NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do we have people making 50 million dollars a year? Does anyone really need that much money? Obviously not, and the government sure seems to be lacking what it needs to fix it's runaway spending (more money). Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed an income ceiling for income over $80,000 a year. Meaning any income made over this amount goes directly to the government. To me, this makes a lot of sense. If we set an income cap at, say 1.5 million a year, adjusting for inflation, rich peeps can still buy their idiotically expensive luxury goods, or charge them to their company holding, and the amount of money brought in from taxes would allow the country to pay off the massive Social Security debt, along with give everyone a tax cut that would increase their total incomes. Makes quite a bit of sense to me. Anyone else have thoughts?

Why do we have people making 50 million dollars a year? Does anyone really need that much money? The point is, it's none of your buisness whether someone needs that much money or not. If they've earned it legally, it belongs to them.
Progressive taxes are fine, but when you essentially discriminate against those who are sucsessful, you threaten the foundation of capitalism.

Progressive taxes are fine, but when you essentially discriminate against those who are sucsessful, you threaten the foundation of capitalism.
What if that's the point?

Ya' know, I really like that idea. The one catch is that people will work harder if you give them incentives. I'm not exactly sure what the benefit of earning 80 million dollars instead of 20 million is, but someone seems to think it exists and I get the feeling that accusations of communism would start to fly. Not to mention all the 'injustice' that was being done to the rich bastards. Anyway, that's my take on it.

What if that's the point?then dream on.

How about an income ceiling?
Because then people will bump their heads on it if it's too low. Duh!

How 'bout no?

Except that no one will be making more than the cap then. Businesses aren't stupid.

Except that no one will be making more than the cap then. Businesses aren't stupid.
Well now I see less sense in THAT.

"Mwahahaha! We'll sabotage ourselves so that the government can't pay off the Social Security debts!"

The point is, it's none of your buisness whether someone needs that much money or not. If they've earned it legally, it belongs to them.
Progressive taxes are fine, but when you essentially discriminate against those who are sucsessful, you threaten the foundation of capitalism.

The thing is, no one needs an income of $50 million a year to live comfortably. A life of luxury has fooled them into believing they do.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed an income ceiling for income over $80,000 a year. Meaning any income made over this amount goes directly to the government.
Yet another proposal by FDR lamer than his legs.
To me, this makes a lot of sense. If we set an income cap at, say 1.5 million a year, adjusting for inflation, rich peeps can still buy their idiotically expensive luxury goods, or charge them to their company holding, and the amount of money brought in from taxes would allow the country to pay off the massive Social Security debt, along with give everyone a tax cut that would increase their total incomes. Makes quite a bit of sense to me. Anyone else have thoughts?
You just don’t’ get it, do you? Who the fuck do you think creates jobs, develops property? The filthy stinking rich that’s who.
We need fabulously wealthy people, and we need the ability to become fabulously wealthy. The rich invest in already existing ventures and create their own. (employment, goods and services for you and, most importantly, me) They only do this because the rich see money differently than you and me. We see it for what we can buy with it, they see it as a means to make more money.
If you take that away from them, well you know the poor you commie bastards seem to like so much? You’ll be joining them in destitution, along with everybody else, except for the damned FDRs of the world.

Then the problem may be an increase in non-monetary compensations such as jet rides or "business trips" or something. If businesses are truly willing to pay these people ungodly prices then they will find ways to do so, legal or no most likely.

Uber rich people already find ways around tax laws and things to keep as much money as possible, and I doubt an income ceiling would stop them either.

The thing is, no one needs an income of $50 million a year to live comfortably. A life of luxury has fooled them into believing they do.And thank goodness they do. Even though they may not require that much money to lead happy healthy luxurious lives, the possibility (and actuality) of their earning it makes most of us regular people's jobs possible.

Call it ambition, call it greed, whatever. Its the driving force of our economy. Take away the capacity for people to reach their full (economic) potential, and you've killed the system.

