Forum Post: Put a cap on wealth
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 4:10 p.m. EST by indivisible
(89)
from Leeds, England
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Provocation:
Imagine a world where no one person could earn more than say $100,000 a year.
It would take over 10 years to become a millionaire.
No matter how prolific you were in your working life, no matter how much talent you had, you knew that the most you could hope to earn would be $100,000.
Would this change society? Would our priorates shift? Would we work less hours and spend more time with our loved ones? Would this redistribute the worlds wealth? Would the gap between the top 1% and the lower share of the 99% align themselves closer to the wealth centre? Would sports become more about the game again? Would business be more socially engaged? Would there be more money in circulation? Would the worlds markets be more stable and reflect real world prices on goods and services? Would there be less war? Would any man be rich enough to buy another?
This would have to be a worldwide declaration such as the bill of human rights.
money is the root of all evil.... the govt is too worried about trying to control other aspects of our life but let the gap between us and the 1% continue to grow. A cap would benefit us in so many ways. Distributing the wealth would make the world a better place and allow the true passion behind working, art, music, sports and so many other areas to shine through. It's ridiculous to think of people making 1,000,000 a year when there are people starving and homeless.
It's more ridiculous to think that human nature can somehow be 'fixed' and that a benevolent, yet all powerful cabal of people (government) can maintain this uptopian 'fair world' you speak of.
No, we all need equal access to succeed. The laws need to be corrected
There are many misguided efforts, and it seems that the OWS movement has become a platform for just about any concern. A movement needs to focus and be very clear on what it seeks to accomplish.
I have spent nearly 4 years researching and educating myself on the law and rules that make up the basis on how business is financed and how the rules affect business and the individuals who own them and work for them.
First let me say that this problem is not liberal or conservative, democrat or republican but it is a common problem we all share. One key point must be stressed we are all affected by the issue at hand.
Now, let’s look at the laws. If you look at the fall of the exchange in 1929, its cause and the reaction by the government you will find most of the problem. In 1929 only ~10% of all businesses were public and the remainder was private. ~2% of the population were involved in trading stocks and most of the individuals we very heavily leveraged (They bought on credit).
Next the market dropped, individuals lost their ability to pay off their margin accounts and wiped out the capital overnight in the banking system, Couple that with the hysteria of the people running on the banks to get there gold out and you have a recipe for disaster.
For most they were not initially affected by the falls of the exchange in 1929 but when banks failed they felt it. Businesses lost credit to operate, accounts were wiped out and small private business failed. No fault of their own but the fault of the overzealous banks. Individuals found there savings wiped out alongside the private businesses and the world plunged into the abyss.
The reaction to this was FDR. and the 1933 securities act and the 1934 securities and exchange act. What these two pieces of legislation did was strip the ability of the small private business (who did not cause the market collapse) to raise capital in a traditional form, Bonds. Direct investment was for many years the mainstay of the entrepreneur. It put the restrictions on who could invest (Qualified institutional investor) and how the investments could be sold. It stripped the ability of the individual to invest and make the high returns they became accustomed to and placed all of it into the hands of the very few 1%.
Today if you are a business owner there is a glass ceiling of about $3 million dollars where a business could potentially get debt to expand, retool, or modernize. The Wall Street and Banks prefer an Equity offering. How often do small business owners sell the majority share of the company they own under a public offering or private sale (sale to high net worth’s) to raise the capital they need. The horror stories of this arrangement are very clear. They give up control, get voted out of the company and the new share holders shut them down move the product manufacture to China to maximize the return to the High Net Worth investor (new owner).
The laws perpetuate the problem. Now remove the Glass-Steagall Act and it becomes a high net worth orgy.
Focus, access the laws, and fix the system that perpetuates the behavior.
FIX THE LAWS
My fiancee who is infinatly more careing then me, gets paid pittance in her job as a care worker for disabled and homless but she wouldn't change her job for the world. I couldn't do her job but I acknowlage that no matter what socioeconomic system we have there will always be those who put others first.
This sounds like a nightmare.
why stop there. why not limit the calorie intake...?? why not limit the amount of junk food..?? if you want to fix society's ills, go for it all...
yep - where do these people draw the line?
Here's an idea - keep the suggestions realistic. This isn't.
sorry I had a dream
Ask yourself a Question. If you earn a degree in this country, and you're going to work for someone. What are the chances that you're employer will ever let know that you are valuable. Will ever let you feel that you're not replaceable, or share credit for anything you do for them with you?
We need employers to stop taking all the credit for their educated employees contributions. We need employers to appreciate and respect us. Until talent is recognized and "they" don't think of us as a commodity ,and the only respect we deserve is a paycheck, all the glory, and all the profits go to wall street types and bussinessmen. Which makes it easy to have money to burn on bribes "excuse me" Conributions to polititions.
Which would work better, a wealth cap or progressive taxation?
If that were the case, and I already made more than $100,000 a year. I would fire most of my employees, and shut down factories.
Exactly. Why should I keep working if I'm not going to earn anything?
Nope, no incentive. Money is not the problem. Money purchasing direct influence over policy and legislation is the problem. Our Government no longer works for us. that is what has to change.
There would no incentive to do anything. The smartest people in society, would come out of college, earning 100,000/yr and then would have no incentive to improve our world.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. My mom makes 106k/yr and my dad makes 75k/yr, and they are struggling to send me to one of the cheapest colleges in the country. My college costs $8,000/semester TOTAL (room & board, books, tuition, fees, etc.).
Only when income gets into the 1,000,000+/yr does it become "too much" and ridiculous. Athletes, actors, TV personalities, etc; i.e. people who advertise for Nike causing Nike to sell 25 billion dollars worth of merchandise, thus justifying a contract from Nike paying said individual a small share of the revenue (let's say $5,000,000) caused by their advertising, ARE THE EXCEPTION. Paying Oprah millions per year, because she brought CBS, BILLIONS of dollars from companies vying for advertising time during Oprah's show. So you're dead wrong on the Celebrity part. Oprah made a negative statement about beef in '96 during a mad-cow disease outbreak, and beef producers lost 11 Billion dollars on the year. She endorsed Garrett's Popcorn during a late November show...at the end of December, Garrett's Popcorn Sales had DOUBLED, increased 100% in one month. Oprah could be making $100/yr or $100,000,000/yr and she would still hold influence unparalleled by anyone. She deserves to be a billionaire because of what she does for the revenues of various companies. If not for her they would not be worth a fortune, so they cut her a check to compensate for her impact on revenue and that is why she is rich.
No! This is supposed to be "America" the land of dreams! If someone wants to work their way up let them!
17,000 words on the subject. Quite a provocation! Enjoyed every minute of it but going to have to leave the discussion now. Best of luck to everyone in your endeavours and especially to those who are active in the movement where ever your may be. Nobody has the authority on what the future holds but the actions carried out by OWS will certainly plant a few seeds for change.
Thank you for the inspiration!
This kind of message tends to attract hundreds of stubborn ppl who have no idea of the fundamental basis of this movement itself but are just pissed of at their miserable lives. What direction is this movement leading to? A better society? Communism? Anarchy? This type of populism has no direct answers to the global crisis and tends to screw our society more to oppress liberalism and enhance egalitarianism. Personally, This 'Occupy Wall Street' movement is load of XXX
This kind of message tends to attract hundreds of stubborn ppl who have no idea of the fundamental basis of this movement itself but are just pissed of at their miserable lives. What direction is this movement leading to? A better society? Communism? Anarchy? This type of populism has no direct answers to the global crisis and tends to screw our society more to oppress liberalism and enhance egalitarianism. Personally, This 'Occupy Wall Street' movement is load of XXX
thanks for stopping by ijzlk, you just taught me a new word; "egalitarianism" it's like the mental arch nemesis of the "ego"!
NB Not trying to say that the ego is a bad thing, it is essential as part of our evolutionary makeup. It is as much a force for good as it is for destruction.
Maybe it should not be a fixed number but a ratio. Maximum income to minimum wage.
The number is just way toooo low.
Yeah that seems to be the case! Not sure I was the right person to suggest the figure
realistically, businesses, companies and corporations would reward their employees in different ways. Vacations and trips, buy them houses or cars, give them gold or even crystal. They would make up the difference.
So a company that wanted to pay someone that they currently pay $250,000 to, they would limit the income to $100,000 and give them a rent free house.
Look at Sweden. They get crystal statues instead of bonuses because of the high tax rate.
Good point
Welll, at $99,999 I go on vacation for the rest of the year.... now that is real productive. I'm wondering if that money doesn't go out in salary.. then the corporations just more profits right?
I was thinking along the lines that all surplus wealth generated (over the cap) becomes a form of tax. It is redistributed to government. Therefore it is in the interest of government to promote high earners.
Also how about - any charity donations are deducted from your earnings cap? If you had made 80,000 by September and decided to donate 20,000 to charity then that would bring your earnings back to 60,000 for the year.
Just thoughts
Just think... saying I earn $120,000 in Jan. then I can donate $20K to charity, and give everything else I do that year to the government... think I'll go on vacation and earn money in another country by selling fresh fish off the back of my boat for cash. :)
If we gave everyone in the US $100,000 today, within a year 20% would be broke and 20% would be millionaires. Greed is an interesting word. "They are greedy, but not me". Isn't the desire to have a millionaires money called greed. See Donohue video at this link: http://dauckster.posterous.com/a-31-year-old-video-clip-absolutely-worth-you
If we gave everyone in the US $100,000 today, within a year 20% would be broke and 20% would be millionaires. Greed is an interesting word. "They are greedy, but not me". Isn't the desire to have a millionaires money called greed. See Donohue video at this link: http://dauckster.posterous.com/a-31-year-old-video-clip-absolutely-worth-you
Top wages down - lowest wages up
If we gave everyone in the US $100,000 today, within a year 20% would be broke and 20% would be millionaires.
thats one hell of a reality TV game show you got there! You should pitch it to HBO ; )
Communism...
Capitalist/Communist
How would anything get done? My neighbor grosses 2.5 mil a year, they grow vegetables, you suggest they stop?
why of course... everyone should have their own veggie garden and shouldn't buy from anybody else... Isn't food a right and therefore shouldn't it be illegal to sell food?
Last time i checked food wasnt in the constitution or the bill of rights,
I think it is in the "second bill of rights" that everyone is promoting here... something like "access to decent food is a right".... although I vote for making dandelion greens being defined as decent.
Well ok, so you are talking about the new unofficial bill of rights, i guess the sky is the limit in that case, but that would put me out of business as well as at least 3 dozen other people i know who grow vegetables for a living, and i know im not going to let anyone on my land when i cant use it for much more than grazing my goats and a garden.
Of course, I'm grateful for people who growth other things as after a while I get rather tired of cucumbers and zucchini which seems to be all that grows in my garden :)
Your lucky, we have trouble with a mellon fly, in some areas folks cant get zucchini and squash to grow at all, mother nature is brutal!
squash vine borers got us this year... that and the drought.
thats gross!
Umm, gross as in yuck or gross as in before expenses?
Maximum wages just aren't that popular. Better that we have higher taxes, more fair distribution of wealth, no cutting of services.
Depend if you are the one paying the taxes or the one receiving the services.
We all benefit.
Not if your the one paying higher taxes, how does that benefit me to pay higher taxes, i dont use any government services that directly benefit me.
You don't use the roads? Cops, fire? Sidwalks?
Yes but here in hawaii that is mostly paid for by the county or state through use taxes or land tax or sales tax or the general excise tax i pay the state, i think the feds get enough of my dough to cover my footprint through my income taxes and FET that is tacked on to every single gallon of fuel i buy(3-400 gal a month) and my tires FET is about 8% i believe for roadways. When im already paying 30-40 % of my income you havent got an argument for more.
The reason the 'feds' tax you is because they undertax their rich friends. They have to make up the difference.
Understand the term 'free.' It includes free to be rich as Davey Crockett, as long it is done legally. It is up to we the people to institute the laws to prevent polluting, conning, etc., etc. The answer is to make all of the same opportunities accessible from childhood through grad-school to those willing to avail themselves. That can only be done through good governance because not everyone 'wins the birth lottery'. So, as a people, we need to ensure a level playing field of opportunity and enforce fair play. The hard right's position is to ignore that responsibility of government and focus it mainly on defense and favorable business conditions.
