Because making 400k/yr by sitting on a pile of assets and living a low-cost life in a paid-off small-town cottage is not the same as making 400k/yr as a debt-saddled surgeon renting in a high-cost city center, so targeting income instead of wealth gets us farther from a fairer economy.
Next question.
Next question, why did you immediately go to 400k? Why not 1 million? If you make a million dollars then you’ve made half the average lifetime earnings of a worker. Double question, if we capped earnings at 400k, would school lenders not take that into account?
I think a maximum yearly income, including any money you could conceivably spend for personal use, would be a wonderful idea. It would certainly put a damper on being a billionaire if you know you could never actually get more than about a hundred million dollars in your life. Just literally running the score up at that point.
Ok sure, but if you frame the conversation to mean the limit would be set at $400k/year then you’re missing the point. We’re talking billionaires not single digit millionaires. Despite how those numbers sound to the average person there’s several orders of magnitude between them.
i couldnt read the article (paywall) but is that applicable when billionaires often get paid significantly less than $400k/yr?
I don’t mean to argue against your point but they became billionaires somehow. There are people who are becoming billionaires today and their wealth accumulation could be limited. It seems like more than one solution is needed. I don’t think billionaires are good for society… They have too much power, political power
If the minimum wage was a comfortable living wage — like it should be, in my and many other folks’ opinion — then it wouldn’t matter. One person’s excess isn’t a problem, unless it’s at the expense of someone else (which, you know, is kinda the case…).
Even if it’s not at the expense of someone else, too much wealth in the hands of one person is still harmful. It gives one person too much power over others, allows for people to buy their way out of legal trouble, buy politicians, etc.
In the mean time, decorate some pikes with billionaire noggins. The problem might fix itself if extreme wealth becomes a mortal liability.
Trickle-down economics works like a piñata - you gotta crack it open before anything starts to trickle.
Is it because the people that we need to worry about don’t get paid massive wages? Instead they leverage their massive stock ownership as collateral for loans. And stock bonuses are not regulated or taxed in the same way as real wages.
I’d be fully supportive of a “maximum wealth” limit.
What we need to do is implement “prestige wealth”. Once you hit, say, 100m you get your assets sold in order to fund a UBI, but you get a nice pin that marks your achievement.
Every time you prestige, you get a new pin, but the color of the pin changes.
I’m totally cool with rewarding people for making a bunch of money and giving it back to the people. Hell, make each prestige cooler. You find 100 billion in taxes? We’ll build you a little statue. You fund 1 trillion dollars in taxes? You get to be on a coin or some shit. Really put these greedy fucks incessant need for attention to work.
“You win! 🥳”
A sort of “moneygrubbers anonymous”?
That still maintains an incentive to extract and hoard wealth. There should be none.
How does that work though? Let’s say the maximum wealth limit is one billion dollars and you own $750M of stock in the company you founded. Your wealth could go above and below that $1B limit multiple times in a day as the stock price goes up and down. What happens then?
End of day holdings. Also if you’re worried about ownership, we can just revert companies to contract ownership.
I’ll preface this by saying the 1%'s stock holdings are pretty much the last thing I’m worried about protecting. But it could be as simple as requiring your wealth to be under the limit when you file your taxes. Let’s say it’s a billion dollars (I would argue it should be much lower). If you end the year with 11 billion dollars in wealth, you owe the government 10 billion dollars. There are controls we can put in place to prevent stock manipulation, similar to the ones we have now. Just actually enforced.
I think what we would see in response to that is people hiding their wealth offshore, through private companies, through family members, trust funds, non-profit foundations etc.
So the billionaire has 10 relatives and hires each of them at his company, giving them all stock options as a bonus, which come from his own personal accounts. Then when it comes to tax time he’s managed to limbo his way under the $1B bar.
Take all your wealth and use it to set up a bunch of non-profit organizations for preserving national parks or saving the rainforest or running homeless shelters. Then have those foundations hire your family members to the boards of directors and pay each one millions of dollars in salaries.
There are countless ways to do this. Not just for individuals but for companies. Apple is pretty infamous for its use of Ireland as a tax haven that allows it to avoid paying corporate (profit) taxes on all its sales in the EU.
The other issue I foresee with the maximum wealth limit is how much chaos it could cause for companies. Let’s say you found a furniture company and run it really well and hire tons of employees. Then over time it grows above the billion dollar limit, so in order to pay your taxes you sell off the company to private equity who proceed to liquidate all its assets and fire all the employees. Without the limit in place you may have been happy to keep running the company and maintaining a great workplace for all your employees but the giant tax bill forced your hand. In the end, the company is largely destroyed, everyone has lost their jobs, and you retire with your billion dollars in cash.
