Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2012, 01:36 PM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
I just don't know...

There is demand for sports people. Let's cap them then. Now we find that there's demand for computer programmers (me Tongue ) let's cap them too... I can see this easily extending. I agree that sports and music personalities receive a disproportionate salary, but I think salary caps are setting a dangerous precedent? Because once everyone agrees that a baseball player should make a max of X dollars a year, pay tax etc, then it's easy to look at someone else, say a profession like banking and say "yes, let's cap their salary at X"... and that means that to get rich a man will no longer want to be a banker, he'll do something where his salary is not capped. That means the calibre of person you get running your banks goes down, and whatever jobs the more talented people go to, they will eventually have their salaries capped as it seems unfair to everyone.

That's my reasoning. My fear is that any cap on a high profile profession like that will eventually mean a cap on all high salary earners - effectively socialism. Possibly a strawman fear?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 03:05 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 03:23 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  I just don't know...

There is demand for sports people. Let's cap them then. Now we find that there's demand for computer programmers (me Tongue ) let's cap them too... I can see this easily extending. I agree that sports and music personalities receive a disproportionate salary, but I think salary caps are setting a dangerous precedent? Because once everyone agrees that a baseball player should make a max of X dollars a year, pay tax etc, then it's easy to look at someone else, say a profession like banking and say "yes, let's cap their salary at X"... and that means that to get rich a man will no longer want to be a banker, he'll do something where his salary is not capped. That means the calibre of person you get running your banks goes down, and whatever jobs the more talented people go to, they will eventually have their salaries capped as it seems unfair to everyone.

That's my reasoning. My fear is that any cap on a high profile profession like that will eventually mean a cap on all high salary earners - effectively socialism. Possibly a strawman fear?
It's not a strawman fear. It's perfectly legitimate. It's exactly what this thread is about. It's absurd that there are people that would suggest a number of dollars as the most money you can make. Once you limit the amount of money a person can make they will use their skills in other areas that do pay well. But that's not even what I find wrong. I find it just generally wrong to tell someone that they've reached the end of their financial road. How do you even enforce that? And what is considered income? If I'm at the cap, say 1 million a year and hit the lottery, do I not get my lottery winnings? Let's say the jackpot at the casino is 40 million. If I win to I only get the difference between my income and 1 million dollars?


(29-03-2012 01:21 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  My problem is that supply and demand only rewards talent. The jobs that greatly benefit society receive laughable wages, while the biggest and shiniest of the trained monkeys are rewarded with a fortune. Pitching a baseball 110 mph and hitting 100 home runs a season are hard to do and have a high demand, but at the end of the day, nothing you have done as a baseball player has helped the economy or benefited society. Don't try and argue that athletes and actors inspire us and give us hope, because if you need Tom Cruise or Kobe Bryant to motivate you to achieve greatness, then our definition of greatness is terribly skewed.

As for the rest of the posts in the thread, I'm not (I don't know about AntiR) advocating wealth or luxury for the poor. I'm advocating a small step up to keep up with the inflating world. I don't want 20 dollars an hour to work at McDonalds, but would 10-11 dollars be so bad?
Not exactly. Professional sports team support local/state economies tremendously. States like Cali generate billions of dollars in tax revenue from athletics. Businesses around the stadium see their revenue skyrocket when a team comes to town. And it's a great way to unite the community.

And it would be nice to make a few extra bucks where you work. But is 11 dollars still okay if McDonald's has to lay off 2 or 3 other employees in order to pay it? I saw a documentary about the min wage before but I don't recall the name. It focused on a 16 year old girl waiting tables. It discussed how devastating a rise in the min wage would be to small businesses and how people like this girl wouldn't even have a job. Even just a dollar higher could result in massive layoffs all over the country.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 03:17 PM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 11:39 AM)Antirepublican Wrote:  He even misquoted. I don't see the point in that style, sorry.
Whats wrong with making a lucid paragraph that addresses the issue, rather than a dozen snide remarks to a dozen sentences?
Now I'm not Unbeliever so I can only speculate but if someone posts something with many different points it makes sense to address them individually, many forum members do this. It's not rocket science.

