I can think of a couple reasons to not have a maximum wage.
Companies would just pay higher level employees with options instead of salary so it isn't exactly a wage.
High skill people like surgeons would have no incentive to work long hours or benefit society with their skills past a certain number of hours. Skills that society itself invested in them to gain in hopes that we would see those talents used. Also they won't have an incentive to acquire the debt for that schooling. They will be locked at a moderately high income, on a debt treadmill, and all the tort liability that comes with their profession. If they have any other route they have been thinking about they are likely to take it.
The ultra wealthy don't earn a wage anyway. They own property that rises in value.
If more effort can't earn someone more money then they will apply their remaining available effort for getting what money buy directly. Now they trade in influence even more than they do now.
Reverse wage compression. If that guy has three times the schooling you have and three times the brain and three times the effort and he can only make $100,000 a year instead of $250,000 then wages for you must come down to keep things proportional.
IDK, what kind of number for a wage ceiling were you thinking?
Yes, the maximum wage was a simple hypothetical question. (It's been applied in Japan.) Not only would it have lots of pros and cons but it would inevitably get mostly corrupted.
If more effort can't earn someone more money then they will apply their remaining available effort for getting what money buy directly.
Insightful.
The real question is how to steer corruption, consumerism, convenience/laziness, fairness, and morality towards the common good, not just regardless of, but in balance with schooling, brains, talent, effort, efficiency, elegance, etc. - rather than just serving the 1%. And how can you do this objectively without malice or offence when ultimately some people may be more valuable than others in some ways?
(1) The rich would rule even more than they do.
(2) People (who currently cheat on their taxes) would decide between cheating on their taxes or having a larger vote.
I am assuming they are corrupt. I'm a realist after all. On paper you'll get more vote by voluntarily paying $5 extra in taxes. The question really is how much extra vote would you need to make $5 worth it?
How about they tax your income. Then they tax all the goods and services you buy with the money you earned that was already taxed. And they will tax you on all the investments you've wisely made. Also, if you buy anything second hand that was already once taxed you'll have to pay tax again with your money that was also already taxed. And they can tax you on your mood and for living - and death too. Taxes for everyone!!!
Even if we didn't negotiate the debt, agree to the debt, vote on the debt, or have anything to do with that debt (and "aid" and wars) - our "representatives" have made sure we'll pay it.
The big question is which is bigger - all the taxes paid by large* corporations or all the taxes paid by individuals?
(* "Large" may be defined as you like.)
Sure you might have actual democracy if people could vote (without corruption) weighted by their tax payments - in theory. But 1) you don't regulate something until first you capture the regulators, 2) corporations would actually want to pay more taxes for influence, 3) the propaganda would get insanely crazy. "If voting were actually effective, they'd make it illegal."
@Admins! (I forget the thing.) I vote Tom to get a "Cool Cat" badge.
That was really just saying corporations have speech rights. If they didn't how would copyright work and mass scale publishing. The government could always censor almost any book or music they like by saying it was a corporations speech when it was published. People attack the outcome and the phrase used but they don't bother seeing how it's logical or that the alternative would be worse.
If corporations had their speech restricted now you are going to have this government bored monitoring everything corporations do and declaring this or that thing political in a very selective way. What speech ends up supportive of a campaign? Would promoting traditional families be support of a campaign if it benefits a candidate? When they claimed Russia attacked the US election system it was just a private firm promoting exactly that. Churches are corporations. I guess they can't communicate any values at all now.
I know that case was about trying to restrict a very particular kind of corporation, a PAC, but if you restrict a corporation on some basis now you have to restrict all corporations on the same basis. We can't be measuring if all communication of all corporations ever benefits a candidate. I guess you could make it so no corporation can speak the name of a candidate directly, like they were Voldemort. It's going to be really hard for the news to cover them, or for the campaign to print flyers.
Log in
Less stealing probably. maybe depends on initial wealth distribution and other factors.
Net taxpayer cutoff is better idea
I don't know what that specifically means.
They have a minimum wage (that has pros and cons - helps and harms).
Why not have a maximum wage? The surplus can replace taxes.
I can think of a couple reasons to not have a maximum wage.
Companies would just pay higher level employees with options instead of salary so it isn't exactly a wage.
High skill people like surgeons would have no incentive to work long hours or benefit society with their skills past a certain number of hours. Skills that society itself invested in them to gain in hopes that we would see those talents used. Also they won't have an incentive to acquire the debt for that schooling. They will be locked at a moderately high income, on a debt treadmill, and all the tort liability that comes with their profession. If they have any other route they have been thinking about they are likely to take it.