I think the above scenarios are problematic no matter what you set the limit to. It also doesn’t address the issue of private companies (not traded on the public stock exchange) which don’t have a nominal market value. Sure, they have a book value for all their hard assets, but that can be far lower than the true value of the company.
Think of something like Snapchat which went from maybe a dozen employees and a bunch of laptops to rejecting a $3 billion buyout offer from Mark Zuckerberg just 3 years later. Anyway, also how to deal with that? Let’s say you have a small company making calculator apps for iOS and Android. You earn $10,000 a year in profits from sales. Then some group of investors come together and offer you $10 billion for your company. Is your company now worth $10B just because of the offer? You’re not on the stock market. You barely make enough money to pay rent, yet come tax time you owe $9B.
You could say “well you rejected the offer so you don’t owe the government anything because you actually aren’t worth $10B.” But who decides what you’re worth? Snapchat rejected the $3B offer but most investors would’ve agreed they were worth it. But all they had was a few employees, some laptops and servers, and the app they made. They’re really not much different from the hypothetical calculator app company.
Wow, just running off into the wild blue yonder there. First of all, they already do all of that. A properly funded IRS would be able to go after them. There is only so much they can do.
Second who needs a 3 billion dollar payday? 10 million, just a hair shy of an entire order of magnitude less; is enough to fly first class, own a mansion, own the luxury cars, attend every major sporting league championship, vacation in Bora Bora resorts half the year, and just generally party your way through the entire rest of life.
Heck once you reach 1 million in stocks you can generally just stop working and live a normal life off the dividends alone.
You’re out here defending literal bond villain levels of money. A billion dollars could employ a 100 people at 100k and leave you 990 million dollars left. That’s enough money to actually have a private militia. (100k is the going rate for good guard contracts with combat experience)
Yeah, we can also make it fun. Once someone has amassed a certain quantity of wealth, make a big ceremony, where the guy is given a trophy that says “I won capitalism”. After that, every dollar he makes past the limit is taxed 100%
“I won capitalism”
Or we could think outside of the system we’ve been indoctrinated to believe is the only one that can “work” (by the very few people it does actually work for), and eliminate capitalism altogether so that there is no incentive to extract and hoard wealth in the first place, because those don’t serve society in any way shape or form.
Absolutely, even at something like 100 * min wage. Still a hell of a lot less than what’s happening today.
because the people in the top end are paid via stocks and not actual hard currency.
Tax rates used to extend over 100% in the USA. The IRS lost the case. They were limited to all of the money earned, not more.
So there used to ba maximum wage.
Call it crab bucket, but I would hate to work in a system where my labor value is capped by someone other than me, or the person I’m selling it to.
Edit love downvotes with no rebuttal. Any system where a laborer is told they cannot market services at a rate accepted by a client is an oppressive system.
A cap like this would have nothing to do with labor. Nobody, laboring, is going to ever be in danger of reaching it.
Mind you, people probably don’t think of your standard high earner they they think of an income cap. They think of people who make four (or even five) digits an hour, a rate that maybe high end lawyers can match. Maybe.
CEOs of large companies can easily make that much, often not even tied to performance but contractually guaranteed. The super-rich make that much simply by existing.
Basically, if your labor (or mere existence) isn’t even worth 1000 bucks an hour to your clients you’re a peasant like the rest of us and an income cap is probably never going to be relevant to you.
Thanks for actually discussing.
It’s my understanding that the earnings of the hyper wealthy are derived not through “traditional wages”, but instead loans backed by stock, business entities, etc.
So right out the gate we aren’t hunting the biggest fish: taxation of the hyper wealthy such that they pay their fair share.
Next, I believe that such a system would be contorted to limit the potential of those at the bottom of the ladder. If we hope to improve the lot of those folks, the conversation should folks on minimum wages, and employment and safety protections
I agree that going for wages in the traditional sense doesn’t catch many of the most relevant income streams. However, I think that a “maximum wage” makes sense as a theoretical construct used to create a sensible income tax scheme.
Essentially, tax brackets and rates could be defined in relation to the median income. Go too far above that (hitting the “maximum wage”) and your tax rate rapidly increases, maybe even going as high as 90%. Of course this would have to cover all sorts of income, not just plain money.
This scheme would effectively box people into a certain band of acceptable wealth and would create an incentive to raise wages – after all, if the average worker makes more, so can the most wealthy.
(Also, full agreement on needing to talk about better labor protections. American labor law is really lax.)
Decent points. I don’t want to spam my thoughts so I’ll keep it short, I fear corruption beyond the very sound ideas you shared.