If you don't like that, well, move to cuba.

Even the most socialist capitalist countries (Scandinavian countries, Israel) don't have cielings, because they understand the implications. They have heavily weighted progressive tax systems.

They only do this because the rich see money differently than you and me. We see it for what we can buy with it, they see it as a means to make more money.
Now you're talking!

Rich people are genetically superior to you and me! We should submit, and better not mix our inferiour genes with theirs!

The thing is, no one needs an income of $50 million a year to live comfortably. A life of luxury has fooled them into believing they do.
The high income gives these people the power to do things. They may not need this money to live comfortably but they can most certainly use this money to give to their own private interests which can be orphanages, donations to their alma mater or buying politicians:D pretty much they might want this power because power is something that many people want. To stifle ambition is a bad thing anyway, we need to take advantage of ambition and use it for our purposes, this includes allowing the rich to be rich. Besides, most rich people invest their money into the economy in one form or another.

I don't understand, I mean if I get a great education and work really hard and don't break any laws why would the money I earn not be anyones but mine?

Why should I have to give the government anything over a certain amount? I think if that ever happened a whole lot of people would just slack off, I mean in thier eyes why work hard if you aren't getting paid for it?

Let's play this out. Say I make 1.5 mil a year. Now you have a business plan for a nice little cafe' that's pretty good but you don't have the capital to open it. You want me to invest in it and be your partner You run it I finance it and you pay me half the profits. Why should I invest? I can't make more than I already do. It woiuld be the same as if I just gave you the money to open the cafe' and then you flushed half the anuual profits down the nearest commode every year. I like cafe's but I'm not going to pay to start one and get NOTHING in return except a free esspresso here and there.
Now lets say you developed a cure for cancer and the startup capital is only 150mil.......

I don't understand, I mean if I get a great education and work really hard and don't break any laws why would the money I earn not be anyones but mine?

Why should I have to give the government anything over a certain amount? I think if that ever happened a whole lot of people would just slack off, I mean in thier eyes why work hard if you aren't getting paid for it?
Because there are people who hate rich people. So if you make above the proposed income ceiling these people already hate your guts and just want to enforce their will on you in order to make their socialist dream come true.

Just kidding. It probably relates to some messed up vision of social justice. I believe in progressive income tax due to practicality but I do not want to smother ambition, only have the government take advantage of it for societal benefit. I disagree with the proposed income ceiling.

This sounds like a great idea. After all, some overpaid armchair middle management government bureaucrat knows how to spend someone else's money better than the person who made it themselves. It's so terrible when people get to decide by themselves what they do with what they have, after all.

Because there are people who hate rich people. So if you make above the proposed income ceiling these people already hate your guts and just want to enforce their will on you in order to make their socialist dream come true.

Just kidding. It probably relates to some messed up vision of social justice. I believe in progressive income tax due to practicality but I do not want to smother ambition, only have the government take advantage of it for societal benefit. I disagree with the proposed income ceiling.
progressive income? you mean like progressive income tax?

I would like see either a flat tax or a consumption tax. either one has it's flaws but seems fairer to me than some of what goes on now in the American Tax code. (although both would almost put me out of a job since I make most of my money preparing taxes)

I think that the tax code we have now could be more fair if some of the credits and deduction rules were tweaked a bit. but all of that is off topic.

I really don't understand why some people hate the rich, maybe jealousy, I mean you think they would hate themselves if they were rich?

The thing is, no one needs an income of $50 million a year to live comfortably. A life of luxury has fooled them into believing they do.

OK, so let's cut the salaries of people in professional sports to say, $100,000.00 a year. Heck, they don't even work a full 12 months, so let's knock that down to about $60,000.00 a year. I'm sure we can find people willing to play football, basketball, hockey, baseball, etc. for that amount. They should be able to live fairly well on 60k a year.

