Should the U.S. Have a Maximum Income?

[DominionSeraph]

income is an incentive to do work. if you cap income, you cap incentive. very counterproductive.

Having someone earn so much in a year that they're set for life to a ridiculous degree also takes away incentive.

$5 million a year means an incentive to keep on working -- there are expensive toys out there.
$50 million a year with a $50 million golden parachute, though? To hell with working -- just coast for a year, take your $100 million and retire.

 

[RampantAndroid]

$5 million a year means an incentive to keep on working -- there are expensive toys out there.
$50 million a year with a $50 million golden parachute, though? To hell with working -- just coast for a year, take your $100 million and retire.

Which is why Bill Gates kept going? And is now putting TONS of money into charity?

 

[Anarchist420]

No govt floors or ceilings on anything.

Even max wage laws wouldn't offset the unemployment fx from the min wage. Nazi Germany had max wage laws.

In any event Hollande is retarded if he is really trying to get the french govt more revenue.

 

[Matt1970]

Having someone earn so much in a year that they're set for life to a ridiculous degree also takes away incentive.

$5 million a year means an incentive to keep on working -- there are expensive toys out there.
$50 million a year with a $50 million golden parachute, though? To hell with working -- just coast for a year, take your $100 million and retire.

Well if you are a lazy ass maybe.....

 

[CPA]

If there's a minimum I don't see any reason why not? IMO I believe minimum and maximum wages are unconstitutional so whatevers.

This. It would be hilarious to hear the arguments for what the maximum should be. I could easily imagine an auction-style argument on the floor of the House.

 

[gorcorps]

Why punish the successful? They won life, quit being so jealous.

 

[sactoking]

After all, it's practically all CEOs and financiers up there, anyway. America's top 0.1% -- that's annual income of at least $1.7 million -- comprises 43 percent executives, managers, and supervisors at companies that aren't banks and 18 percent were financiers.

The rest are lawyers (7 percent), doctors (6 percent), or in real estate (4 percent), according to Tim Noah.

Emphasis added. If that's "the rest" what the hell happened to the other 22%? Oh that's right, nearly 1 in 4 super-high-income individual is a self-made small business owner. Author just conveniently forgot them because they don't make good villains.

 

[HeXen]

all american's are rich imo. Even the bums eat better than many poor in other countries. We have near instant access to anything, from the wealthy to the poor, were fat and lazy. Now that's rich.

 

[XZeroII]

Yes! No one should make more than $10/week and everyone should live in mud huts.

Anyone who amasses more than $100 total should be burned as a witch.

 

[Doppel]

Yes, the country would be so better off if they left.

Why can't you put your commentary in the first post?

 

[MrMuppet]

It's a brilliant idea.

If the rich appear less rich, the poor won't appear as poor or notice how poor they really are. :thumbsup:

 

[blankslate]

Hell no.

A top marginal tax rate of 50% on income earned over $5million per year and making stock option "income" taxable.
Well, that's a different story.

 

[ArizonaSteve]

1. Tax all capital gains at the same rates as income.
2. Remove ALL loopholes/incentives from the tax code.
3. Create additional tax bands at $1m, $5m, $25m etc.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hell no.

A top marginal tax rate of 50% on income earned over $5million per year and making stock option "income" taxable.
Well, that's a different story.

Now that is a reasonable approach.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

a cap on welfare and public assistance would be more logical.

And how exactly would you manage this cap?

 

[cybrsage]

8-10-2012

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-maximum-income-no-184218761.html

Should the U.S. Have a Maximum Income?


But for the super-rich, it certainly sends a clear message: Don't work so hard. And if you want to work hard, do it some place else.

Your last two sentences shows why it is a bad idea.

 

[cybrsage]

all american's are rich imo. Even the bums eat better than many poor in other countries. We have near instant access to anything, from the wealthy to the poor, were fat and lazy. Now that's rich.

I believe it is dm's desire to make our nation as poor as the rest of the world.

 

[cybrsage]

1. Tax all capital gains at the same rates as income.
2. Remove ALL loopholes/incentives from the tax code.
3. Create additional tax bands at $1m, $5m, $25m etc.

Including the child deduction, the daycare deduction, standard deduction, and personal deductions?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Which is why Bill Gates kept going? And is now putting TONS of money into charity?

He's still running MS? Interesting....

 

[blankslate]

He's still running MS? Interesting....

I'm fairly sure that he is still on the board even though he has stepped down as CEO.

I wouldn't be surprised if current CEO Steve Ballmer still has regular contact with Bill Gates, even if he left the board as well however.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

He's still running MS? Interesting....

He is still the Chairmen of MS despite stepping down from running day to day operations.

 

[RampantAndroid]

He is still the Chairmen of MS despite stepping down from running day to day operations.

This. Also, I said "kept going" not "is still going" - I used the correct tense. He is still somewhat involved, but my point was rather "he didn't just stop in say 1994" - he kept investing in the company, most of his wealth was MS stock. Same with Ballmer until recently, IIRC. By investing in the company, he helped EXPAND the company, and regardless of your thoughts on MS, the company has a massive number of employees and is a MAJOR reason that Seattle is actually doing well. Without MS, Seattle would have collapsed. He's now turning that wealth around and attacking issues like running water and living conditions in third world countries - he's not just "giving aid" but rather attempting to find real solutions (I am staunchly against just sending food or money to third world countries. I'd rather just give them some lessons on how to plant crops, some equipment for crops and some seeds. Make them self sufficient, not dependent.)

Either way, a ceiling on how much someone can earn is about the dumbest idea that I'd ever heard of. And as others have pointed out, you cannot just say "don't like it then leave" - because you're telling the richest wealthiest people in the US to take their wealth and leave. That leaves this nation poor. Further, increasing taxing on earnings is what causes people and companies to move their assets OUTSIDE the US. And I don't blame them. To once again look at MS, they employ what, 100k people? More? If you cap their income, you will cause them to have MASSIVE layoffs during economic downturns.

 

[a777pilot]

1. Tax all capital gains at the same rates as income.
2. Remove ALL loopholes/incentives from the tax code.
3. Create additional tax bands at $1m, $5m, $25m etc.

I have a much better idea. Don't tax income at all.

 

[xj0hnx]

To play devil's advocate here, a disincentive to work in some cases isn't a bad thing. Work enough to live comfortably (in this case to live like a king) and leave some work for the rest of us schmucks. We already see this to an extent with Social Security as the elderly can retire despite being able to work while younger generations take their place in the workforce. You also have another similar situation in the 40-hour work week. Sure, people have the incentive to work more if they are able, but applying a disincentive for companies to allow this lets others become gainfully employed. In either case, the effect is similar. The net effect to society at large can be positive.

You think what? They are going to hire two or three CEO's because one can only earn so much?

 

[MovingTarget]

You think what? They are going to hire two or three CEO's because one can only earn so much?

No, but limiting CEO pay does free up funds to hire more workers...just not necessarily for the same job. If you accept that businesses will hire more workers when they can afford to (say, when businesses are given more tax breaks), then that result follows along the same line of thinking. Its BS, I know, but thats trickle-down economics for you. Besides, you can still also argue that when levels of pay are high enough, the incentive to work goes down along with the marginal utility of money.

I wasn't trying to say that I think a maximum wage is a good idea. I was playing devil's advocate to state that there are things in the "pro" column for such a policy.