You in particular need not worry about ever hitting that max GBU_28
The goal is to stop the bleeding for those being exploited by billionaires (the entire nation minus ~50)
You in particular need not worry about ever hitting that max GBU_28
But that’s just it - they genuinely are worried about exactly that, because they’ve been convinced by the people exploiting their labour for profit that they too can become a billionaire one day if they just work hard enough and make sure to never remove their tongue from the boot standing on their neck!
This is a live demonstration of propaganda at work.
One day I might be mega rich and then people like me better watch their step!
Yup, exactly.
What max? Who defines it?
Nice try with the personal insult. Schoolyard stuff.
I don’t think you’re being insulted, just that the limit can be unobtainable by 99% of people and still be effective. Personally I think that’s a possible thing, but also a pointless thing, a wage cap is going to do nothing to redistribute Jeff Bezos’ wealth in a sensible manner.
I found the phrasing targeted, but that’s probably because a rude person was calling me a numnuts at the same time.
I wish it was phrased the way you di, it would be more civil.
Further, I agree with you. I’m worried about it being abused and corrupted to keep laborers down
All systems are oppressive by that low bar definition ya numbnut.
Would it be unjust for me to make a law preventing you from accumulating so much gold/wealth in one place as to cause a black hole to form? Is that oppressive? Fuck off.
You shouldnt care about edge case scenarios where someone doesn’t get to be more rich than they already are when we are talking about solutions to problems, affecting millions of people real people with real problems.
Name calling?
Edit on topic, wages are not how billionaires are made. Wages are the concern of the general public. They would be the group impacted.
You are distracting from the fact that the problem can be solved with easy fixes to the language instead of agreeing that rich people should have a limit on how severe wealth inequality is.
Numbnuts
Uncivil, I’m having actual discussion with others. Cya
Look everyone! A sad troll!
Why would you need to have total freedom there? There are plenty of rules and regulations in place for many things. If we as society can agree on a reasonable ceiling, why would that be an issue? What is your worry?
If there would be a cap on the hourly wage or total income the chances of you ever reaching it would be slim to none, and if you did… congrats you won capitalism, be happy.
It feels similar to the “hate paying taxes” and “I’m self made”. Paying taxes is a privilege, more is better, as it means you have more. Self made does not exist, more than half of everything anyone achieves is luck, starting with the birth lottery and going from there.
I think “freedom” resonates emotionally in different ways for different people. If you try to pass a law making it illegal to drink bleach, I will oppose that law. I certainly don’t want to drink bleach, but right now I have the freedom to drink it and you would be trying to take away that freedom. It has value to me even though I intend never to exercise it.
Taxes, unlike drinking bleach, are a matter of trade-offs. I’m not categorically against them. However, I don’t buy into the argument that I shouldn’t oppose them as long as I will never have to pay them.
Well I guess I would say that if obscene wealth disparity is against public interest, which it is. We should curtail it. Personal freedoms that rub against public interests are always going to be a point of contention, that’s why we would need good laws, not just willy nilly ones.
The big fish to catch is untaxed earnings of the hyper wealthy. Any attacks on the potential of labor is anti worker.
I agree that if there is anywhere to start it is taxing assets like stock portfolios and other vehicles the billionaire class uses to avoid taxation.
The whole trickle down economics did not work, it’s time we start trying rising tide economics, as it lifts all boats.
But anti labor is a stretch depending on where you draw a line. There are amounts that cannot be explained by mere labor.
So some dude accused me of being a troll and I’m certainly not, and I’m certainly interested in this topic. I just care about taking actual actions to affect change.
I believe this would shield the hyper wealthy from further fairness, they would hide behind this.
I further believe this would be corrupted to manipulate true laborers by targeting different professions and tax classes after the fact.
So we have common ground on the fact the primary focus is the robber barons. Any changes should start with addressing the avenues only the robber barons have to avoid taxation and work their way down.
But slippery sloping the fact there are people out there with millions of dollars of “salary” is also nonsense. CEO’s do not add that kind of value, there is a big network component at work.
Then there are several different scales for the first 100K of income to differentiate, but then above that it stops… F- that… if there is a top scale it should be at 99%. Just watch how quick there will be intermediate scales. But no one will be able to convince me that salaries above a certain amount can be defended. Where that amount is… I don’t know… it can be high… but a ceiling is easily defendable.
You’re never going to have to worry about it. If you won the lottery every week you wouldn’t be close to what these people have.
Your labour value is already massively capped by the super rich. You earn a fraction of what you produce for others.
“these people” don’t have what they have from wages. They have it from stock backed loans and similar.
Any legislation policing what someone in my job can earn is hurtful to the worker.
The Hamster from The Hamster Dance 2.0 makes maximum wage
My favourite line from the song.