OK, so let's cut the salaries of people in professional sports to say, $100,000.00 a year. Heck, they don't even work a full 12 months, so let's knock that down to about $60,000.00 a year. I'm sure we can find people willing to play football, basketball, hockey, baseball, etc. for that amount. They should be able to live fairly well on 60k a year.
And where do you suppose we put all that money earned through marketing these players to the public? Bury it?

And where do you suppose we put all that money earned through marketing these players to the public? Bury it?
Or give it to me.

Im not sure about an income cap, but a salary cap would be nice. I think its a good idea if properly implemented. If individuals cannot be paid more than...say...$10 million a year, then where do you think the excess money is going to go? Companies cant pay their top executives more than that, and they arent interested in giving it to the government, so they will either distribute it to people who are not close to meeting the limit and thereby spread the wealth more evenly, or they will simply budget less money to payroll thereby having more money to grow the company (which creates more jobs).

And where do you suppose we put all that money earned through marketing these players to the public? Bury it?

It would be spread out more evenly to all the other people who contribute to the team. Managers, trainers, doctors, ball boys, therapists, defensive and offensive coordinators, etc. Anything left over (which would only happen if all these people make the maximum) would go to the government.

OK, so let's cut the salaries of people in professional sports to say, $100,000.00 a year. Heck, they don't even work a full 12 months, so let's knock that down to about $60,000.00 a year. I'm sure we can find people willing to play football, basketball, hockey, baseball, etc. for that amount. They should be able to live fairly well on 60k a year.
Compare their ssalary to the star of another prime time program with high Neilson ratings and it looks about right.

I've always thought, and still do, that omnicide is the best course of action to solve these petty diferences in ideas and ideals.

Im not sure about an income cap, but a salary cap would be nice. I think its a good idea if properly implemented. If individuals cannot be paid more than...say...$10 million a year, then where do you think the excess money is going to go? Companies cant pay their top executives more than that, and they arent interested in giving it to the government, so they will either distribute it to people who are not close to meeting the limit and thereby spread the wealth more evenly, or they will simply budget less money to payroll thereby having more money to grow the company (which creates more jobs).

Actually I think that the large corporations would be all behind that idea. It pretty well isures that none of their top managers will go into business for themselves and become a competitor. Like Lucent that was founded by some of AT&T's top guys.

The problem isnt so much high incomes, but rather increasing consolodation of vast amounts of capital simultaneous to increased income disparity, and characterised by apparently less than ideal wage/income market outcomes.

I doubt that an income/earnings limit would solve that problem though, and I believe that implementing such a policy would cause problems in itself; basically I dont believe it would effectively solve the problems that do exist, whilst I do believe it would result in new problems.

OK, so let's cut the salaries of people in professional sports to say, $100,000.00 a year. Heck, they don't even work a full 12 months, so let's knock that down to about $60,000.00 a year. I'm sure we can find people willing to play football, basketball, hockey, baseball, etc. for that amount. They should be able to live fairly well on 60k a year.


Great, then they can lower ticket prices.

And where do you suppose we put all that money earned through marketing these players to the public? Bury it?

Send it to the government. :D

Why do we have people making 50 million dollars a year? Does anyone really need that much money? Obviously not, and the government sure seems to be lacking what it needs to fix it's runaway spending (more money). Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed an income ceiling for income over $80,000 a year. Meaning any income made over this amount goes directly to the government. To me, this makes a lot of sense. If we set an income cap at, say 1.5 million a year, adjusting for inflation, rich peeps can still buy their idiotically expensive luxury goods, or charge them to their company holding, and the amount of money brought in from taxes would allow the country to pay off the massive Social Security debt, along with give everyone a tax cut that would increase their total incomes. Makes quite a bit of sense to me. Anyone else have thoughts?

Most of the time, a person makes 50mil a year because he deserves it. I mean, a person who started and ran a sucessful company such as Walmart deserves 50mil a year. Denying people the money they deserve is just wrong.

Send it to the government. :D
Bush: Excellllllent...we have all the money from the Angels fans...and all the money from the Yankees fans. Now all we need is money from the Sox fans and we'd have enough money to buy us Canada!

Bush: Excellllllent...we have all the money from the Angels fans...and all the money from the Yankees fans. Now all we need is money from the Sox fans and we'd have enough money to buy us Canada!
Wow, I really do want to buy Canada. I mean that way we can finally prove to the Canadians once and for all who is better.

Most of the time, a person makes 50mil a year because he deserves it.
To be honest, I'm not convinced this is true any of the time, much less most...

I mean, a person who started and ran a sucessful company such as Walmart deserves 50mil a year.
They do?

Denying people the money they deserve is just wrong.
Very probably, but I'm having trouble seeing quite why someone deserves $50 million per year...:confused:

Very probably, but I'm having trouble seeing quite why someone deserves $50 million per year...:confused:
God really loves them?

Very probably, but I'm having trouble seeing quite why someone deserves $50 million per year...:confused:
Well, it is simply the capitalist argument that because these people are talented, and took a risk to become so successful that their business gets them over $50 million dollars that they deserve it.

If I started a hot-dog company and I was able to get over $50million dollars after paying off all of the other expenses is there any reason why I shouldn't get to keep it? I am the one who created the company and I as such should receive the most reward and most damage if my project fails, right?

Bush: Excellllllent...we have all the money from the Angels fans...and all the money from the Yankees fans. Now all we need is money from the Sox fans and we'd have enough money to buy us Canada!

ROFLMAO :D

I guarantee you, very very few people who make $50 million even work ONE DAY a year. Their money (likely inherited, not earned) makes money for them.

And as to the argument that you would cripple the economy, keep in mind that we are talking PERSONAL income tax. Businesses could still make all the money they wanted. They just couldnt give it all to the Board of Directors without making them give away a large portion to charity. THey might be more likely to distribute more funds to the other employees, or reinvest, which will HELP create jobs.

I also don't see how any human being could be worth that much (here, you are so special that we would rather you have this $50 million a year than see starving people have food to eat) I don't care what you do, no one EARNS $50 million a year. What on God's green earth is worth a million bucks a week? i dont know of any humans that indispensible.

I have a variation of the income cap that allows people to keep larger amounts of their income.

Let's say we put the cap at 1 million. But for those who make more than that, provide them with an incentive to give to charities (circumvent government waste and get the money directly to those who distribute it where it's needed). It would work like this:

For every dollar you give to charity, you get to keep a dollar over the cap amount.

So if you made $2 million, you get to keep the first million, and then if you gave $500,000 to charity, you could keep the other $500,000. If you only give $200,000 to charity, you get to keep $200,000 over the million dollar cap, and the rest ($600,000) would go to the government.

I dont trust the govt to help the world with the funds. I would rather see the money go to charities.

Very probably, but I'm having trouble seeing quite why someone deserves $50 million per year...:confused:

Because they earned it. :headbang:

Well, it is simply the capitalist argument that because these people are talented, and took a risk to become so successful that their business gets them over $50 million dollars that they deserve it.
Well in the first place it is not necessarily true that one needs to start a business, take a risk, or be exceptionally (ie more so than everyone who works as hard, makes equally meritous decisions etc, and yet makes substantially less than 1 million dollars per anum) talented relative to the rest of the population in order to have an income in excess of $50 million dollars per year.

If I started a hot-dog company and I was able to get over $50million dollars after paying off all of the other expenses is there any reason why I shouldn't get to keep it?
Perhaps, however I'm not convinced that is a relevent question since 'not deserving it' is not (in my opinion at least) sufficient reason to prevent or exclude you from keeping it.

I am the one who created the company and I as such should receive the most reward and most damage if my project fails, right?
Not necessarily, (although again I'm not convinced of the relevance), I would point out that plenty of people who stand to gain the most from their business ventures do not equally stand to loose the most if it fails.

And thank goodness they do. Even though they may not require that much money to lead happy healthy luxurious lives, the possibility (and actuality) of their earning it makes most of us regular people's jobs possible.

Call it ambition, call it greed, whatever. Its the driving force of our economy. Take away the capacity for people to reach their full (economic) potential, and you've killed the system.

If you don't like that, well, move to cuba.

Even the most socialist capitalist countries (Scandinavian countries, Israel) don't have cielings, because they understand the implications. They have heavily weighted progressive tax systems.

Yes, our hands are tied by the system. The common man is now dependent on large corporations, and the wealthy profit at the expense of those less fortunate. With a more socialistic approach, poverty would be nearly nonexistent. Everyone would live a comfortable life and be able to pursue their interests without having to worry about the next paycheck. Unfortunately, a society like that is difficult to attain, and even more difficult to maintain, especially with a large population. I believe complete success would only be possible in relatively small communities.

Because they earned it. :headbang:

Tell me what job is worth a million bucks a week.

I guarantee you, very very few people who make $50 million even work ONE DAY a year. Their money (likely inherited, not earned) makes money for them.
Obviously someone earned that money and chose for it to be handed to that person. Is it not the right of someone to choose where their money goes?

Tell me what job is worth a million bucks a week.

I'm still looking for one, I'll get back to you as soon as they hire me. :D

Tell me what job is worth a million bucks a week.
No nation on Earth uses "bucks" as their national currency.

We use emus.

you don't have a real cieling you have a logrithmic scale so that it requires a hell of a lot of money to keep $50 mil.

Obviously someone earned that money and chose for it to be handed to that person. Is it not the right of someone to choose where their money goes?


Not necessarily did someone EARN that money. Did the rich slave owners EARN their money? Or did they keep all the money other people earned?

Did Enron officials EARN their money, or did they steal it from pension funds?

My premise is that no job is worth over a million bucks a week, If someone is making that much, they aren't EARNING it with their own work.

And lets not argue that people are entitled to keep every dime they make. Taxes are part of life. It's the dues you pay for living in a society that has allowed you to become successful. You are required to give back in some measure. How much of a measure is the question we are debating.

I guarantee you, very very few people who make $50 million even work ONE DAY a year. Their money (likely inherited, not earned) makes money for them.
I don't personally know anyone who makes $50 million a year, but I know someone who makes a little over $30 million a year, and a person whose net worth is around $60 million. I assure you that they both work everyday, and both of them earned every cent that they have, they were both born with much less, the one that earns $30 million a year, grew up in a home without electricity. (and no he isn't just really old) I think that they deserve every penny that they have, yes thier money is making money for them, but if you have money at all that is just sitting around doing nothing what is the point of having it in the first place? I assume you don't have investments?

No nation on Earth uses "bucks" as their national currency.

We use emus.


THen tell me what job is worth a million emus a week. Answer the question, instead of trying to be witty and failing.

I guarantee you, very very few people who make $50 million even work ONE DAY a year. Their money (likely inherited, not earned) makes money for them.

Tell that to Al Ultchi, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Opehra Winfree, etc, etc.

Because they earned it. :headbang:
Did they? In what manner did they earn it? What exactly do you mean by 'earn it' if not a circular argument which equates to "if they own it they must deserve it, because they must have earnt it, because as it happens they own it'?

While there may be some truth to the statement "X has earnt and therefore deserves an income in excess of $50 million per year", (or even "everyone who has an income over $50 million per year earnt it and so deserves it"), your comments dont demonstrate that this is so, or even what reasoning we might employ to conclude that it is so.

Tell that to Al Ultchi, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Opehra Winfree, etc, etc.


As i said, very few actually WORK for their money. Naming a few exceptions only helps my point.

Besides, i still don't think what they do is worth over a million a week.

Tell me what job is worth a million bucks a week.
My personal ball washer.