Also I'm gonna say that your attitude is terrible. If you want people to take you seriously then it helps if you aren't so rude about everything. You're probably gonna say you don't care what we think but then why are you posting here?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 08:57 PM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  I just don't know...

There is demand for sports people. Let's cap them then. Now we find that there's demand for computer programmers (me Tongue ) let's cap them too... I can see this easily extending. I agree that sports and music personalities receive a disproportionate salary, but I think salary caps are setting a dangerous precedent? Because once everyone agrees that a baseball player should make a max of X dollars a year, pay tax etc, then it's easy to look at someone else, say a profession like banking and say "yes, let's cap their salary at X"... and that means that to get rich a man will no longer want to be a banker, he'll do something where his salary is not capped. That means the calibre of person you get running your banks goes down, and whatever jobs the more talented people go to, they will eventually have their salaries capped as it seems unfair to everyone.

That's my reasoning. My fear is that any cap on a high profile profession like that will eventually mean a cap on all high salary earners - effectively socialism. Possibly a strawman fear?
Why are you talking about capping specific professions? Everyone has been talking about capping income in general, not specific professions. Also, I believe its not an actual cap per say, but an exponentially increasing tax rate based on income.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 10:52 PM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 08:57 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  I just don't know...

There is demand for sports people. Let's cap them then. Now we find that there's demand for computer programmers (me Tongue ) let's cap them too... I can see this easily extending. I agree that sports and music personalities receive a disproportionate salary, but I think salary caps are setting a dangerous precedent? Because once everyone agrees that a baseball player should make a max of X dollars a year, pay tax etc, then it's easy to look at someone else, say a profession like banking and say "yes, let's cap their salary at X"... and that means that to get rich a man will no longer want to be a banker, he'll do something where his salary is not capped. That means the calibre of person you get running your banks goes down, and whatever jobs the more talented people go to, they will eventually have their salaries capped as it seems unfair to everyone.

That's my reasoning. My fear is that any cap on a high profile profession like that will eventually mean a cap on all high salary earners - effectively socialism. Possibly a strawman fear?
Why are you talking about capping specific professions? Everyone has been talking about capping income in general, not specific professions. Also, I believe its not an actual cap per say, but an exponentially increasing tax rate based on income.
Agree that is isn't the topic of discussion, but sports were brought into it and that's kind of where he took it to capping professions... but I would also venture to say that is a false assumption because some sports already do have a cap for how much a player can make. The NBA has been operating with a maximum salary rule for a player signing and it carries some in sport rules or some sort. It doesn't create a problem but it may fluctuate with the yearly income of the league since all the teams work under a fixed salary allotment.

In a normal type of working environment I would expect the types of issues foreseen but I don't think it would be so drastic. Certain large businesses put a cap on peoples salary increases after so many years. Wal-Mart does this of instance, of course there is always the ability to move up to a position of power/managing if one really wants to advance in salary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
30-03-2012, 12:40 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
Also be aware that this whole thread isn't a concept ingrained deep in my belief system, I just happen to be in a situation where I am very aware of poor vs rich because I'm approaching 30, consider myself relatively smart, and still can't afford to even consider having a family because I can barely pay for myself to live.

If you think about it from the perspective of "this person earned what they have so it's unfair to take any of it" it's easy to sympathize with the person over the income cap. But when you consider just how much money one person actually has compared to what one person is capable of spending, it's almost a crime against your fellow man to keep it all for yourself. There are 397 billionaires in this country. If we taxed them all 1 million dollars (only 0.1% of a billion) a year, we would have a 400 million dollar a year fund for those who need it.

