What if there was an actual income limit and other restrictions?

First I'd like to say that this is not something I'm pushing, it's not something I want - but it is something I want to talk about. Talking about "bad ideas" or things you don't feel comfortable with is often a step forward when it comes to progress, even if the answer is completely opposite of the question at hand - so, here is my question -

What if we set a limit on how much individuals could have, earn, and take over seas? Say you cap "non profit" and charity owners/workers at 100,000 take home a year, and you cap entrepreneurs at 1 million a year. The extra money would go towards the most efficient and effective charities and non profits ( eg. I've heard meals on wheels spends nearly everything on actually feeding people - but that's just one example)

What would happen?

Do you think the markets could be manipulated for massive deflation to happen, thus make their income worth huge amounts more, relatively?

Do you believe it would break up any giants, and cause bad, or good outcomes?

Would large businesses and corporations fall because expansion is no longer a personal benefit, and small business rise?

Or would it crash everything?

Just a thought.

Would love intelligent discourse about this.

What your going to get from people mostly is that in a free country we should be free to make as much money as we can even if it destroys the world. And I agree with that. You asked if it would crash the economy. Yes. The united states economy only works when we have growth. It is unsustainable of course but that's the way things are.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I'm curious why we would not have growth?

We'd have extreme competition.. Wouldn't we?

The goal would be to grow to gathering a million a year... Then paying each person in your family a wage of a million a year.

a reply to: deadlyhope
I am ok with a cap at $10,000,000 dollars for an individual, and $100,000,000 for a corporation before the tax penalty goes up.

The kicker is to cover all the loopholes though. If an individual knows his personal income is getting to that limit, whats to just stop him from lowering his salary and just funneling all the $$$ up to $100,000,000 into his company for which he is the treasurer ??

See, there is much mroe to consider than just simply saying "here is the cap, welcome to an age of enlightenment!" We would also have to brainstorm all the loopholes that would bypass the limit and figure out how to tie off the loose ends legally without being too Communist about it.

I think for personal income, $10,000,000 is a very reasonable annual maximum. If thats too low, just figure out how to funnel the rest through a company or charity you are still in control of.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
What if we set a limit on how much individuals could have, earn, and take over seas? Say you cap "non profit" and charity owners/workers at 100,000 take home a year, and you cap entrepreneurs at 1 million a year.

Often people who start making decent amounts of $ a year will become entrepreneurs. Your model here would keep the poor poor and rich, rich. locked in a class system.

Also, zero incentive to reach big. Why would guy X try to build a better spaceship than NASA when 1) he won't profit from it in any meaningful way, and 2) he doesn't have the billion $ anyhow to get it going.

Bad model. No incentive, class system enforcement. I think not.

Barack Obama said everyone wants to be Trump..aka, a billionaire success who will never worry about his kids, grandkids, or their kids and grandkids going hungry.

we wouldn't grow because less things would be bought . Unfortunately the things millionaires buy how they invest drives a large part of the economy. They would buy less cars, boats, and mansions if they had less money. They would invest less.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Is a million truly not an incentive?

"ah damn it all, I make minimum wage right now.. I have a great idea, but a million is just not worth it when I could make 15k for the rest of my life"

Doesn't sound like a real sentence...

But pouring millions into research and development for a more efficient computer processor also has nothing to do with take home money. It'd not be controlled or disallowed, as no person would be pocketing over a million..

Now, why would a person spend money on research and development if they will not see the results themselves?

That brings up an entirely new point - would it change the dynamics of industry?

What if a thousand engineers, whom each made 100k a year, banded together, invested together, all for the goal of eventually each making a million a year? ( and eventually giving each of their family members such a wage)

No billionaire would be created - money would theoretically be spread more evenly, the higher amounts still going to those with more talent, and those groups that take risks investing.

a reply to: deadlyhope

What if there was an actual income limit and other restrictions?

Then motivation to exceed in life will cease to exist and we will literally become the society of Idiocracy.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm curious why, though?

Still not advocating for this to happen, still wanting to discuss, for the record.

I don't imagine anyone ever has said "I'm broke, I have an idea, but a million is just not worth anything to me" - why would it not create a society of people filling in gaps to become millionaires?

Little Caesars would have no reason to have ten thousand locations - other people with their own pizza ideas could grow until they cap them and their kin at a million a year.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: deadlyhope
What if we set a limit on how much individuals could have, earn, and take over seas? Say you cap "non profit" and charity owners/workers at 100,000 take home a year, and you cap entrepreneurs at 1 million a year.

Often people who start making decent amounts of $ a year will become entrepreneurs. Your model here would keep the poor poor and rich, rich. locked in a class system.

