- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Gee, you're not a black helicopter nut, are you?

Posted by: MDG on January 19, 19100 at 23:21:39:

In Reply to: Just take a cut posted by Gee on January 19, 19100 at 11:46:23:

: : Why not round trip? Oh, you mean all the rich dudes will flee to Switzerland, etc. Maybe, but I'm guessing there's more reasons for the wealthy to stay in the U.S. besides money. Stability, for example.

: So your hold on them is their families, their love of their hometowns etc - bit like a kidnappers ransom?

No one is innocent. Seriously, though, societies impose responsibilities and restrictions on their members in return for shared benefits, and until we evolve into a race of beings capable of living without any government whatsoever, that will continue to be the case, and in my scenario, those who wish to dwell within our shores shall find their annual wealth accumulations limited to 5 mil. Is that really so hard to live with?

: : Oh ye of little faith, are you really that cynical? Just in case you're right, we'll take the extra tax dollars generated by the max wage and give it to government health researchers -- civil servants who definitely are not in it for the money.

: We saw below why the 'extra' dollars wont be there, you're probably right about civil 'servants' though - they're after power and they mean to get it.

Gee, you surprise me. That's the kind of, well...misinformed assertion I'd expect from wild-eyed anti-gummint types still hunkered down in their Y2K shelters eating spam. Civil servants are not after power, at least not in general. Believe it or not, they take jobs in the public sector out of a desire to serve others -- while also making a good living. Power seekers seek power all over the place, public, private, crime; don't tar a whole group, please. Futhermore, the average civil servant has about as much power as a rusty AAA battery circa 1970.

: : That may happen too, and that may be a downside. I never said the maximum wage would not have downsides, but I believe the upsides outweigh them.

: I'm afraid you'd have no cash to play with if people stopped making it.

While you indeed might be right, I find it hard to believe that just because J. Moneybags III decides to cut and run rather than live a life a poverty on only $5 million/year, someone less, er, greedy wouldn't step in to fill the void. There's plenty of money -- let's spread it around, eh?

: : No MDG - its a silly thing.

: : Love?

: Eh?

Nevermind. Actually, I was wrong. Love is a many splendored thing. Love SONGS are silly.

: :and how little those earnings will become when they see that they can no longer choose what to do with it - so why bother earning it (and no, zero sum fans, this does *not* leave more for others)

: ; I put the max wage at $5 million as an incentive for people to work hard to get rich, if that's what they want. With a max wage in effect, it might be that much harder for people to make $5 million, especially if it's coupled with a higher minimum wage.

: You don't seem to see what you're saying - making it harder for everyone is not going to make them more productive now is it?

: : Hmmm, you might be right there, Gee. Again, I think we need some think tank eggheads to prognosticate on the long term effects of the max wage, including taking into account decreased production that you posit. If it turns out -- after careful study -- it's a bad idea, I'll renounce it faster than a pro-choice Republican in a South Carolina primary.

: I think you'd find it is a bad idea. If people wanted tax money for goodies then the best thing to do is to completely unleash earning power and just steal a cut, rather than regulate everything.

I'm open to alternatives to the max wage. How about a progressive income tax, with the top bracket at 90%?

: :: I wasnt rude.

: : You disagreed with me! That's what I meant by "don't be rude." Ah well, I suppose I need thicker skin.

: Oops! Sorry.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup