Forum Post: Occupy America - we need to establish an upper limit on personal wealth
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 4:54 p.m. EST by ghonadz
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We can't afford to settle for token concessions or half-measures this time. We need to make some fundamental changes in our economic structures and we might start by talking about the necessity of establishing an upper limit on personal wealth. In a world where something like 25,000 children die from starvation every day of the year, having hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in personal wealth represents obscene greed and selfishness. How much money does anyone need to accumulate anyway?....ten times the amount you could possibly spend in a lifetime?....a hundred times?.....at that point, it's all just greed and selfishness coming from deep psychological fears and insecurities. Too much money or too much power (and they go hand in hand these days) in the hands of the few tends to corrupt....corrupt the individuals and corrupt our political and financial systems...as we have seen all too clearly over the last few decades as the laws have been altered to favor the ultra rich and the corporations and our government seems to be entirely in their pocket, no matter which party is in office.
Capitalism cannot survive with a cap on wealth. It would deminish incentive to the point where it would not work.
There are many other ways to limit the influence of wealth while keeping the system intact. Unfortunately, the USA has spent the past thirty years dismantling them.
Best to start easy and take money from politics
Totally disagree
Let's not do policy that goes against human nature, ya? Those policies always cause problems.
Stupid idea. Stop trying to mess with other people.
The problem with taxing personal wealth is that once someone starts earning millions they run their earnings through companies and corporations, and they find ways to make it look like they don't earn that much money.
The problem is in corporate tax law. A part of the problem with corporate tax law is that corporations are able to become so big and hide in tax havens that they are able to threaten governments.
That's what needs to be completely dismantled.
ok say I own a business with 100 employees. Then say I make the upper limit in 3 months time. Guess what I am going to do after those 3 months. I am going to lay every employee off, because I don't see a point to baby sitting my lazy employees and not get paid a dime for it. Nor do I want to have you screw up my business. When the new year comes around I will do it all over again.
If your employees were, in fact, lazy, your company would not be succesful and you would not be getting rich. Management and leadership are crucial, yes, but wealth is not actually generated by pure magical management power. A relative income limit does not mean you cannot get richer. It only means that, after a certain point, your employees need to get a bit richer too before you do.
Such a system is actually a pretty good remedy to employee lazyness, as it gives them, from top engeneers to janitors, a greater stake in the company's success.
I'm not saying that laws for such a system are the only solution, or even the best. But it seems obivous to me that the economic system needs to move in some way towards a fairer distribution of profit.
Not entirely related, but bad exemples must be denounced : there is in fact a limit on your college grades. You can graduate with perfect marks and top honors, sure. But you can't get A+++ and a generous bonus on top. And in any case, education and business are not and should not be the same things.
From the frog side of Canada.
I'm not the OP but IMP if you own a business with ~100 employees, that's not really a big deal. But if you own a business with employees in the thousands and personal profits in the 9 digits (at least 100 mil) there should be higher tax brackets that come into effect. And tax brackets should work as an increasing ratio, so the more money you have the higher percentage you pay in taxes. The alternative way around this that does not involve taxing rich people is to create a system where wealth cannot be used to make more wealth (as easily) as it currently is. But to do that we would need to ban free trade agreements with countries with no proper labor laws, set a global minimum wage, socialize healthcare, and set a minimum wage that is proportional to the size of a company. That way, your ma and pa store can still pay a local kid to work at their store for 7$, and larger companies might have to pay their employees $10. And don't bullshit me, most companies can pay their employees more, they don't so they can take home 9 digit salaries. There's a difference between working hard for your money and being fortunate.
ExCeL;EnT reply.
or, u could just reinvest in the company, expand, employ more people, spend the money you have saved up, and contribute to the economy. Or, you could just do what you said and screw over everyone.
I have to agree with WTF. As soon as I reached the max, I would close up shop and spend the rest of the year fishing in Cozumel.
The reason a business expands and invests in itself is to make more money. If that is not possible, people will find more enjoyable ways to spend their money.
that reinvestment money is what obama is talking about taking away as a deduction.Obama wants to tax all income before you figure out overhead.
and shouldnt it be? I pay taxes, shoudlnt you? i lose a quarter of every paycheck, pay sales taxes, property taxes, and such, shouldnt the income of the company( which according to Court precident, is a person) be taxed, before they spend it?
I know, while we're at why don't we put a upper limit on college grades? That way people that don't take the time to earn a good grade and learn, can have your A's and B's so they can boost their D's and F's to C's and B's. All the while your scores fall to B's and C's.
What that's not fair, then niether is taking someone's money they earned to force someone to help the poor. It's each person's own choice to spend the money they earn the way they wish.
Jealous of wealth and prosperity much?
What's this about FEMA internment camps, and the millions of empty coffins piled up at all those camps.
When polical employees enter high offices, the majority begin to spend more than their natural income. For example, they begin to hold regular parties for the rich. These parties cost as much as $300,000 for one night. For the past 25 years I had not went out at night. But, when I was in the service; I attended many of these large parties. One party in particullar, a congressman stated "This is all possible, thanks to our good taxpayers". Now, that was back in 1981. How much would one of those parties cost today? If, their still doing this; shoudn't something be done about the lavish lifestyle politions have.
This is one of those "pie in the bright blue sky" ideas that sound wonderful on paper because it appeals to the "fair" idea. But invest any real time thinking about it -- in reality it's just nonsensical.
I think it's power
excess resources (those beyond feeding and sheltering the people)
are available to build and research
the person that has all the money decides what those projects will be
.
I once said I wanted to build a hollow doom
a chamber to project 3 dimensional images people could stand among
I don't have the power to do that
because I don't have the money to do that
Socialism is not the answer.
Ah no. No no.
No.
Where do people get these ideas? You think even 20% of America would go for that idea?
So if you all of a sudden come into a few billion dollars you think someone has the right to tell you what to do with it? Last i checked USA was still a capitalist free market economy with a democraticly elected government, people need to cut the socialist rhetoric if they want to be taken seriously, Its not money that is the problem its government and the deficit and manipulation of currency that has come from deregulation of the financial industry.
Maybe have a ridiculous tax structure... instead of being 3-tiers or 5... maybe have a running percentage... the more you make the higher your percentage... so if you make $1 billion... maybe the % would be like 60-75% ....
But we also have to make Governments more effective... I bet we waste at least $4-5 Billion each year... you know how many kids we can educate with $4-5 billion...
They waste $4 billion per DAY! That's how much the debt increases by. Why would anyone want to pay more tax when the jackasses piss it all up the wall?
That's true... we need Government reform... get into the digital age... shit moves SO SLOW... wastes so much money....
it's not that Government Programs are bad... it just has no incentive to be run effectively...
That's why Businesses work, they have a clear objective... make as much $$ (value for them) as possible... so they will do what they can to most efficiently make money, and reduce costs.
Government should be run more like businesses... with value clearly defined, so we can see where the $$ is going... what programs make the most for the buck...
But Businesses itself, the private sector, should stay da f* away from the Government... we don't need them messing with the system... the Good of the people doesn't belong in to pockets of the few. Corporations aren't even real people!
Sounds like a good idea to me. How much money does a person need? How many people need to go without the basics of life so you can satisfy your need for a Ferrari or the $5000 Gucci purse that probably cost ten dollars to make in a chinese sweatshop. Greed is not good.
Jealousy is a terrible thing, by this logic a starving person in Africa can come and take your house and your food because you have about 50000000000 x the wealth they do
10 times minimum wage (~$300,000)
And should somebody exceeds the limit, should they be executed and that money distributed disproportionately to the least wealthy? If enacted quickly enough you could hang a bunch of people that very afternoon.
I'm for progressive taxes, including taxes on financial income and not just wage income, but hard limits on net worth... don't think so.
If an individual manages to do something great and is greatly rewarded for it... that's how it should be. Steve Jobs for example, the guy was instrumental in fundamentally shaping the communication devices the world uses today (computers,laptops,mobile phones).
We the People-
I'm concerned, the U.S. government has provsions that changed recently. They call for the killing of anyone who endangers, harrass or disrupts within our borders. I am one of your top supporters. But, now, there is no turning back. Don't back down nomatter what happens. It has already begun. Set aside all of your fears from this point. History is now being written for the brave.
Would you agree to cap the max wealth at $1b/person, indexed to inflation?
Get a gun and start robbing rich people. Same difference.
