required to get that level of pay in an office job is offset by the extra years of school a doctor has to go through, as well as the residency period.

Some jobs simply need more pay than others, and for some jobs, that pay is above the $100,000 mark. Hell, for some jobs, it's above the $1 million mark. Setting an arbitrary cap and having all money earned after that get taken away will do nothing but harm those in higher positions, and encourage them to take easier jobs that pay the same, leaving important and difficult jobs vacant.

 

[Marcellus Phillips]

I am the 99%.
that kind of money making would help but only to a point like everyone has stated so far. the trick to our economy is forcing the 1% who hold 40% of the wealth to give up that money. if they held 10% then a lot of shit would have been fixed with it.
and what the hell do they need all that money for anyways?!

 

[Baalthazaq]

$100'000 limit?

Here are CNN Money's top 20 jobs:

Software developer average: $84K.
Physiotherapist: $74K.
Financial Advisor: $93K.
Civil Engineer: $74K
Marketing Specialist: $55K
Management Consultant: $110K (These people would be impacted).
IT consultant: $96K
Database Admin: $86K
Financial Analyst: $62K
Enviro Engineer: $81K
Business Analyst: $83K
Systems Analyst: $78K
S.D. Test Engineer: $83K
Systems Admin: $63K
Headhunter: $56K
CPA: $73K
Structural Engineer: $78K
Web Developer: $61K
MRA: $65K
Accountant: $46K


Now obviously some people make over the average.
What is the average salary of those without a college degree? About $30K.

So in answer to the question of if people will simply not get educated if there's a cap... no.
They take a $20K paycut by doing it on average.

"Well damn, a $100K cap means after 8 years of work, I might be impacted by 3 or 4 %. Guess I'll be a janitor and take a 70% pay cut instead."... this person should not be a doctor to begin with.

People with significantly over that amount don't make it from a paycheque, they make it from investments, inheritance, freelancing, or rock stardom. Even if they make their initial money from their job.

 

[GraveeKing]

Pffft, no one would set a salary higher than $100,000 to avoid losing money to the government.

That sums up the entire concept. They'll just cheat around it.
In the end tax rates on income, you don't really see many people earning that much a year these days. I would go into it but I really don't want 99% followers down my neck.

 

[violinist1129]

snip

I don't know how different things are down there in Australia, but here in America, it's increasingly becoming where it doesn't matter the drive you have to achieve, but a lot of luck and who you know helps just as much. IF you have the drive to make something of yourself, chances are you're going to get bought out or just choked by stronger competition. And I don't mean "stronger" as in they have better ideas, but just more money so they can sue you into oblivion (without a cause I might add. I'm talking about wars of attrition through legal fees) just because your ideas will lose them money.

We have a BAAAAD system in place now that favors the rich. The only foreseeable consequence of this proposed cap is that it doesn't apply to larger companies. They could get even more spare change to sue if their payroll is reduced. But I suppose a similar cap could be proposed for companies too. Make business licenses grant you larger or smaller caps, and then have all the extra go to the govt. IF the government could be trusted to spend money more wisely we could end up having a lot more government funded research and progress the country a lot better than what we have now. The real problem is the underlined part. I have no trust in this happening, and I don't see it getting fixed for decades, if ever.

I really hope you're kidding. I come from a 30,000 per year income family, spent the last 12 years of my life learning everything I could, and gave up a social life for learning. What did I get for hard work? 2360 SATs and almost certainly a full ride to Princeton. Most people who say that hard work gets you nowhere don't have any idea what hard work looks like.

 

[violinist1129]

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.

The problem with this is that people nearing the poverty line have little to no extra money, so a ten percent tax on them will be devastating while a ten percent tax on the rich makes much less of a difference (i.e. if I have 10,000 dollars and you have a million, every 1,000 matters more to me than 100,000 to you even though the proportions are equivalent.

 

[violinist1129]

Very few CEOs make as little as 100k, many are in the tens of millions and one million would be average for a midsize company. Any company that survives its first ten years will have a CEO getting paid at least 200k and that's for small businesses

 

[violinist1129]

No one would be willing to spend a lot of time on education any more. Higher professions would die. No more doctors, engineers, etc.

That's assuming people are only interested in money. Besides, I've never heard of a doctor who makes 100 000 DOLLARS a year. That's a shit-ton of money. You don't simply get an education as an engineer or doctor or whatever and start earning that much, you'd have to be something like a CEO.

And by your reasoning there wouldn't be any teachers(for example) either, since that's a profession with crappy pay compared to the years it takes to complete the education for it.

Ummm...most doctors salaries start around 100k right out of med school. (in America at least) 100k is ballshatteringly small compared to what a large company's CEO makes (10 million)

Edit: Didn't see that you were Swedish. Sorry about that. 100k is upper middle class in America and may be nearing middle middle class soon.

 

[violinist1129]

$100'000 limit?

Here are CNN Money's top 20 jobs:

Software developer average: $84K.
Physiotherapist: $74K.
Financial Advisor: $93K.
Civil Engineer: $74K
Marketing Specialist: $55K
Management Consultant: $110K (These people would be impacted).
IT consultant: $96K
Database Admin: $86K
Financial Analyst: $62K
Enviro Engineer: $81K
Business Analyst: $83K
Systems Analyst: $78K
S.D. Test Engineer: $83K
Systems Admin: $63K
Headhunter: $56K
CPA: $73K
Structural Engineer: $78K
Web Developer: $61K
MRA: $65K
Accountant: $46K


Now obviously some people make over the average.
What is the average salary of those without a college degree? About $30K.

So in answer to the question of if people will simply not get educated if there's a cap... no.
They take a $20K paycut by doing it on average.

"Well damn, a $100K cap means after 8 years of work, I might be impacted by 3 or 4 %. Guess I'll be a janitor and take a 70% pay cut instead."... this person should not be a doctor to begin with.

People with significantly over that amount don't make it from a paycheque, they make it from investments, inheritance, freelancing, or rock stardom. Even if they make their initial money from their job.

These are starting salaries, and doctors are nowhere on that list. The list is for currently growing jobs which means the starting salaries will inflate with experience. These are right-out-of grad school salaries or even right out of undergrad.