And I'm not talking Welfare. Welfare has been branded with a social stigma and needs to be restructured with more strict qualifications or done away with completely.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 01:07 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(30-03-2012 12:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Also be aware that this whole thread isn't a concept ingrained deep in my belief system, I just happen to be in a situation where I am very aware of poor vs rich because I'm approaching 30, consider myself relatively smart, and still can't afford to even consider having a family because I can barely pay for myself to live.
400 million dollars doesn't sound like a lot though, when you consider that every time a politician opens his piehole it seems like the word billions comes out. What about targeting spending at some different things? The billionaires have paid taxes already hey, so already the government has probably got several millions out of each one of them. Sure you can increase the tax rate and squeeze em for some more Smile

Interesting to know that the salary cap has already been tried and worked in one profession at least. Think maybe that's what we need, some real life examples. Makes it easier to extrapolate with confidence.
Yargh, quoted the wrong part of the post, sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 07:43 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(30-03-2012 01:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(30-03-2012 12:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Also be aware that this whole thread isn't a concept ingrained deep in my belief system, I just happen to be in a situation where I am very aware of poor vs rich because I'm approaching 30, consider myself relatively smart, and still can't afford to even consider having a family because I can barely pay for myself to live.
400 million dollars doesn't sound like a lot though, when you consider that every time a politician opens his piehole it seems like the word billions comes out. What about targeting spending at some different things? The billionaires have paid taxes already hey, so already the government has probably got several millions out of each one of them. Sure you can increase the tax rate and squeeze em for some more Smile

Interesting to know that the salary cap has already been tried and worked in one profession at least. Think maybe that's what we need, some real life examples. Makes it easier to extrapolate with confidence.
Yargh, quoted the wrong part of the post, sorry.
Correct. Billionaires have already paid their taxes. Not quite enough perhaps given the 15% capital gains (Mitt Romney should not pay a lower tax rate than his accountant) tax but they still pay in 1 year more than most will pay in a lifetime. Most billionaires don't really have a billion in liquid assets though. But if someone did make a billion in capital gains they would pay roughly 150,000,000 dollars in taxes. Just say that number out loud and then realize how ridiculous it is. That 150 million pays tax returns to people who pay no fed income tax at all. Billionaires don't get tax returns.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 12:34 PM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(30-03-2012 07:43 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(30-03-2012 01:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  400 million dollars doesn't sound like a lot though, when you consider that every time a politician opens his piehole it seems like the word billions comes out. What about targeting spending at some different things? The billionaires have paid taxes already hey, so already the government has probably got several millions out of each one of them. Sure you can increase the tax rate and squeeze em for some more Smile

Interesting to know that the salary cap has already been tried and worked in one profession at least. Think maybe that's what we need, some real life examples. Makes it easier to extrapolate with confidence.
Yargh, quoted the wrong part of the post, sorry.
Correct. Billionaires have already paid their taxes. Not quite enough perhaps given the 15% capital gains (Mitt Romney should not pay a lower tax rate than his accountant) tax but they still pay in 1 year more than most will pay in a lifetime. Most billionaires don't really have a billion in liquid assets though. But if someone did make a billion in capital gains they would pay roughly 150,000,000 dollars in taxes. Just say that number out loud and then realize how ridiculous it is. That 150 million pays tax returns to people who pay no fed income tax at all. Billionaires don't get tax returns.
Why would you even add, "but they still pay in 1 year more than most will pay in a lifetime..." That makes no sense. You had a great point til you duck taped that pile of shit there on the end.

A more fitting ending would have been discussing why they should pay less % wise than average Americans, who actually need their money.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 12:44 PM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(30-03-2012 12:34 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  Why would you even add, "but they still pay in 1 year more than most will pay in a lifetime..." That makes no sense. You had a great point til you duck taped that pile of shit there on the end.

A more fitting ending would have been discussing why they should pay less % wise than average Americans, who actually need their money.
Because they do.

And I'm in favor of a progressive tax code that taxes cap gains just like any other income. Rich people make more use of infrastructure in many cases and should pay for it.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: