Should the U.S. Have a Maximum Income?

[MooseNSquirrel]

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

So that would be no.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

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.

I appreciate your argument but I would rather not bet a positive outcome on the hopes that the super-wealthy are all going to turn out like Bill Gates.

Id rather bet my money on a system than hoping Jesus comes along to save the poor.

 

[1prophet]

I appreciate your argument but I would rather not bet a positive outcome on the hopes that the super-wealthy are all going to turn out like Bill Gates.

Id rather bet my money on a system than hoping Jesus comes along to save the poor.

Then you will lose that bet since a system is only as good as the people behind it, and eventually they all fail do to corruption, greed, and selfishness.

 

[1prophet]

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.)

The reason that people in 3rd world countries aren't self-sufficient is because the powers that be don't want them to, rather they want to control them through aid and endless debt like the IMF.

 

[DominionSeraph]

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

You prove my point. He cares so little about the money he's worth that he's giving it away. Bill Gates did not need his wealth to increase by billions per year to work.
The money did not hive him incentive to keep going -- he stepped down from CEO in 2000 for a position that, by wikipedia, paid him less than $1 million in 2006. And as of 2008 he doesn't even work at Microsoft full time anymore. Instead he works full time at giving his money away.

So the point that higher salary necessarily gives incentive to work harder has been destroyed. Beyond a certain point it can certainly do the opposite in giving incentive to retire.

 

[cybrsage]

If we limited the amount of money people can make, then how would people like Bill Gates be able to spend so much money helping others? Romney gives 10% (at least) of his income to charity, as is required by his religion. If we force him to make a lot less money, that means a lot less money is given to charity.

 

[Matt1970]

You prove my point. He cares so little about the money he's worth that he's giving it away. Bill Gates did not need his wealth to increase by billions per year to work.
The money did not hive him incentive to keep going -- he stepped down from CEO in 2000 for a position that, by wikipedia, paid him less than $1 million in 2006. And as of 2008 he doesn't even work at Microsoft full time anymore. Instead he works full time at giving his money away.

So the point that higher salary necessarily gives incentive to work harder has been destroyed. Beyond a certain point it can certainly do the opposite in giving incentive to retire.

Maybe you are just clueless when it comes to Bill Gates but I feel it is much more than that. The vast majority of Bill Gates wealth comes from his stock. Is he just supposed to stop working or helping microsoft when he hits $5 Million in earnings? What if had done that every year that he was CEO? What about the rest of the people in the company? The stock holders? What about other companies? I certainly wouldn't buy stock in a company if I knew the CEO or President could only work till he hit a certain amount.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Maybe you are just clueless when it comes to Bill Gates but I feel it is much more than that. The vast majority of Bill Gates wealth comes from his stock. Is he just supposed to stop working or helping microsoft when he hits $5 Million in earnings? What if had done that every year that he was CEO? What about the rest of the people in the company? The stock holders? What about other companies? I certainly wouldn't buy stock in a company if I knew the CEO or President could only work till he hit a certain amount.

Wow, the stupid is out in force.

Please have a complete thought before you attempt to write. Your writing connects to nothing -- you're just throwing out random tendrils.

Spell out your stupidity and I may deign to respond. I won't chase you down through wild implied theories thrown out without a second's thought as to whether they follow in the least.

 

[Matt1970]

Wow, the stupid is out in force.

Please have a complete thought before you attempt to write. Your writing connects to nothing -- you're just throwing out random tendrils.

Great responce.

So tell us since you are the all-knowing, what exactly is someone supposed to do when they hit that salary barrier? Or are you just going to spew out more rhetoric and insults like always?

 

[DominionSeraph]

So tell us since you are the all-knowing, what exactly is someone supposed to do when they hit that salary barrier? Or are you just going to spew out more rhetoric and insults like always?

I will spew another insult because your question is stupid. Besides not linking to anything of relevance in any of my posts, you don't even define "do."

You have failed yet again to fill out your sentence with meaning.

 

[Matt1970]

I will spew another insult because your question is stupid. Besides not linking to anything of relevance in any of my posts, you don't even define "do."

You have failed yet again to fill out your sentence with meaning.

That's what I thought.

 

[DominionSeraph]

That's what I thought.

You're not very good at it, so why post that it has come to a conclusion?

 

[cybrsage]

Great responce.

So tell us since you are the all-knowing, what exactly is someone supposed to do when they hit that salary barrier? Or are you just going to spew out more rhetoric and insults like always?

He pretends he has a higher intellect than most everyone else, the proceeds to quickly prove himself wrong. It makes pony princesses cry.

 

[DominionSeraph]

He pretends he has a higher intellect than most everyone else, the proceeds to quickly prove himself wrong.

Your perception is irrelevant. You don't have the chops to test me. You are an idiot who has a need to oversimplify relationships, throwing out inconvenient remainders on your way to your false equivalences whose implications comply with your ego-driven need for your unexamined beliefs to be "right."
When norms can start listing reams of evidence your hypotheses ignore, you should know you have a problem.

Seriously, niblet, you should be around the point in your intellectual growth where you're pontificating that agnosticism is superior to atheism and theism; not wholly tied up with trolling as you are. 36.9 posts per day rather speaks that your methods have no requirement that you expand beyond your current working set, which is pretty sad.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Maybe you are just clueless when it comes to Bill Gates but I feel it is much more than that. The vast majority of Bill Gates wealth comes from his stock. Is he just supposed to stop working or helping microsoft when he hits $5 Million in earnings? What if had done that every year that he was CEO? What about the rest of the people in the company? The stock holders? What about other companies? I certainly wouldn't buy stock in a company if I knew the CEO or President could only work till he hit a certain amount.