I prefer a progressive tax,. of course the current management of the collected tax is woefully insufficient,. this would need to come with a new democratic model,. where everyone gets a voice,. and true debate takes place on the issues. such as what the pool of money is used for,. .
I would suggest something like;
less than $20,000 tax at 0%
20,000 to 50,000 5%
50,000 to 250,000 10%
250k to 1 million 25%
1 million or more 90% tax
This leaves room for reward, at the high end,. but you rally hit a wall. how much should a person need? Remember, people undertake projects for many reasons and financial compensation need not always be one of them.
Vast wealth should be seen as what it is,. ugly! Wealth worship has been culturally accepted for too long,. When you take, you take away from everyone else. Now play nice with the other kids..,
please, see #3 @ http://superunion.org/m/articles/view/One-Direction
Despite Protests, Cuomo Says He Will Not Extend a Tax Surcharge on Top Earners
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-not-renew-millionaires-tax.html
I see how you said "Provocation" at the top. Mission accomplished!
The key word you use is "earned."
My respect goes out to those who worked so hard to earn their millions. I do NOT respect the millionaires who make millions in pensions off the company they work for whether that company has profits or not. That separates what is big business versus small business.
Why not imagine a World where the OWS protestors get the opportunity to earn more than $100, 000 a year?
You do have the opportunity. What you don't have is someone giving it to you.
Yes, we don't have the connections that the Park Avenue crowd has. This I know, because I am quite familiar with the who you know show.
Connections are one advantage. There are many other advantages, such as being smarter than the average bear, or being physically attractive, or being in the right place at the right time. The secret to success is not to take away advantages until everyone is at the level of the lowest common denominator, but to find your particular talents and advantages and figure out how to use them.
Actually by the time you pay the rent, or mortgage, cable, telephone, high speed internet, groceries, gasoline, insurance, misc expenses, a little for going out or entertaining friends, it would take you about 100 years to save a million dollars,
You would have a miserable world. Thank god you aren't making the rules! I will agree with you if you personally go to lebrons house and tell him your ideas......
If he goes to tell him, I will go along to back him up,. perhaps other will too,. you know the 99%!
Haha, both of you are going to get your asses kicked. OCCUPY LEBRON!
after a google search on lebrons i see he is a godhead of sport
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uqCocIh3_o
Sounds like a pipe dream. Good luck getting every nation on earth to give up their sovereignty.
The problem with our financial system and our form of capitalism is not wealth. The problem is undeserved wealth. A CEO who works at corporation for two years and is fired and walks away with $10 million is an example of what is wrong with the system. A system which rewards failure or over-compensates those who create nothing is the problem.
a symptom not a cause in my mind
Although well intended, this would create profound amounts of poverty. It's a terrible idea.
as opposed to the drought of poverty we see in todays world?
I've earned over 100k for over 10 years and I am far from a millionaire. In fact, I have just started to not sweat when the bills come due. Making 100k with 4 kids that need schooling is not a recipe for being a millionaire. Try living in the real world.
I am in the real world Rael. Work hard, pay tax, getting married eventually, kids planned (prob before marrage), earn less than £14,000 a year (i'm 28), don't own my own house, no savings...
I'm by all acounts stable and happy in my life but live within my means. I live in a double room with my partner in a shared house to be able to persue my/our chosen careers.
$100,000 was just a sugested amount. You might have a bit of an authoratative voice on what a realistic cap would be for the upwardly mobile
I make significantly less than 100k and support my family just fine...your kids don't all need their own bedroom and bathroom, you don't need a mercedes, and those Lattes shouldn't be daily pickups...
I drive a 1993 Honda Civic and drink Lipton tea, but thanks for the assumptions.
I want to know what all you guys are doing for jobs that links your productivity to your earnings? Seriously not a rhetorical question..
Stupidest idea ever. The smartest of us (and those who contribute most to society) would have less incentive to work. And the world would be left to the mediocres.
how much do you earn a year darkhound?
why?
just wandering if you were counting yourself as one of the 'smartest' who 'contribute most'.
The answer is 400k plus. So not at the "1%," but trying my damnedest to get there. I'm probably smarter than at least 70% of the population, but lots of people are smarter than me. I should have instead said "hardest working."
Sorry to say brother but you sound part of the problem for folk such as myself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1806590.stm
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/WhyJoeSixPackCantGetAhead.aspx
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/28/hardest-working-countries-lifestyle-realestate-hardest-working.html
http://www.productivity501.com/6-ways-to-appear-smarter/343/
nice profile name btw enjoy your life
Look at what Bill Gates is doing with his billions, helping mankind, eradicating polio from the world. How can you eradicate Polio on a $100,000 salary?
money doesn't eradicate polio. people eradicate polio.
google "timebank" google "crowd funding"
both ideas are in their infancy
and people need resources to do that. money buys them those resources.
I'm not saying we get rid of money.
no one goes on safari and shouts at the lions "hey get back to work you lazy mules"
"Wealth capping" is a ridiculous straw man send-up of the rather-more-legitimate "wealth taxation." Don't be drawn into defending an absurdity; focus the discussion on the real issue at hand.
Half the worlds problem is the unsustainable growth that occurs out of unlimited wealth. Ridiculus oppulence of the few!
Plus taxation just gives goverment more money and power. Small goverment, sustainable comunities, large hearts!
Whats a straw man?
Capping is a strawman, because A) It'll never happen, regardless of merits, B) it's thoroughly incompatible with capitalism, C) it commonly gets used as a way to waste time while avoiding arguments on the very realistic (but unpleasant for rich folk) policy of taxation. It's also a honeypot -- some people don't realize it's a code-word for communism, and it can be used to either generate naive support for communism, or to unfairly delegitimize those careless enough to give it a "rah rah" on the sustainability grounds you cite.