Also, zero incentive to reach big. Why would guy X try to build a better spaceship than NASA when 1) he won't profit from it in any meaningful way, and 2) he doesn't have the billion $ anyhow to get it going.

Bad model. No incentive, class system enforcement. I think not.

Barack Obama said everyone wants to be Trump..aka, a billionaire success who will never worry about his kids, grandkids, or their kids and grandkids going hungry.

I agree except the no incentive part. Money and greed aren't they only reason humans invent new tech. There is also laziness and ego lol They don't want to dig a well so I invent a hole digging machine. I want respect and adoration so I invent a flying car. Do you really think sexbots would never be invented if we had no money to pay the guy.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm curious why, though?

Why does the stock market exist?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm curious why, though?

Still not advocating for this to happen, still wanting to discuss, for the record.

I don't imagine anyone ever has said "I'm broke, I have an idea, but a million is just not worth anything to me" - why would it not create a society of people filling in gaps to become millionaires?

Little Caesars would have no reason to have ten thousand locations - other people with their own pizza ideas could grow until they cap them and their kin at a million a year.

In theory what your purposing would work but only if you started from scratch. It would just never fly in the states, we are much to greedy here. You would have to start your own country.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Then motivation to exceed in life will cease to exist and we will literally become the society of Idiocracy.

Your only motivation in life is to make lots of money.

That for real hurt me in my soul to read.

a reply to: deadlyhope
The problem is a nation/state needs large private companies to fulfill niche needs like defense, energy, aerospace, telecom etc.. etc.. especially so as a Democratic Republic.

Otherwise the only way to fill the needs of a large nation is for the State to own the majority of production and development. I think it is safe to say, that is the opposite of where we want our society going.

Im not against the concept of caps, but the ones you proposed are just too low for industry to compete globally, and frankly could leave us vulnerable to attack as well.

Plus, the cap has to be better defined. Are we talking a straight limit where if you are working at a job and reach your limit before years end, do they simply up and stop paying you and still demand your labor??
Or are we going with a more traditional tax bracket increase that simply has us paying more fiscally during tax time??

We should define the cap accurately first, and consider raising the limit as well.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I actually haven't a clue. I think of it like a gambling casino for the risk takers, and a savings account that keeps up with inflation for those that invest in stocks that don't really dip or rise much.

Why does the stock market need to exist?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I mean, I haven't talked about limiting the worth of assets and the like.

A hundred million dollar nuclear power plant is not off limits, based on the limitations set in my post.

The owner could only put a million in his pocket, though. And the pockets of his family members, provided they aren't making their own cap already.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I would say cut out monopolies..

And then id say think of money as blood in circulation.. many hearts pumping into one system..

If money has no incentive to move.. you get blood clots and sists..

Just random musings..

Competition however you make it more intense is your best bet. Amazon buying wholefoods and monsanto and bayer merging are not.

Making a cap on personal income means a corporation has to spend that money in other ways.

Id have to give the notiin a real hard think through to imagine the effects. .

Fake charities a la clinton foundation spring to mind instantly.

Logically the poorer populous would see that the goal is not as far as they believe but the rich would have no reason to work nor to want to create new businesses to generate more income for themselves (thus creating new jobs). They would go somewhere where they could earn over the cap and take the jobs with them.

Charities should be capped yes in my view, but at the end of the day if you do that means they do not get the hard hitters / experienced people running it, just whom ever gets to that pay grade first. It is about the stock market having confidence in one person at the top, that person gets paid to be the face of the company and take the stick if it fails to meet up to the public's expectation.

Its wishful thinking to go to that system, it would have only worked if it had always been.

a reply to: deadlyhope
Your talking cash only?? If thats the case the limit may as well not exist!
See this is what I mean by accurately describing the income cap. Many of the CEO's and directors on the boards are paid in stock incentives, which is valued as cash in net worth analysis. So are bullion holdings. They could still be billionaires simply by ownership in companies.

How do you define your company cap as well? Are we applying the same principal there as well?? Even so $1,000,000 is still waaay too low. How the hell are we going to produce Aircraft Carriers, Jets and cruise missiles for our defense with that kind of limit without making the state the primary owner of property and production?? Or satellites for telecom for that matter.

I am totally onboard, but there are sooooo many details to work out before we can look at one option or another as valid.

a reply to: thekaboose

I can see that.

But a question is, are jobs created by rich people - or by supply and demand, or the combination of the two?

If people want a product, and that product can be produced locally - why wouldn't locals just fill that need and make money off of it? (like they currently do, just Walmart wouldn't exist - in its place would be several farmers markets)