Spot on. The salary component of Bill Gates' compensation was negligible, and the same is true for most billionaire company founders that derive their high net worths from the stock and little else.

Now this brings up two questions; one practical, one ethical:

1) How do you limit the wealth accumulated by equity? So lets say you capped salaries to $5m a year; how do you prevent someone from becoming a billionaire by simply holding on stocks?

2) What is the moral justification for a government imposed limit on the compensation of an individual that is assumed to be contributing to the organization he's employed at?
Look at Tim Cook as an example, he heads a ~$600b company; his performance, as reflected by the stock, is worth many times over his ~$300m/decade compensation package.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Spot on. The salary component of Bill Gates' compensation was negligible, and the same is true for most billionaire company founders that derive their high net worths from the stock and little else.

Now this brings up two questions; one practical, one ethical:

1) How do you limit the wealth accumulated by equity? So lets say you capped salaries to $5m a year; how do you prevent someone from becoming a billionaire by simply holding on stocks?

2) What is the moral justification for a government imposed limit on the compensation of an individual that is assumed to be contributing to the organization he's employed at?
Look at Tim Cook as an example, he heads a ~$600b company; his performance, as reflected by the stock, is worth many times over his ~$300m/decade compensation package.

IMO you don't do either. what you have to do is change corporate culture, which is unlikely to actually happen.

 

[SamurAchzar]

IMO you don't do either. what you have to do is change corporate culture, which is unlikely to actually happen.

The corporate culture and ethics is something that has to be regulated by the shareholders of the corporation. The government - let alone the wide public - should not have any say in this. Last I heard, you can still sell a stock of a company you think is mismanaged.

And yet, if we look at someone like Tim Cook, being at the helm of a $600b company, $300m over few years looks like an exceptionally good deal if he does well. Or better yet, the ~$40m Marissa Meyer gets in Yahoo is nothing compared to the value her shareholders expect her to create.

 

[MrMuppet]

The problem I see, except for the obvious immoral violation of people's negative rights, is, how will different companies, corporations, businesses, enterprises, organizations, etc. compete over the cream of the crop, in regards to competence? What would they possibly have to offer and why not offer money directly?

You're offsetting the incentives of the free market in regards to hiring and promoting. The one willing to pay the most, most likely has a reason.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Maybe you are just clueless when it comes to Bill Gates but I feel it is much more than that. The vast majority of Bill Gates wealth comes from his stock. Is he just supposed to stop working or helping microsoft when he hits $5 Million in earnings? What if had done that every year that he was CEO? What about the rest of the people in the company? The stock holders? What about other companies? I certainly wouldn't buy stock in a company if I knew the CEO or President could only work till he hit a certain amount.

Yes, this. As I mentioned above, most of Gate's wealth got reinvested in Microsoft itself, allowing MS to grow to create jobs. Cap the income of Gates say, 20 years ago...MS wouldn't exist. Or Apple.

Wow, the stupid is out in force.

Please have a complete thought before you attempt to write. Your writing connects to nothing -- you're just throwing out random tendrils.

Spell out your stupidity and I may deign to respond. I won't chase you down through wild implied theories thrown out without a second's thought as to whether they follow in the least.

This is funny since you're the one who isn't actually posting real content to debate.

Gates isn't throwing the money around. He's funding ideas of how to make the third world countries better. He decided to make a difference. Maybe that is Melinda's influence, but it is what he has chosen to do. He refuses to let his kids grow up pampered, and will not leave them a massive inheritance (they each get, what, 2 million or less?)

 

[ModerateRepZero]

So the point that higher salary necessarily gives incentive to work harder has been destroyed. Beyond a certain point it can certainly do the opposite in giving incentive to retire.

Good point but can government reasonably determine the line at which working is a disincentive rather than an incentive? And more importantly, should it have that power/responsibility?

The problem I see, except for the obvious immoral violation of people's negative rights, is, how will different companies, corporations, businesses, enterprises, organizations, etc. compete over the cream of the crop, in regards to competence? What would they possibly have to offer and why not offer money directly?

You're offsetting the incentives of the free market in regards to hiring and promoting. The one willing to pay the most, most likely has a reason.

Another good point. The incentives will depend on the company/industry. For financial companies especially on Wall Street, the motivation of its employees is financial; they're in business to make money. For better or worse, salaries and compensation is how they define themselves and perceive others, so the effect of financial compensation will have a huge effect on their behavior.

In other companies, instead of salaries, there are other incentives such as stock options, promotions, greater input in decision-making or creative process that can be persuasive. But everyone has their own incentives.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes, this. As I mentioned above, most of Gate's wealth got reinvested in Microsoft itself, allowing MS to grow to create jobs. Cap the income of Gates say, 20 years ago...MS wouldn't exist. Or Apple.



This is funny since you're the one who isn't actually posting real content to debate.

Gates isn't throwing the money around. He's funding ideas of how to make the third world countries better. He decided to make a difference. Maybe that is Melinda's influence, but it is what he has chosen to do. He refuses to let his kids grow up pampered, and will not leave them a massive inheritance (they each get, what, 2 million or less?)

That's their MO. Post crap usually devoid of any logic or fact. When questioned switch to insult mode.

 

[Modelworks]

The problem isn't having too much money , the problem is the way the government has become so corrupt that the money is used to make the government bend the rules.

The way to fix this is total transparency with the government. Make all closed door agreements illegal. All private senator and congressman in office meetings illegal. Make it so that any time a government official is discussing something it has to be open to the public. That would kill corruption and you could have as much money as you wanted to make. It will never be done though because they will start with the 'we can't make deals that way' , which I would reply' I know, that is why we want to do it'