Taxes work, and work pretty damn well in a capitalism-based economy. Dramatic ecological reforms were achieved in the late 30's and 40's (ending the Dust Bowl) and 70's, no stupid "wealth cap" required, just taxes and regulations. However, we've dramatically slashed taxation and financial regulation in the last 30 years, so we're not seeing the benefits right now. We're on a crazy course because money is way too fluid, fiscal policy is out-of-control. The answer is timeless -- tighter regulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8gQfGEvsc
I think they would M2C, the guy who first invented the wheel wasn't punching the clock was he? Innovation is often hindered by money interests. Just look at the pharmaceutical industry where research on promising drugs is shelved because there is conflict of interest with another drug on the market.
To give you a sense of where I am coming from professionally; I have 5 jobs.
The guy who invented the wheel did so because it was in his own self-interest to do so.
Exactly, it performed a desired function that has since benefited all. I wander if there were wars fought over wheel technology in the beginning? Or do you think he nobly shared his new technology? Guess we will never know.
It's not like he was sat in his cave going - i really like cherries but eat them as fast as I pick them. What can invent to get me more cherries??? I know the wheel!
Cart before the horse, no?
Maybe I'm completely wrong though. Either way a wheel is not a currency.
Steve Jobs at Apple made Billions, do you apple users think he's evil too?
We basically do this sort of thing to our military. The captain of an aircraft carrier doesn't make a huge amount more than six figures yet that captain is in charge of around 5000 people when the carrier is at sea, is responsible for a billion dollar asset, and a daily budget of around a million dollars. He can command his sailors to fight to the death. What CEO of a private corporation would work for this kind of pay given a similar level of responsibility. The Commanding Officer does it to serve his country, for the knowledge of a job well done and the challenge. Although I think $100,000 is too low, our private sector CEO's could learn something from this kind of dedication.
As it stands today a multinational corporation CEO has no loyalty to the United States. I think it is a myth that they do since they seem to have no problem moving production offshore. They have no problem lining their own pockets. I think they are only concerned with the all mighty dollar and lining their own pockets with that money. Perhaps if we limited their ability to earn money they would think about other things - like running their company for the best interests of the country.
The argument will be made they will just leave the United States and go to a country that allows unlimited accumulation of wealth. We should be careful to not let that trend continue or nation states will eventually be unable to control multinational companies who are beholden to nothing but profit and will move elsewhere if they feel limited by having to respect human values. I suggest an international treaty be negotiated with the major economic powers limiting CEO pay and coordinating governmental control of corporations that are increasingly hard to control by any nation state. If we don't nations will become increasingly irrelevant as they loose control over multinational corporations who will eventually be so big and powerful it will become impossible to do anything to control them.
$100,000 was an arbitrary sum I added to spark debate. I agree it would be the job of economists to set a realistic number that promotes fairness and discourages corruption and greed whilst keeping the markets sustainable and well oiled.
Again it would have to be a universal law or else it doesn't work. Perhaps we could leave one country out of the agreement so that we can get rid of all the greedy people when they flee. Being playful of course ; )
No, it would simply impose a foolish ceiling and revalue worth.
So, minimum wage would be revalued at about .65/hour and the average yearly salary would be around $10,000
Trying to legislate this type of nonsense will never have the impacts you believe.
I don't believe that to be the case at all. In fact we would have a multi layered economy as a result. Money was created to perform a function not keep us shackled to the bee hive.
Before money trade was either done by direct transaction (bag of salt 4 bag of flour) or verbal contract (fix my roof now and I will make you a table later). As civilisation developed many currencies came into existence that were often protected by some kind of military might...
The point is that Money as we know it today is dogmatic, self serving (in the literal sense (look up - meme)) and outdated. Our new communications technology has revolutionised how we are able to think about trade.
I can't imagine a world without money but I can't understand why it has such a deathly grip of dominance in the 21st century?
It is a means to an end - is all. It's only value is it's convenience of use. It has been given too much freedom on humankind.
We need to change our relationship with money.
That means a change on a metaphysical level, man.
You can't enact that type of massive change without change in our current thought paradigm. While possible, it is highly unlikely.
deffo!
In NY, after taxes, it would put every family of four or more on the poverty level. Poverty (I've been there) promotes wealth.
No offense but ideas like this is why the movement gets laughed at - and deservedly so. Who would pursue a career whose demand would justify more than 100k a year if that was the limit? No one.
No venture capitalists - good by rapid innovation. Good bye good CEO's willing to put in 100 hours a week or more. Good bye underwater welders. Good bye many forms of IT contractor. Good bye specialized doctors.
Did you ever stop to think of the consequences of what you're proposing?
This makes perfect sense if your goal in life is to sleep on the streets in a sleeping bag.... oh, wait....
Stupid Idea to cap wealth then it becomes a class warfare
Would love to know how this works? I would have thought the opposite is true
Guarantee you a conservatives use that as bait to hustle the base its code word for take by force. Capping wealth is pointless it means punishing success most know that is instinctively wrong.
You cannot put a cap on greed. Get rid of money and you will not have to cap anything. wake up. Money is the root of all evil.
so you want to go back to being a cave man?
no I am an intelligent human being: are you a cave man? If you are: stay in your cave and stare at shadows on the wall and do not turn around and see the sunlight... If you do not understand what I told you: read Plato... he predicted people like you would regress to cave men over 2,500 years ago
Turak, what would replace money? Money is a document of exchange. An instrument by which to trade. The problem is not money, the problem is debt, and those who are the creditors of that debt.
In effect there is more debt in the world today than money in circulation. The result of this means that an endless stream of money must be flushed into the system to plug the debt black hole, but just like a black hole can never be plugged so too - the world debt can never be paid.
if we think of money as a promissory note (for whatever promise you care to think of) then there are more promises out there in the world than possible hours for mankind to pay off in a lifetime.
money is an instrument with unlimited value potential. In america $1 buys a loaf of bread. In Malaysia $1 buys a weeks work.
Look at Switzerland for example. A country who are desperately trying to devalue their currency (the swiss franc) because it has such a high rate of exchange. great for export not so great for import. and they import a lot of stuff!
The monitory system we have today is heavily based on perceived value or speculative value. Those in financial institutions are able to influence these values with disastrous results e.g. house prices
I'm by no means an expert but I do have a burning interest in economics as does everyone else on this forum i'm sure.
Trying to define what money is in the modern world is like trying to find a black cat in a dark room with a blindfold on. We can't just think of it as paper anymore. There are not enough paper $'s to cover the digital $'s in the system. However each dollar, physical or digital equates to a tacit contract of exchange. A promise to pay. It is the language of trade...
