Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why not a Maximum wage?

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 16, 2011, 12:42 p.m. EST by stevenmia (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Or at least tax anything over 500K per household at 40% or more as Australia does, especially if a person works for a public corporation. If they work for themselves and actually are responsible for providing jobs to otheres tax them less.

Steve Hagen, Miami

13 Comments

13 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by booshington (397) 13 years ago

We used to tax the rich here at a rate near 90% and during those times life was really nice for the middle class.

[-] 1 points by poll (1) 13 years ago

So everyone here just wants the rich to gtfo? theres a reason some of them are rich: because they know how to run a business. Do we want all of the people who are actually good at stimulating the economy to leave?

[-] 1 points by Karen (4) 13 years ago

I actually think a maximum wage is a good idea. Of course it would be very high, say $25,000,000 a year. After that the money would go into a general fund to help provide a basic standard of living for all people. Now I know we don't live in a world where this could actually happen yet, but hey, I can dream right?

[-] 1 points by justwantanaccount (68) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 13 years ago

Human nature. Do you like taxes? No one likes taxes.

[-] 1 points by Karen (4) 13 years ago

But you like living in a civilized society with roads and infrastructure, schools and parks, firemen and policemen. That stuff ain't free.

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

Steve, at the most basic level, an individual has freedom. Freedom. You don't create a maximum wage because it is wrong. Of course there are economic reasons for not doing so, such as 'there would be no incentive to take risk.'

But at the very most basic level, it is WRONG. And OWS claims to be about freedom but we all know better. This is a group of people who is mad and wants to take it out on good men and women.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

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 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 for having made the EFFORT to acquire that Knowledge Power, but this is only true of your 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). So, what's your next question?

For more info, join: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems

[-] 1 points by rulesdontapply (27) 13 years ago

Why not a Maximum wage?

Who are we to tell people how much such they make? It's one thing to use the state to help you rich, but if you make it on your own, what's wrong with that?

If they work for themselves and actually are responsible for providing jobs to otheres tax them less.

By what means are we able to measure that?

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 13 years ago

the top 10% make about $360k or above and pay on average 30% of their income and provide about 1/2 the taxes collected by the government. How much should they pay? if paying 100% were the answer, that would have worked a long time ago (just ask Russia and Cuba)

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

Do you really group someone making $500K per year in the same category as one making $10M per year.

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 13 years ago

we could argue for a new tax bracket at the $5mm or $10mm and above. if you look back at marginal tax rates (indexed to real dollars) we had 90% tax rates above the ~$6mm level (in todays dollars)