Ghonads, I agree with your concept and I fully support the idea, you and I must eventually admit that while we (ows) are bringing game changing ideas to the table these concepts will not be supported by the majority. Through no fault of their own, all of the above commentators who are naysaying this idea, believe that there is a way that they themselves might be able to make it into the top 1%. This is a common, and logical fallacy that most right-wingers clinch on to with their full souls. What they don't understand is that no one is talking about capping annual personal income. More so this idea is about setting a limit on ones "personal singular corporate net worth". Is it wrong to ask someone like mark zucherberg, "hey mark, our capitalist society has provided you the means to make more money than could be spent in five generations of family lineage. Would you mind investing profits made from your shares of Facebook into employee health and wellness programs such as a new gym or a private golf course for your employees and their families? Or roll over the profits into college scholarships for the families who have made your infinate wealth possible?" All the while Mark would be free to start up another venture with his already earned billions, and harvest as much of the profits from that venture that his little heart desires (up to the max of course). Thus creating new jobs, while providing better living conditions to those employed by his previous successful companies, raising internal moral and productivity. Which could lead Facebook into doing business in another sector of industry, thus allowing Mark to hoard another $X amount so should he choose to. This goes hand in hand with capitalistic ideals: by taking better care of those who provide the means, you gain more productive happier employees. In the case of Facebook specifically this could result in their employees actually presenting their own tech business ideas to Facebook instead of hiding these intentions from the company to later quit and finance their own startup or gather some unknown v.c.'s to give what could be a world altering idea a much more slim chance of implementation than if the brains at Facebook could help out.
Break.
I would like to apologize for all of the lame fb references it just an easy example to use for the lamen to comprehend. Because they never read the book but I bet they saw the movie.
I frame this around the corporate mandate to make a profit. I think there are grounds for having upper limits for an organization's profits. In this day and age, the 1% have so much more money than they need (not even going into how they got it). If money were water, and 1% of the people had access to an ocean of water and the rest of the world were a desert, I hope we could easily see that one only needs so much water then needs to let the rest move along. No one is being asked to go thirsty. No one is being asked to be poor. We could determine how much money really is too much and find a good way to reinvest excess money where it is needed. Establishing needs is the first step.
I don't like that idea. Remember that there philanthropists like Bill Gates and Bill Clinton who do a lot of good with their money. And Bill Gates has also persuaded many other billionaires to give away large percentages of their incomes. The problem is not that they make money. It's what they can do with the money. Influence politics. All we need to do is get rid of person hood for corporations and put a dollar limit on individual donations...which I think there is already.
ghonadz, the United States was built on the concept of personal property.
You SHOULD know that the "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" phrase was nearly "life, liberty, and property."
Personal property is rather different than corporate property. Most people don't need much help protecting their property. Big corporations do.
Damn straight.... I say total wealth limit of 100K! Just think of all the starving children that would SOMEHOW be magically fed if that was instituted. Probably everybody would have a home and perfect utopia would spread the world over!!
Moron is the only way of describing this....
YES
What we are creating is a Bottom 90% of Workers who ALREADY have the Individual Purchasing and Group Investment Power to CONTROL the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government IF, and only IF, they are LOYAL to themselves as BOTH Customer-Investors and Employee-Investors. In order to become both Customer-Investors and Employee-Investors – at the same time – they become Bank Owner-Voters, and thus make Business Loans to themselves in their 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups by current Occupation and Generation. Business Loans control ALL Businesses. Why? Because Business Loans finance 90% of the Assets of ALL Businesses. Therefore, if the Bottom 90% of Workers CONTROL 90% of the Assets of ALL Business, then they CONTROL the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, right? What they DON”T control is the Knowledge Power of the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, which Knowledge Power can NEVER be taken, only GIVEN, if technical (or mathematical) enough. Consequently that technical (or mathematical) Knowledge Power of the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government MUST be paid up to 12 times MORE than Minimum Wage (and sometimes much more for things like Patents) for having made the EFFORT to acquire that Knowledge Power, but this is only true of their 50% Global Investment Groups in Commodities, Technology, Manufacturing, Insurance, Justice, and Banking (which are all very technical, and therefore hard-to-understand, requiring Knowledge Power), but is NOT true of your 50% Local Investment Groups in Wholesale, Vehicles, Services, Education, Retail, & Housing (which are all very basic, therefore easy-to-understand, requiring Knowledge Power that ANYONE can understand).
For more info, join: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems
Take this free anonymous survey to share other ideas we can all agree on. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N
A noble sentiment that can be achieved by means of a tax system with punishing rates on "excess profits" that are not channeled to approved charitable organizations. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have the right idea.
The concept of placing a ceiling on how much an individual may earn in a given year is ridiculous. It violates the brain's psychological reward system, and though I do love this concept to keep people from continuing work after they have earned their annual allotment, it would not allow for growth within the confines of a community. It would be much more plausible for there to be a uniform tax code.
I believe you probably think with your ghonadz with an idea like this.
why? Because you're not successful ? Go make your OWN money, by WORKING, and you'll realize what it means to be assaulted with idiotic notions like yours.
this is rediculusly stupid do you want to kill america with this? The businesses will just move out then there will be no jobs
I agree, a fair tax system is probably the best answer. But there is something to be said for a relative income maximum within organizations.
The whole argument of "But if people can only win one million a year and not twenty, why, they'll just all give up" is silly.
For all those who want to support this cause by sending food and non perishable supplies to OccupyWallStreet, I would like to share a channel used by many to send their donations. Use: Delivery.com and under the grocery tab look for Village Farm and Grocery. Buy the merchandize and use the delivery address as: OccupyWallStreet 1 Liberty Plaza Ground New York, Ny 10006 Tiffany Place 212-475-7521 Food and essential are delivered by the Deli without any delivery fee and it has a massive list of options. Just shared my 2 cents.
No limit. Just taxes. The wealthy are paying less in taxes now than at any point in the last 100 years. They ought to pay their share.
What is "fair" tax rate?
"More," to begin with. This isn't Sim City; simplistic "Set all taxes to X%" notions are absurd. The top tax bracket is lower than ever; even as our richest people have more money, more "wealth," and more "freedom" to ship capital overseas in the form of jobs, commodities, and straightforward monetary transfers than they have had at any point since WW2. The wealthy don't spend their money at Macy's; they don't get their money from a pay stub; it's locked away in ever-more-complex financial instruments.
We've gone all-in with "trickle-down" for 30 years. It's done precisely what the cynics 30 years ago predicted it would do: transfer wealth upwards and generate a bubble. Ta-da, now we're suffing collapse after collapse, and the only ones who are making out are the super-wealthy.
The 1% -- really, the 1% of the 1% -- feel that they don't need the 99% now, they don't need America now, and they're trying desperately to slough us off and stash their wealth elsewhere. I, for one, am not willing to ignore that.
Funny thing about China. You know who does not have an upper limit on income? China. In fact China's Gini coefficient (which measures inequalities in wealth) is about the same as the USA's.
Though this is kinda moot, as China has long ceased to be communist.
Naive ideas. Take an extended trip to Communist China for a couple of years and your dreams will come true
Now, I did hear a story from a guy who visited China, saying when he got off the plane, he was confronted with a sign stating that any thieves would be killed. That's a little disturbing - such a low value for human life disturbs me. People commit crimes against each other for a host of reasons, most of which are remediable. You lose an entire lifetime of a person, a unique perspective on the whole, and you also potentially negatively impact or even directly harm other lives in the process. Not to say crime shouldn't be addressed, but death seems a punishment of last resort, not something you just slap out when someone is say, starving, needs food to feed his family with, and so pickpockets a tourist.
I can't say how true a picture this is on the whole, though - I've never been to China, and certainly have not studied their current infrastructure in any detail.
I've been to China. China executes more people than the rest of the world put together. They use firing squads traditionally, but are switching over to lethal injection (it is cheaper, and easier to clean up). They used to charge the family for the price of the bullets, but I don't know if they still do that.
Wow, that sounds incredibly harsh. I don't suppose you have any sources on that, do you? I know that's a long shot, though, since China is very seclusive on some of its governing practices. How long ago since you were last there?
Oh, I was there a long time ago. I lived in Asia in the mid-eighties; I didn't spend a lot of time in China. Anyway, you can find statistics from sources such as Amnesty International (though, as you suggest, these are official data released by the government of China; some people think the real figures are much higher).
By the way, pursuant to the thread topic, when I was in China I did learn that the political leaders had fabulous wealth. I think you won't stop people from accumulating wealth, you will only put it in someone else's hands.
Hmm, yeah, I got the impression that with either economic system (communism as an economic model, and capitalism) there are "winners" and "losers", so to speak. At least, I've heard that is true in implementations of both thus far. There seem to be advantages to both for the population at large, as well. I think this is why I'm hesitant to advocate either as an absolute solution. I think we need to be more creative than that if we really want change.