I feel like I'm blabbing a bit now so i'm gonna rest
first: you failed the teat. You are not educated. You never read PLato. Second: you are babbling about nothing. Get rid of money. Money is the root of all evil. Are you deaf? Replacing money with something else that is not human is replacing one evil with another> Just like replacing the Kaiser in Germany who started the 1st World War was replaced by Hitler who started the SECOND World War. Humans are still too stupid to realize they need to get rid of ALL their leaders: forever. Just like you need to get rid of money forever. People like you are BRAINWASHED. People like you are DEAF. Everything I tell you goes in one ear and out the other
This is just stupid. Pure and simple. Promoting mediocrity is the last thing anyone should advocate. The idea that "no man should achieve beyond another" is absurd! If you want to regulate something, regulate the manner in which some of the millionaires are making their money, but don't prevent anyone from reaping the benefits of their labor.
Raping the benefits of their labor is the current system. I see your point..but you fail to see the real problem...maybe you should put more thought into the free market setup.
Theres so much money in the pot, as corporations grow the can easily stomp out competition by price. As you are left with few surviving corparations at the top...the people who own them stack money and make more investments. Well, as these few people(1%) get richer...the pot left for the other (99%) gets smaller and smaller.
So your view would simply put us back in the same situation, how does that help? What would make this system fair, it seems to be a good system for short term, but a big error in long term.
Do you agree that 1% of the population deserves to rob wealth from everyone else, you may call it earning, but they still end up with it all the money. Its simple....as they stack more money, increase wealth, there is less wealth in circulation for everyone else.
Most americans think there doing good because they maske $60,000 a year. Well these peoples class starts at 10 million a year, and do less work for it than you do.
They say the average american only makes $40,000 a year... but thats an average of all people...including the 1%, well the 1%'s wealth jacks the average up real high. The true average pay is less than $25,000 a year.
The money cap idea would not work because of many issues. The only reason a utopia type system of equal wealth won't work is because alot people don't think we can all work together as a whole to allow everyone and humanity to progress foward. Its the way to go for sure, if the majority of people are ready for it. But mainly this greed of self stands in the way. People don't know this system will faiol...thery speculate. They say there is not enough wealth for all, but thats bull shit....theres not enough wealth so people live like kings never having to do anything but collect money, but i say fuck the people who think others should suffer so they can be rich. I hope no one with that type of personality acts like they praise God. For God promotes equality, not selfishness.
Yeah, I'm not religious myself but I do remember Jesus saying (paraphrase)
It will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven.
We need to live smaller and within our means. James Simons is worth $1.5 Billion. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0521/102.html
If he were to work on minimum wage NYC $7.25 ph for 40 hours a week. 2 weeks holiday (because he works so damn hard)
Lets just say he was working at McDonalds
it would take him 103,448,276 years to earn his wealth.
Lets just say that with new developments in life extension this were possible. James Simons would be looking at a pretty late retirement!
Your basic problem is that your premise is wrong. You seem to believe that wealth is a zero-sum game, meaning there is a set amount of wealth and so if one person gets some, they have necessarily taken it from someone else. This is patently, demonstrably false. This should be obvious with a moment's thought. If there is only so much pie and new pie cannot be created, then how did humans ever get beyond living in caves?
Very well said!
You can't come up with a good argument so now you've resoted to calling it stupid. I don't think we should all be paid the same wage, but I would be in favor of putting some cap on total compensation. Based on the following survey, the majority of OWS supporters agree with me.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OWSMessage
The problem isn't a high number for total compensation. The problem is exploitation and greed.
When the appendix is about to burst, you wouldn't operate on the lungs, would you?
First, your survey is voluntary and not even twenty people got through to the end of it, which automatically invalidates it.
The idea is stupid. It's stupid because the idea that "no man should achieve beyond another" represents the epitome of envy, which is a disgusting and resentful emotion. The problem isn't that the rich are rich, it's that you are unhappy that they are rich, because your self image is threatened by not having what you consider important, i.e. wealth, fame, toys, gadgets, etc. Instead of living within your means, you lash out because you're envious of the things you want, not that you need. I think a better solution would be for all that support such envious proposals, to look within yourselves and discover that the problem is that you just aren't happy with yourself, decide to change, and be happy with where you are, for your the friends you have, and that you have a roof over your head, food in your mouths, and clothes on your back. That's much more than millions of children around the world have right now. Be thankful.
Great idea, sounds like something the great Kim-Jong Il would do!
What a bland world knowing that I could never be more successful than x. North Korea here we come...
Oh Puleeeze! I people come up with innovations etc. to become rich that's it kill incentive and you kill innocation pure and simple, why do you think the soviet union failed? and don't bring in china into the equation, china copies innovation and uses it's underpaid people to produce stuff that CAPITALIST countries invent cheaply.
Oh Puleeeze! I people come up with innovations etc. to become rich that's it kill incentive and you kill innocation pure and simple, why do you think the soviet union failed? and don't bring in china into the equation, china copies innovation and uses it's underpaid people to produce stuff that CAPITALIST countries invent cheaply.
Nonsense! I look like a gargoyle. If you cap my income potential, I will never land a good looking woman. Did I mention that I have the charm of a snake?
People have such a poor understanding of money and economics, it's sad.
Who would supply the food you eat, double grade chia tea you drink, heat the home you live in, deal with the waste you generate, take care of you when you're sick, make the drugs you take to cure your sickness, etc. Life is not fair. It's the law of nature...Come on, snap out of this dream you're in, wake up and smell the money!!!
most people in these systems earn less than the proposed $100,000. But hey in the interest of debate, what would be enough for a man to earn a year?
"what would be enough for a man to earn a year?"
As much as his potential allows.
Why the need/desire to set some arbitrary limit on what is earned? You do realize that limiting earning potential will only stifle innovation, right? What is it that you think drove/drives all of the great innovators in history?
Give me one quote from an innovator/inventor in history that said explicitly or in a round about way that they did what they did because it made them rich. Find some quotes please..
Care to answer my question first?
"Why the need/desire to set some arbitrary limit on what is earned?"