The ultra wealthy don't earn a wage anyway. They own property that rises in value.
If more effort can't earn someone more money then they will apply their remaining available effort for getting what money buy directly. Now they trade in influence even more than they do now.
Reverse wage compression. If that guy has three times the schooling you have and three times the brain and three times the effort and he can only make $100,000 a year instead of $250,000 then wages for you must come down to keep things proportional.
IDK, what kind of number for a wage ceiling were you thinking?
Yes, the maximum wage was a simple hypothetical question. (It's been applied in Japan.) Not only would it have lots of pros and cons but it would inevitably get mostly corrupted.
Insightful.
The real question is how to steer corruption, consumerism, convenience/laziness, fairness, and morality towards the common good, not just regardless of, but in balance with schooling, brains, talent, effort, efficiency, elegance, etc. - rather than just serving the 1%. And how can you do this objectively without malice or offence when ultimately some people may be more valuable than others in some ways?
We're all trapped in this paradoxical existence.
Stop it you Nazi... That's dangerously close to National Socialism, you bigot.
(1) The rich would rule even more than they do.
(2) People (who currently cheat on their taxes) would decide between cheating on their taxes or having a larger vote.
With their increased political power would they pressure politicians to lower their taxes?
Don't you think most people would value paying less tax? Would you pay the government $5 to get more voting power?
Are you assuming the voting systems are not corrupt?
I am assuming they are corrupt. I'm a realist after all. On paper you'll get more vote by voluntarily paying $5 extra in taxes. The question really is how much extra vote would you need to make $5 worth it?
If the voting systems are corrupt why should anyone care or bother, much less pay to have no verifiable influence?
What type of tax?
Income taxes with legal tax breaks and loopholes?
Or apportioned taxes?
100% of income taxes go to pay Treasury bonds debt, for citizens are in a state of voluntary servitude to pay bond debt.
Apportionment taxes are paid based upon quantity. Property, sales, gas, etc... tax; is based on use/consumption.
Income tax is unconstitutional, except everyone "volunteered" to pay them.
How about they tax your income. Then they tax all the goods and services you buy with the money you earned that was already taxed. And they will tax you on all the investments you've wisely made. Also, if you buy anything second hand that was already once taxed you'll have to pay tax again with your money that was also already taxed. And they can tax you on your mood and for living - and death too. Taxes for everyone!!!
Even if we didn't negotiate the debt, agree to the debt, vote on the debt, or have anything to do with that debt (and "aid" and wars) - our "representatives" have made sure we'll pay it.
I guess we'll say we start with all the taxes that exist currently. But the government tracks every tax you pay and that's your share of vote.
I suppose sales tax and property tax would then contribute to your local vote.
The big question is which is bigger - all the taxes paid by large* corporations or all the taxes paid by individuals?
(* "Large" may be defined as you like.)
Sure you might have actual democracy if people could vote (without corruption) weighted by their tax payments - in theory. But 1) you don't regulate something until first you capture the regulators, 2) corporations would actually want to pay more taxes for influence, 3) the propaganda would get insanely crazy. "If voting were actually effective, they'd make it illegal."
@Admins! (I forget the thing.) I vote Tom to get a "Cool Cat" badge.
This would just be for taxes paid by individuals.
"Corporations are people."
That was really just saying corporations have speech rights. If they didn't how would copyright work and mass scale publishing. The government could always censor almost any book or music they like by saying it was a corporations speech when it was published. People attack the outcome and the phrase used but they don't bother seeing how it's logical or that the alternative would be worse.
If corporations had their speech restricted now you are going to have this government bored monitoring everything corporations do and declaring this or that thing political in a very selective way. What speech ends up supportive of a campaign? Would promoting traditional families be support of a campaign if it benefits a candidate? When they claimed Russia attacked the US election system it was just a private firm promoting exactly that. Churches are corporations. I guess they can't communicate any values at all now.
I know that case was about trying to restrict a very particular kind of corporation, a PAC, but if you restrict a corporation on some basis now you have to restrict all corporations on the same basis. We can't be measuring if all communication of all corporations ever benefits a candidate. I guess you could make it so no corporation can speak the name of a candidate directly, like they were Voldemort. It's going to be really hard for the news to cover them, or for the campaign to print flyers.
It would still not be fair. If it was fair, they'd find a way to rig it.
I guess I'm not really suggesting it as fair. I'm just curious what people think would happen next.