"I got the impression that with either economic system (communism as an economic model, and capitalism) there are "winners" and "losers", so to speak"
There will always be winners and losers, it is called the human condition. And then we die.
eyebrow raise... Yesh. Yesh, indeed. Human condition. So what now? Heh...
China isn't really communist. They're a blend. In fact, I'm not certain, but I don't think any country has yet successfully enacted pure communism. Can anyone confirm if this is so (and please cite some sources, so we can see the info for ourselves, thanks!)? I think - and I'm no historical scholar, mind you - I remember hearing that the attempts at communism in the past have all floundered in the socialism phase. Communism, as I understand it, is achieved through a series of steps, if being instituted with a previously capitalist or free market region. First you go through socialism, then you graduate to full communism. I know everyone says, 'Communist Russia', or 'Communist XYZ', but are/were they completely pure communist regions? I could be wrong or missing facts, though, so you should look it up for yourself.
Sorry, they didn't really teach Marx or other communist concepts in high school. I think that's more popular in the secondary school arena, taught in secret after hours meetings with students and professors who for some reason think they need to hide it. :) Why hide any learning or open discourse if it is honest and strictly based in facts? I think ignoring the possible benefits (or pitfalls) of either system is foolish and overly emotional (and sometimes blindly loyalist).
Heh, oh boy, am I going to get slack for that joke... hides
north korea is as close to pure communist as you can get. recently to cope with poor national productivity the nk government have started to build shelters so that people may begin selling produce or foodstuff that they make at home, something that was banned before.
Hmm, North Korea, yeah... I'm not certain, but I don't think having a 'national haircut' enforced by the strictest law is the truest to the vision Marx had of it, hehehe, but then, if we're comparing communism to capitalism, we're ignoring the fact that capitalism is only an economic model (the government of the US, for instance, is a democratic republic), whereas communism in context usually refers to both an economic model and governing approach, right? ... So maybe purist communism has not been instituted thus far, and neither purist capitalism. Can anyone confirm this? I am genuinely curious if either system (as an economic model) has been successfully instituted (whether for the better or worse). I'll look for info myself, see if I can find an unbiased source that compares the two (which I suspect may be difficult...)
well, in pure communism the government is the sole provider of goods and services. so there is a 'national haircut' because there's only one hairdresser in the country (or one system of hairdressers). in communism the economy is closely linked to the political system, because the government is there to decide on the things that people should consume: what they should eat, what clothes they should wear, what grooming products they should use, where they should live, and so on. so the economic circumstances of the people are very closely linked to who so happens to wield the political influence!
obviously it is very nice to have benevolent or omnipotent leadership in such a system. unfortunately maybe only God has that kind of power.
That was a joke about the NK enforced haircuts, both styles for men and women short, specific, and not necessary to the people's survival, merely a vanity on the part of the supposed leader. Yes, we are in short supply of true leaders, those who lead their people to help them, genuine servants, as opposed to dictators and power brokers, those who simply control. It is a fine distinction, but an important one. I haven't seen many leaders lately.
i really wanted to take your haircut comment as a joke. but nk is indeed enforcing a national haircut, and while it is framed as 'subversive', it is also partly because anyone with a non-standard haircut could be getting a haircut from a tradesman that is not sanctioned by the government (black market haircuts).
Haha, yeah, no thanks to that. The day I am not allowed to do something for myself is the day I've completely given control of my life over to something or somebody else. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what all these people want? Another master to dictate one's whole life?
"Black market haircuts. sigh And what if I want to cut my own hair in NK? Do I get thrown in jail?"
you get coupons from the government
Black market haircuts. sigh And what if I want to cut my own hair in NK? Do I get thrown in jail?
What would you propose the upper limit be?
there's nothing wrong with earning it honestly. I think Apple and Microsoft are great examples of what is right about this country. They didn't abuse the system and should be allowed to realize the American dream.
Go ahead. Try and take what I earn. Who the fuck are you to limit anything?
I want to earn as much as I can. Then I can decide what I want to do with it. Do I want to leave to my heirs? Donate it to charity? Maybe I want to piss it all away on vacations, booze and hookers! Where do you get off thinking an individuals rights can be capped.
I got a cap for ya right here bitch!
I agree, but it should be just an income limit, not a total wealth limit. But, if you set it up so that no one can accumulate massive wealth, and the money is recirculated constantly, instead of sitting in stock/CDs/or just regular saving/bank accounts, then it might work. The problem is that these very wealthy people usually aren't even paying out of their accounts, but out of their corporate accounts. So their income does nothing for the economy. The little they give away is essentially to void out tax liability, and what they buy tends to give little to the general workers, as it is usually supplied by their buddies.
The point that some people who are attached to the principle of unlimited greed can't seem to get is that too much concentration of wealth in too few hands is fatal for democracy. Do you really want your children living in a plutocratic oligarchy?
Not wealth. Redistribution of wealth is never a good idea. Maximum income limit, bound to minimum wage, as, say, 10 to 1. So if minimum income is $30,000, it makes maximum - $300,000 a year.
And no other taxes.
"Maximum income limit, bound to minimum wage, as, say, 10 to 1."
Do you think George Clooney, Lady Gaga and A-Rod will go for that?
(Replying to your latest comment)
Even if you believe that (which I don't, and my history proves wrong), why do you translate self-interest as "money"?
The next generation George Clooney and them will have no problem with that. We just need to start it some time, and the next generation after that will see it as a norm.
If everyone would be subject to this, no exclusions whatsoever, even the current stars would have no problem with that. And they would satisfy their egos by getting better at what they do.
What is your evidence for this hypothesis? Given human nature, I think it is very unlikely.
I think you underestimate human nature.
"I think you underestimate human nature."
It seem to me that history is in agreement with my assessment.
History of George Clooney? Or what history?
Human history. And biology. Humans are primarily motivated by self-interest.
yeah, I'd say 20-1 as there are some real plonkers knocking about. However it should also include subcontractors to an organisation i.e the cleaners, say if they earn 8 pounds an hour (£15,600 per year) the max a top boss could earn would be 160 pounds or £312,000 Total including bonuses, special awards the lot. So now if the top people in an organisation want to buy islands, then they will have to think of a good business model thats great for the whole company. I simply don't know how our pension pots can by looted like we saw in London a few weeks ago without people being jailed. At least on the street you can see yourself being robbed. What a sad state of affairs we are in.
The cleaner shouldn't be making this little.
I wouldn't argue with that, its around 13 dollars an hour. out of interest how much do typical office cleaners earn per hour in the US ?
Depends heavily on location, part of town, office/residential, and whether unionized or not. $10 to $20 approx.
Why limit income? Shouldn't I be able to get paid what someone is willing to pay for my services? Shouldn't I have the right to earn whatever someone feels I'm worth? If I feel I'm worth more, can't I just pass that job and look for something I think is fair.
If my skills and expertise fall in a field where there are millions just like me, then of course my pay should be lower. We would be a dozen. We should strive to make or create something no one has before, and hopefully everyone wants to buy/use it.
I'd leave the theoretical discussion and ask you a rude question: what's your income?
$68k a year pre tax. After payin for my portion of healthcare and retirement and taxes I get to take home in my pocket $35k.
I'm not super rich, I fall in the middle class, and I earn everything I've gotten, never looking for society to pay for me. If I want something I put a plan together to earn it.
Again, this is to your latest comment.
No, they don't take your money, they take public money. They buy stuff, at which point the money leaves their hands and goes to a business owner. The business owner immediately returns a portion to the government in the form of tax, and takes the rest to other business owners (goes to restaurant, buys drywall, whatever), and every time a portion of money goes back to the government. It's a cycle.
Which I would have done with my money. Instead they take my money and buy themselves stuff with money they didn't earn.
Public money is money taken (usually by taxes) from people who earn it. Poor people have no skin in the game, and thus constantly want us that pay for them, to increase what we do give to them. At what pouint should they take care of themselves with their own money?
No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
If we would implement the progressive income tax like this: first 20k tax free, +10% on every next 20k, with max cap at $200k (or 10 time the minimum), you'd be taking home $59,000. I also advocate cancellation of other taxes, so your $59k would buy much more.
So why are we talking about salaries that are realistically far beyond our reach?
Because, if I end up making say 200k because of my own hard work and talent, ntell me again why I need to pay a higher tax to take care of someone looking for a free hand out that is perfectly capable of earnin their own way.
I'm for equal treatment and opportunity, not forced social equity. I believe more I. A flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income into the government at a level to what the government needs to operate, and the people are willing to accept. So even if you're poor at least you're contributing something to the free services you're collecting.
I am replying to your last post - this limited depth threads system is irritating.
Anyway,
First of all they pay sales tax and other taxes on everything.
But most important, they don't consume the money. The money doesn't stop in the poor people's pockets. They pass it on to the grocery store, to the transportation system, to the landlord. It goes back into the system. That's a myth that the system loses money on them.
Another point is that your money goes to build roads, and airports, and libraries, and schools for your kids.
Why can't I get through to you - you should be paying less tax, those who can afford it should be paying more.
Like I said, they basically take my money to buy their stuff. Food whatever. They don't pay into it. They are spending other peoples money instead of earning their own. Plain and simple.
We all pay sales tax at the same rate as the state we live in. Sales tax in my area is not used in welfare. That comes out of income tax and property tax.
I'm all for taxing everyone the same rate. Rich, poor and anywhere in between. You need to pay into he system if you want any sort of service from it.
Everyone is contributing into the system as long as they don't take the money abroad, and poor people don't invest abroad, nor buy diamonds that bind the money.
It's a myth that someone who gets welfare takes it out of the system, because he takes it to the local grocery store and puts it back into the system.
I think everybody has to receive an inalienable lifelong allowance equal to minimum wage, regardless of income and employment. That's the basis for equal opportunity, together with free education and free healthcare.
A flat tax is unfair, because half of two potatoes is a potato, and half of two Bentleys is a Bentley.
Why don't you realize that you are on this side of the fence? You theoretical $200k income (which is around $120 after my taxation) is just that - a fantasy. You can't even imagine how much money it really is, and if you don't spend it on (utterly useless) diamonds, it's more than you will ever need.
"I think everybody has to receive an inalienable lifelong allowance equal to minimum wage, regardless of income and employment."
Who would work at all? I would spend my time riding my bicycle and fishing.
No no no. Poor people pay 0% federal taxes one they get through with deductions. Plus they take the assistance that I and other middle class pay into as well as the rich. They take money out of a government program that they don't pay into. Basically I lose money out of my paycheck to take care of plenty of people that can take care of themselves and work if they wanted too. I'm not talking about the sick and disabled.
Who is the someone deciding your worth? This is the problem.
The employer and myself. I don't have to take the job if I think the pay is wrong.
Also if everywhere I go I think the pay is wrong, it actually means I'm wrong and I need to get overmyself.
If one or two places I think are wrong in salary compensation, that might be true. But if I run across the same everywhere, then I'm the one over valuing my worth.
Or, the industry is monopolized, thus devaluing any work done in it, and the employers get to simply lower or suppress wages, while reaping massive personal profit, for things they didn't even contribute to. IE if a CEO is hired, the work he does is not his "baby" he/she did not create the company., they often don't understand the actual work/ working conditions, since they are insulated from the front line by so many middle management, who are themselves often uninterested in knowing actually what their employees do.
The point I am making is that if it is not fair to begin with, how do you propose to get a fair pay?
I should note that I am currently employed in a company and enjoy union representation, and have been a union steward and seen how corporate American(maybe the world) runs things. Endless meetings staffed by managers who don't even make decisions on their own, meeting after meeting to decide things they don't even understand usually.
The industry isn't monopolized as the are laws against it. Every monopoly in the US gets broken up.
I work in the private sector and if CEO choices don't make money for the company, they lose their job.
I see public sector unions artificially inflating pay and compensation above the private sector. Thus bleeding government coffers dry to pay retired union workers.
You don't see non union companies draining the public sector money so the government can't pay for actual services anymore.
actually, my company is thriving, as is their motto, and it has everything to do with unions keeping employment conditions high and competitive that drives it. Our success is through integrating Labor management partnerships, thus allowing the front line staff to have a voice, instead of being overturned by managers who don't really care about anything but their bottom lines. And please back up your assertions with actual evidence of union company bleeding the public sector of money.
As i see it, if anyone is bleed the public sector is the makers of weapons, and machinery for our military, than by any private sector companies with unions.
Unions in the private sector work fine. If they bleed their company too much the company closes because it is no longer competitive. GM and Crysler should have not gotten bailed out and just failed.
Public sector unions don't have a competitive market to balance them. They work with politicians to gold plate their retirements, and then hope they can get the tax payees to pay for it. They usually don't but the public union contracts are still in place anyways. They negotiate pay and retirement well above the private sector but have no way of paying for it.
For evidence look at the state of California and New York. People are retiring making 101% - 110% of their working salaries all paid for b the tax payers. Most of who retire making about 80% of what they made when working.