As for you request for quotes, do you think Steve Jobs created Apple for the "betterment of mankind and that profit was simply a byproduct of that altruistic effort"?
What about the Venture Capitalists that provided the much needed seed money? What of their motivations?
Ok, I'll try as best possible to paint a picture off whats going on in my head surrounding this.
Companies should not be deemed legal persons in law. Venture capital would I imagine be a growth sector in be not-for-profit organisations. any personal earnings above the proposed cap would take the form of tax towards what would be a diminished/small government.
My question is how do we design a system that does not hold us at knife point towards a drive to highest profit and instead towards steady growth and accountability to any facet of community/environment that such a venture of business is part of.
You remove the profit motive from venture capital, and you remove venture capital altogether. No one of sound mind would RISK their hard earned money when the return is artificially capped, they will simply take their money elsewhere and invest in companies with a more "investment friendly" environment.
I think you are confusing "greed" and "unscrupulous people". Greed in and of it self is not bad. It is simply an expression of what motivates each and every one of us...Self Interest.
Some may have self interest in building computers and uses that self interest to create the worlds largest computer company (by market cap). That is not bad, not even with Steve Jobs earning billions of dollars (for himself and himself alone) in his lifetime.
Apple earns ~21% profit, compared with the "greedy" oil companies earning ~5%. So who is greedy again?
I would say that "greed" is not bad. Apple is earning a good return for their investors. If people were not willing to pay the price asked for their products, they would not make that amount of profit. Think of all the people that Apple has employed, employs and will employ. Think of the impact those people (the employees and investors in Apple) have in their communities. Is that greed still bad?
If you will allow me to comment on a snippet what you have written (thanks for keeping this polite btw): "My question is how do we design a system that does not hold us at knife point..."
Any system you attempt to design will have an inherent flaw from the outset and any abstraction on that system will only add to the weakness of that flaw...
Humans.
This drive to control by force (dictating how much can be earned), is an extremely dangerous proposition. History has shown time and again, that any system, regardless of it's original intent, if vested with power to compel by force, will be corrupted and turn against the people.
I have an interesting snippet regarding the nature and root of money that I think you may find interesting. It is too long to post here, but if you are interested PM me (and indicate as such here so I will know to check) and will happily send it to you.
pm'd
Apple are pretty special
replied...
what about Apple's profit margin in relation to that of oil companies (which are demonized for their supposed "greedy" profits)?
Have you ever noticed that when people complain about oil company profits, it is always in absolute dollars and not as a percentage return on capital investment (i.e. 5% versus $X number of billions)
there are lots of things going on here:
firstly apple are high priced products that sell little compared to oil which is low price and sells in massive quantities. the profit margins of oil can afford to be low.
secondly in the case of the oil companies they are selling a limited resource which they are tasked with;
finding buying/contracting the land digging up the oil refining shipping selling
Apple don't own the furnaces that extract the aluminium out of the rock for their cases
Third is, isn't Apple greedy? They fix their prices on hardware knowing that component prices will shrink in time. They take more than their lions share on iTunes.
They are hardly Linux or laptop.org or even Spotify.
Apple are in the business of selling the idea of Apple They are a brand, they give free stickers with every hardware purchase..
Oil companies have to face the very sobering reality that their business is limited and on the decline in terms of resource. competition is stiff and the regions they occupy unstable. As much as they try to manage their image/brand the main priority is keeping profits as high as possible.
Both apple and Exxon are guilty of not passing on their savings to the customer. They are both fixing prices to their own gain.
To your first and second points, the relative cost per unit of the industries can not be easily compared. Oil is very heavily regulated, with special emphasis being placed on the retail cost per unit (per gallon/liter at the pump), where as there is not much government oversight on the cost per unit for a computer manufacturer, the government has simply let the market forces govern how much a manufacturer charges...and apparently Apple users are willing to pay more.
"both fixing prices to their own gain"
How are they fixing prices? Either the market is willing to pay the price they ask (especially in the case of Apple) or they are not. If enough potential Apple customers were not willing to pay what they ask, the cost for an Apple product would be reduced.
In the case of oil, if they were colluding to over-charge, Congress (Parliament) would be more than happy to investigate and prosecute them for their monopolistic tactics. Imagine the good press a Congressman (or in your case an MP) would receive if they made the case that oil companies were conspiring to inflate profits by overcharging...
In point of fact, here in the U.S., the government makes more money off of the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil industry does.
What a loser mentality. I'll never make it so screw everyone else. Boo whoo.
A sustainable, humanistic mentality. FObama what is you definition of making it - is there an end goal for you? And what happens when you reach that end goal? Is life then over - is the game won?
each day we are collectively making it, and at the end of that day we have all made it, and that should be applauded.
As George Carlin said "it's called the american dream because you have to be asleep to believe it"
He is a comedian. It made people laugh. This is not funny..
Start the war against Injustice by starting our own banks to double the income of the Bottom 90% of Workers, for many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 1% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves, and thus doubling our income from Bank Profits which are 40% of all Corporate Profits; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategically_weighted_policies_organizational_operating_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress, and related “new” Businesses, replacing the "old" Congress, and related “old” Businesses, according to your current Occupations & Generations, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet, a political opportunist; what's important is the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing Power & Group Investment Power. In this, sequence is key, and if the correct mathematical sequence is followed then it results in doubling the income of the Bottom 90% of Workers from today's Bank Profits, which are 40% of all Corporate Profits.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 1% Management System of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupations & Generations.
So please JOIN the 2nd link, and spread the word to as many as possible, so we can make 100,000 support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your current Occupation & Generation.
we don't need a cap on wealth, we don't need the wealthy to pay any more than their fair share. what we do need is to change the rules that allow the "privilaged few" to accumulate vast wealth while "common" people struggle to survive.
and people say I have wishful thinking...
Based on my survey, putting a cap on total compensation is supported by the Occupy Wall Street movement, but not heavily supported.
33.3% strongly support it, 23.5% somewhat support it.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N
As a non American can I get some clarification on what Total Compensation is? great survey btw
Thanks! The reason I use the term "Total Compensation" is that many executives get the majority of their money from stock options and bonuses. Salary is a small component of their total compensation.