THen tell me what job is worth a million emus a week. Answer the question, instead of trying to be witty and failing.
Obviously, any country that is facing some really terrible inflation, and has a lot of emus to use. ;)

Not necessarily did someone EARN that money. Did the rich slave owners EARN their money? Or did they keep all the money other people earned?
Based on the laws of the time, they did apparently.

Did they? In what manner did they earn it? What exactly do you mean by 'earn it' if not a circular argument which equates to "if they own it they must deserve it, because they must have earnt it, because as it happens they own it'?

I'll give you one example. Oprah Winfrey. She went and still goes to work every day. Because she was successfull, she works at managing her investmets. In other words, she earns her millions a day by working just like millions of people around the world. She didn't inherit her money, she worked for it.

A second example is Bill Gates. He goes to work every day. He has earned (worked for) all the money he has made.

My personal ball washer.

You haven't got enough money to pay her a million a week. :D

You haven't got enough money to pay her a million a week. :D
Who said anything about me paying her?

Did they? In what manner did they earn it? What exactly do you mean by 'earn it' if not a circular argument which equates to "if they own it they must deserve it, because they must have earnt it, because as it happens they own it'?

While there may be some truth to the statement "X has earnt and therefore deserves an income in excess of $50 million per year", (or even "everyone who has an income over $50 million per year earnt it and so deserves it"), your comments dont demonstrate that this is so, or even what reasoning we might employ to conclude that it is so.
Well, it is obvious that not everyone in this world deserves their position. There is no logical way to contest this point, however, this does not mean that people should not be rewarded based on what they are able to do or for the risks that they take.

You should make 50 million dollars or in excess of that if you deserve it due to your investments and entrepreneurship and such. I do realize that there are problems with corporate corruption and overpaid people in certain positions but this should not be fixed with a rule of this level of simplicity. Some people undoubtedly do deserve 50million+ due to their ability in attracting people's attention or for their excellent decision making or genius in some form. We should not attack ambition in the futile attempt to destroy corruption.

I'll give you one example. Oprah Winfrey. She went and still goes to work every day. Because she was successfull, she works at managing her investmets. In other words, she earns her millions a day by working just like millions of people around the world. She didn't inherit her money, she worked for it.

A second example is Bill Gates. He goes to work every day. He has earned (worked for) all the money he has made.
I am not at all convinced that there are not people who have incomes under $1 million a year who have worked and continue to work as hard as Oprah Winfrey, and have made as astute decisions and manage their affairs (including their financial cares) at a level at least as 'good/deserving' as Oprah.

In fact I'm confident there are people in the world who have worked harder than Oprah, in far less favourable work conditions, make the best possible decisions in their circumstances (including in regard to finances) yet over their entire earning career make less than Oprah makes in a single year.

My personal ball washer.

I'm a professional businessman, and my nuts should be CLEAN!

*clenches fist*

I am not at all convinced that there are not people who have incomes under $1 million a year who have worked and continue to work as hard as Oprah Winfrey, and have made as astute decisions and manage their affairs (including their financial cares) at a level at least as 'good/deserving' as Oprah.

In fact I'm confident there are people in the world who have worked harder than Oprah, in far less favourable work conditions, make the best possible decisions in their circumstances (including in regard to finances) yet over their entire earning career make less than Oprah makes in a single year.
There is obviously a luck factor, but Oprah does have a lot of power. She has her own show or something and magazine and all sorts of stuff. Her very name contributes to the success of projects and although that may not be very much work on her part it is wrong to take somebody else's name to put on a project without compensating them. If you want to argue that capitalism is bad then go ahead but there is no system better that I know of. Really, some of these people would not be so rich if people did not care so much about them. Movies would not hire the big name actors if they felt that small names were just as effective, sports teams would not pay the good players unspeakable amounts if fans did not care so much about winning. High pay is just an expression of the reality that society chooses to reward these people with exorbitant funds through the capitalist system in many cases.

