At what level would you support a maximum income?

I used to think these same things, Ken. Currently, I'm not sure what to think about it. But man, you have made some good points that it seemed to me for years that only I was smart enough to think of. take that with a half-smile.

Capping income this way would make rich people less greedy since making more money would do them no good. But I fully agree that quality wouldn't drop simply because a guy couldn't earn 10 million instead of 1 million.

You know actually, if you literally capped income (not taxed it down), things would become cheaper because owners, sellers, etc could not charge so much for their products and services or they would surpass the limit.

 

Did you actually pay attention. The wealthy choose the two candidates that the Republicans and Democrats run. Then the plebes get to pick which party hack they want. Doesn't matter which wins since they are both already bought and paid for.

 

Maybe this issue is being approached from the wrong end.

If a US entity's income or assets were greater than the total GNP, I would think that could be a problem.

The question would then become, at what percentage of the GNP would an accumulation threaten the security and well being of the country and its inhabitants?

Another way would be to look at how the accumulation came to be. Did it happen through clear cut, positive production, or did it happen through harmful cost externalization? Weakening of US manufacturing capacity? Environmental degradation? Money maipulation essentially stealing hard-earned money of others? Drug or weapons trafficking? Etc.

Also, rather than excessively focusing on great wealth (with the abovementiomed exceptions), IMO it also makes more sense to see that those workers on the bottom rung are able to earn enough to have a reasonable life in this society, and not have to become professional welfare cheats or criminals to do this. Here we also get into licencing issues and many other legal protections designed more to solidify business monopolies and shut out beginning enterpreneurs than anything else.

I realize too much regulation hampers those at the high end as much as too much licensing hampers those at the low end, but I believe that skillful regulation at both levels can produce financial miracles without harming anyone of good will.

 

Deserve means to be worthy of reward or punishment. When you talk about what someone deserves, you're assuming there is some authority judging worth and controlling life to provide reward or inflict punishment.

And that doesn't exist.

No one deserves to die young, deserves to draw a royal flush, or deserves to win a race. And no one deserves to make more or make less. They just do or they don't.





​

 

Some do, however, put forth efforts toward certain goals whereas others do not, in essence earning what they get.

 

If the left gets their way in monetary policy that might not be worth so much

 

So Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were just in the right place at the right time and luck fell into their laps? If they were not there to catch that lucky break then someone else - anyone else - would have done the same thing? Not a chance. People are not all equal.

What you propose is just a slight twist on the classic "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". And don't think for one second that the upper limit of $1Million wont soon drop and the lower limit come up until they are nearly equal. In todays fabulously wealthy world of billionaires, you think $1Million is enough. After your program gets going and people get used to it, people just like you will complain about those people getting $1M don't "really" deserve that much because they didn't "really" do anything special, anyone could do what they do. And that $1M will be $500k, and the cycle repeats........

As to the Nobel Prize, remember obama got one for.....what was it? Something about hoping he would be bringing peace to the world?

 

So obfuscation aside do you believe that top tax brackets have not been reduced over time. And have long term capital gains rates not been reduced? And have inheritance tax exemptions not been increased over time?

 

Exchanging labor or services for some value is commerce. The parties involved do make a judgement on that exchange and either agree it's a worthy trade or are free to walk away from it. But whatever they decide about that trade doesn't determine whether the man is worthy of the cumulative result of all the opportunities in his life.

No one can demonstrate there is someone sitting in judgement of a man's whole life. No one decides if the man deserves all the good that came to him (earned, gifted, or by luck). There is no mechanism for it and no authority to make that judgement.

The sum of these things either came to him or they didn't and what you or I think of his life as a whole is not significant. A particular woman may have judged him worthy of a date, but no one's opinion matters as to whether he was worthy of dating all the women in his life.




​

 

Your point has merit, but in my opinion in the human sphere we deal with the cultural values established by humans.

People need rules of thumb to live by. They are a part of the decision-making process.

Not everyone wants to work ten, twelve, or more hours a day,, but many do it to improve their circumstances.

Others should not take advantage of that extra labor by becoming parasites.

If taxation were to increase, I would want to see credit given in some way for number of hours worked. If a person at minimum wage works two or three jobs to make it, they should not be taxed at the same rate as a person who works a comfortable desk job for less time but the same amount. Credit should also be given for job preparation time. A person beginning their field at age 30 should be taxed at a lesser rate.

Those are just suggested examples. There are many things that make tax rates unfair.

I agree that there is no fairness in the abstract, but in my opinion a core purpose of good government is to strive toward equitable treatment of all citizens. I do not believe this has to result in equal incomes for all, but fairness dictates that those who strive harder should achieve more. Where this uniformly does not happen, in my opinion we have a failing government that is violating the social contract.

 

That boat has sailed. The federal government spends about $13,000 per person. About 6% of families filing tax returns pay that or more for exactly the same citizenship.

About 19 out of 20 of us are parasites. Most of us are living lifestyles that someone else is paying for. And there is no practical way to end that dependency.




​