The idea to put a cap on wealth is good. The modalities can be different from place to place. It is the principle that have to make its way for being accepted. There should be a cap to greed. You can't leave a person accumulate wealth without restrain. Incentives can be there also with a wealth cap in the form of non monetary benefits for those who really are making a contribution to society and not just sucking its vital sap. I saw that the idea of a wealth cap is taking a good ground in Copenhagen. It will spread. Sure it will ...
Why do you idiots associate wealth with greed?
Most people dont generally think of wealth as greed, but our government and media present money in that way. Look how media and society portray the "good life". The more money you have, the more power you have and majority of the time both equal greed.
Better than putting limits on wealth, find a fair way to tax it. Tax most of it upon the death of the owner, tax intangible assets such as stocks & other securities. Tax capital gains above a certain amount. Stop giving tax breaks out to the rich while our puny 401Ks and retirement savings plans are looted.
tax most of it upon the death of the owner? So what he earned by hard work and already paid income taxes on is now taxed again? What about his family? They don't deserve to keep it?
Fuck me, let's tax our way to prosperity. Where did you people go to school?
What is the difference between a ceiling and a tax? When we say that a person cannot accumulate more than suppose 5x where x is the minimum wage we define a criteria that consider over-accumulation of wealth not healthy for society and also for the individual. With a tax we transfer the control of a part of wealth from an individual to a group of individuals that suppose to work in the interest of the collectivity. It is a different process which has also to be regulated otherwise it is the government or the government officials that become greedy in the name of "society". Taxes don't curb the main problem that is Greed.
Brilliant! A Cap to Greed!
Tricky prospect, especially in America where there is a notion that unlimited wealth is a part of the American dream. I wonder if this is actually what the founders of the nation actually envisioned though. In some ways, taxes and/or reinvestment incentives should provide a good greed cap--but it is up to governments to create this ethically as well. Sometimes governments treat taxes in the same way private companies treat pricing. Business and governments can be greedy. So we gotta remember to start with ethics and empathy.
Actually the founding faters are probly mumbling wheres me musket, i be taking care o these snivveling brats.
How hard would one have to work to earn this limit? After someone makes $100,000 what is going to keep them working for the rest of that year? What will charities do without major donors?
how about Googles 20% working week, how about crowd funding, how about that great novel inside of you that you always promised you would write even if the only person who ever reads it is you and your great-great-grandchild long after your dead.
OK, so the 1% who have jobs that would allow them to make $100,000 quickly get to pursue their dreams, but those working for minimum wage still have to work as many hours as possible and still never come close to the limit. And how is any business going to be able to grow when those running it only work a few months a year/a few hours a week?
nice to imagine for sure impossible to legislate cant legislate morality or greed impossible to control, as people would work under the table so now that we have a nice idea that doesnt work WWUD?
Who would have believed the stock market would work before it came about? Or hedge funds?
a stock market of sorts have been around for hundreds of years (needed the limited liability company) The phonecians had insurance for their ships
I don't like this solution. While it would rid us of the financial problem, we would become super-nationalistic. This is not a good thing.
Interesting point. Why would the world become more nationalistic?
If there were such a cap, then there would be two reasons to preform hard or challenging jobs.
1) You enjoy such a job.
2) You feel a duty to preform such a job.
I couldn't speculate on the distribution that would arise, but many of those who ended up in the second category would do so out of a duty to the nation.
I suppose that we might not become super-nationalistic, but certainly nationalism as a whole would rise substantially?
nice point
It would decrease inventions, motivation to start new products and services, the economy would crash because thousands of businesses would end that depend on high income earners.
So we can't make a fairer world to protect te likes of Ferrai & Rolex. Does anyone actually need a private jet? This lies at the heart of the issue.
Motivation to work needs to move away from 'bottom line' profit making and to social need and engagment. Over the passed 20 years we ave become a global village and the only way to revert that fact is to kill coms media such as the internet.
People (should) inovate out of necessity, not because they speculate there is a market for a toothbrush tat tells you how handsome you are every morning as you brush. The price for money driven markets is too high.
Basically that's what was done during the 1950's. It was the most prosperous time for middle America in history!
wow thats really interesting, i'll have to look into that. You got any links.
Here is two sites, but you can research and find it anywhere.
http://toomuchonline.org/americas-most-egalitarian-banker/
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf
ta!
As a matter of fact, the cap (or tax rate) is what caused companies to offer employees health ins., dental, vacations, sick time, etc., instead of the higher pay that would be subject to the higher rate. Life was good for everyone!!
except we are trying to reverse this now, and get employers out of the business of providing health care. which they are in do to government intervention as you have mentioned. also as a result of ww2 wage freezes, which is where these benefits actually started. companies lobbied for tax exemptions for benefits while the wage freeze was in place, so that they could compete for talent without raising wages. this exemption still exists today. this marriage between health insurance and employment - and the different way it makes consumers behave - is a big part of our health care problems today.
rather than simply remove this exemption and let a market do its business of correcting this err, a bad idea that grew a result of another bad idea (wage freezes), obamacare has just left this complexity in and is striving to make a health insurance excchange on top of the existing system.
howard dean in a recent debate (intelligence squared on vimeo) commented how the intent is to get small businesses to not pay any for health care, and instead give employees money, and let them shop on the exchange, where it will act as a market. insurance companies will compete for consumers, coverage will be tailored to consumers needs, and consumers will become educated health consumers aware of prices as their premium is tied towards themselves rather than their employer.
so here we have howard dean (democrat, doctor) wanting people shopping for insurance in a market. of course we also have others like ron paul (libertarian republican, doctor) wanting people to do the same thing. why we use the roundabout way of not getting everyone in there and keeping existing complexity via obamacare, i don't know.
Sure corps are trying to reverse it. Cut wages, benefits, etc. for the people, to give execs massive bonuses and stock options. The workers had a lot more to do with the corps making money than the execs. As for the Dems - I have as much faith in them as I do the Thugs - NONE
no the GOVERNMENT is trying to reverse it. basically what i'm saying is the tax exception on wages (moreso than your high tax bracket) is what caused health insurance to be married to employment. and much of the way consumers (mis)behave, and that leads to these out of control prices, has been a result from this marriage. and both the howard dean and ron paul are trying to get that marriage divorced. however i think the howard dean/obamacare way is a lot more clumsy and wasteful.