There is obviously a luck factor, but Oprah does have a lot of power. She has her own show or something and magazine and all sorts of stuff. Her very name contributes to the success of projects and although that may not be very much work on her part it is wrong to take somebody else's name to put on a project without compensating them. If you want to argue that capitalism is bad then go ahead but there is no system better that I know of. Really, some of these people would not be so rich if people did not care so much about them. Movies would not hire the big name actors if they felt that small names were just as effective, sports teams would not pay the good players unspeakable amounts if fans did not care so much about winning. High pay is just an expression of the reality that society chooses to reward these people with exorbitant funds through the capitalist system in many cases.

Jeff Bagwell, a baseball player, makes $16,000,000 a year. A teacher, on average, makes $30,000 a year. I rest my case.

Well, it is obvious that not everyone in this world deserves their position.
Well yes, but what I am wondering is does anyone deserve a position that entails an income of $50 million per year?

There is no logical way to contest this point, however, this does not mean that people should not be rewarded based on what they are able to do or for the risks that they take.
That may well be true, but what evidence is there that anyone can do anything or took any risk worthy of $50 million per year in income, relative to the earnings of other members within their society?

You should make 50 million dollars or in excess of that if you deserve it due to your investments and entrepreneurship and such.
Should you? What exactly in the way of investing and such makes one 'deserving' of an income of $50 million per year, other than the rather circular argument, 'if you can acquire it you must deserve it, because you must have earned it, seeing as how you acquired it'?

I do realize that there are problems with corporate corruption and overpaid people in certain positions but this should not be fixed with a rule of this level of simplicity.
I have not advocated any rule of any level of complexity or simplicity.

Some people undoubtedly do deserve 50million+
Do they? So far I've not come across a more convincing argument than one that basically reduces down to "some people have incomes of that level, and therefore they should have incomes of that level"...

due to their ability in attracting people's attention
I dont see how attracting other people's attention makes one deserving of an income of $50 million per year in the context of any society I am aware of.

or for their excellent decision making or genius in some form.
In light of the fact that many excellent decision makers and people of great genius die poor as dogs, I'm not seeing what exactly is the factor that makes any particular person deserving of $50 million per year in the context of any society that I know of.

We should not attack ambition in the futile attempt to destroy corruption.
I'm not advocating an attack on ambition, although certainly I believe it is not desirable to blindly revere ambition.

I'm not entirely certain I was making reference to corruption (perhaps this portion of your comments is more related to comments earlier in this thread regarding ENRON for instance...?).

Jeff Bagwell, a baseball player, makes $16,000,000 a year. A teacher, on average, makes $30,000 a year. I rest my case.
When was the last time people in masses handed over money to watch a teacjer teach?

When was the last time people in masses handed over money to watch a teacjer teach?

My point is that a teacher's more important than a fucking athlete, entertaining or not.

Jeff Bagwell, a baseball player, makes $16,000,000 a year. A teacher, on average, makes $30,000 a year. I rest my case.
People think that Jeff Bagwell is worth 16million dollars and I actually do think that the teacher is possibly somewhat underpaid, she still is not spectacular in the greater scheme despite her great importance in the classroom.

People think that Jeff Bagwell is worth 16million dollars and I actually do think that the teacher is possibly somewhat underpaid, she still is not spectacular in the greater scheme despite her great importance in the classroom.

You know a system's great when people are paid more for being fun to watch than actually helping society as a whole. :rolleyes:

My point is that a teacher's more important than a fucking athlete, entertaining or not.
And this somehow makes money fall from the sky so that teachers can get paid more?

My point is that a teacher's more important than a fucking athlete, entertaining or not.
Not according to the masses. They will gladly pay those millions to watch him play and he deserves some form of pay because of his position in all of this. If people did not care whether the athlete was really good or not then he would not be so highly paid at all. Blame human nature.

And this somehow makes money fall from the sky so that teachers can get paid more?

It's called paying people for their labor, rather than what people think they should be paid. I really wanna flame the hell out of you right now, kiddo.