"The workers had a lot more to do with the corps making money than the execs."
the execs don't care, in regards to whether you have health insurance or not; they seem the price. you either make 60k and they pay 10k for health insurance, or they give you 70k and you go buy it on their own. either way you get 70k. they don't care. the thing that pushed them into the 60/10 situation as i noted before was the tax exemption. if you actually tried this, even today, you wouldn't get 60/10 after taxes. you'd get 60/8. that's why i'm saying the system married the two - nobody would ever take the 60/8.
what? that's not what was done.
Check your history!! http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
this wasn't a cap on wealth, just a strong progressive tax at the top. it certainly wasn't something that caused economic prosperity as you seem to be alluding to, although it did help to pay down our war debt.
the cause for prosperity is pretty simple - we had a huge amount of economic demand. millions of people came home so there was a ton of economic demand. war bonds matured so more money was available. people who had been sacrificing desires for years for the war were finally able to spend on discretionary items and wants. the US still had manufacturing capacity - everyone else was rebuilding theirs because it had been blown to hell.
If taxing everyone 94% over $200k isn't a cap, I don't know what is! It's history. It's a fact however you want to spin it. You're entitled your own opinions; but not your own facts!
you seem to be the one spinning it, by implying there was an association between it and economic growth, which i clearly just pointed out was not the case.
The original point is that there was a cap on wealth. I think I've established that. The second point - the cause for prosperity - can be debated. I clearly did make that implication; as I can clearly see that you disagree. That's OK. We all have our opinions. Basically the problem is massive inequality. For prosperity to endure it needs to be shared. Mass production, demands mass consumption, but people can’t afford to consume if the wealth an economy generates is concentrated at the top. In consequence, as in a poker game, where the chips are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other people can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out, the game stops. When just a few people make most of the money - Everyone loses.
no - it really can't be debated. we had a decade of hugely pent up demand, and we were the only country left in the world that could actually make anything. neither of these are opinions. it is pretty obvious why we had economic growth.
your poker analogy poorly reflects the real world, because there are a static number of poker chips. in the real world there are not. i'm not poor because my rich neighbor took all my money. i can dream up a new widget and if everyone wants it, start selling it and hiring others to make it and everything. i can get rich simply on my idea alone without taking anything from my rich neighbor. your analogy assumes a static amount of wealth. but humans are able to generate new wealth in their interactions.
Are you serious? Geez, get a life.
[Removed]
you seem like a level headed kind of guy yourself
Crazy thinking
Better than putting limits on wealth, find a fair way to tax it. Tax most of it upon the death of the owner, tax intangible assets such as stocks & other securities. Tax capital gains above a certain amount. Stop giving tax breaks out to the rich while our puny 401Ks and retirement savings plans are looted.
Better than putting limits on wealth, find a fair way to tax it. Tax most of it upon the death of the owner, tax intangible assets such as stocks & other securities. Tax capital gains above a certain amount. Stop giving tax breaks out to the rich while our puny 401Ks and retirement savings plans are looted.
Better than putting limits on wealth, find a fair way to tax it. Tax most of it upon the death of the owner, tax intangible assets such as stocks & other securities. Tax capital gains above a certain amount. Stop giving tax breaks out to the rich while our puny 401Ks and retirement savings plans are looted.
100k is too little. I would propose 2 million per year, and a 100 million wealth cap...you may continue to earn after those caps but the additional earnings must be reinserted into society in the form of jobs you create, a school that you support academically, or a primary charity that provides disaster relief directly.
So for example...joe makes 3 million dollars in 2013 after taxes...he must directly reinsert 1 million back in, so he gives 500k to a local eligible school to make sure they fund an extra kindergarten class for the next 5 years (teacher + supplies), 250 k to a local environmental company to clean up and refurbish a city street, and 250k to cancer research....his contributions can remain public, even put his name on the street, but the efforts just provided at least 4 more family supporting jobs and helped numerous people. Imagine if everyone who made over 2 millio were forced to do this? We would live in a utopia, and those who 'earn' that money, no matter how they do it, won't be hurt making 2 million per year, except they can't live to excess with jets and Neverland ranches with child abuse and gambling binges and the Paris Hilton shopping spree idiocies of the world. If everyone could afford to spend middle class money, upscale stores would go out of business, but small businesses would SOAR...
Sorry, but your proposal is just stupid. People should be able to make as much money as they like. They just shouldn't be able to have more political power than anyone else. One person, one vote - not one dollar, one vote. If you punish success, then you create a crushing climate of fear and tyranny. And who would impose such a limit? You? Some other central command structure armed with police and military, who I suspect will not limit themselves?? Your strategy is being used right now in North Korea. When people get too much money in N.K. they readjust the currency, or replace it altogether (like they did in 2009), to push people back down again.
Besides, we live in an technologically advance society, where if the total GDP was shared at the same percentage as it was in 1965, the average American would be making $87,000 today. So where did all this money go? To the rich and their "bonuses", and offshore.
We have the means right now to offer everyone a Basic Guaranteed Income (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income), especially as our society becomes more automated and even more productive (as it has been, despite wage reductions). This means the ideal society you hope for - more leisure time would happen automatically.
I like how you assert success to be = to or related to money! Some of my proudest work achievments were unpaid. Have you ever worked unpaid JohnB?
Of course I have. I do volunteer work all the time. And how nice would it be if everyone had a basic income? Yes, many people will use that to sit around and smoke pot all day, but a good percentage of them will want to do something. Since they won't have to worry about their income, they wont get into crime or any other desperate activity stemming from economic hardship. A basic income would do more for volunterrism than anything the world has ever seen. Just imagine millions planting trees, restoring ecologies, building parks, painting, singing, dancing, artistic creativity of all kinds, going back to school, become more educated, innovating new solutions for our problems, building things. How can you be opposed to this? But to cap people off at a certain point is Maoism - it's been done. 100 million people died.
the guaranteed income also known as BIG seems to be a solution to many problems ...poverty,hunger,it would pretty much replace many programs such as SS,welfare,etc. getting it implemented is the tough part.