Not according to the masses. They will gladly pay those millions to watch him play and he deserves some form of pay because of his position in all of this. If people did not care whether the athlete was really good or not then he would not be so highly paid at all. Blame human nature.

Human nature? No. I'm blaming a dumb-fuck system, because that's the reason for it. The actual hard-working people in this country get paid next to nothing compared to these guys, just because they're more entertaining.

There is obviously a luck factor,
Which implies that 'deserving' is not really an appropriate description. When we say this person deserves X we are distinguishing them from those who do not (otherwise the statement doesnt really have any meaning). How does 'luck' make a person more deserving than someone without luck if both people have worked equally as hard, and made equally good decisions?

but Oprah does have a lot of power.
I'm not sure why this features as a 'but' as though it qualifies the luck that facilitated the acquisition of the resources that are the source of her power...:confused:

She has her own show or something and magazine and all sorts of stuff.
Yes, she owns things that allow her to earn a vast income, but that still is the same 'since she owns it she must deserve it because she must have earnt it if she owns it' argument. An argument that is entirely circular and resulting unconvincing.

Her very name contributes to the success of projects
Which doesnt necessarily mean that she deserves anything for having that name, or having the luck that made her name more significant than the equally hard working, equally good decisions makers who earn substantially less.

and although that may not be very much work on her part it is wrong to take somebody else's name to put on a project without compensating them.
That may well be so, (although why it is the case if doing so does not remove a deserved benefit from one person and derives another hard working and good decision making person no more benefit than say the 'luck' that made the name significant in the first place, is not entirely easy to say), but it doesnt demonstrate that the person being compensated for the use of their name deserves the compensation.

If you want to argue that capitalism is bad then go ahead but there is no system better that I know of.
I'll let you know if I ever do decide to make such an argument.

Really, some of these people would not be so rich if people did not care so much about them.
Unless you intend to argue that 'people caring about you' makes one deserving of such vast sums of money, I dont see how this is relevent to whether or not incomes of $50 million per year are 'deserved'.

Movies would not hire the big name actors if they felt that small names were just as effective, sports teams would not pay the good players unspeakable amounts if fans did not care so much about winning. High pay is just an expression of the reality that society chooses to reward these people with exorbitant funds through the capitalist system in many cases.
Which is entirely different to such 'high pay' being deserved by the recipients.

It's called paying people for their labor, rather than what people think they should be paid. I really wanna flame the hell out of you right now, kiddo.
Oh...Well at the moment I'm kinda running on auto-pilot because it's 10:05 pm and I'm doing Pre-Cal homework. Relax.

I'm just thinking on more realistic terms. People choose where they get to put their money. They choose to send it to this one man through the marketing of this man and his team. Therefore this one man gets paid more money than a teacher.

I mean really. I quit seeing where morals and common decensy (sp) fit into the world when I discovered murder.

Well yes, but what I am wondering is does anyone deserve a position that entails an income of $50 million per year?


That may well be true, but what evidence is there that anyone can do anything or took any risk worthy of $50 million per year in income, relative to the earnings of other members within their society?


Should you? What exactly in the way of investing and such makes one 'deserving' of an income of $50 million per year, other than the rather circular argument, 'if you can acquire it you must deserve it, because you must have earned it, seeing as how you acquired it'?


I have not advocated any rule of any level of complexity or simplicity.


Do they? So far I've not come across a more convincing argument than one that basically reduces down to "some people have incomes of that level, and therefore they should have incomes of that level"...


I dont see how attracting other people's attention makes one deserving of an income of $50 million per year in the context of any society I am aware of.


In light of the fact that many excellent decision makers and people of great genius die poor as dogs, I'm not seeing what exactly is the factor that makes any particular person deserving of $50 million per year in the context of any society that I know of.


I'm not advocating an attack on ambition, although certainly I believe it is not desirable to blindly revere ambition.

I'm not entirely certain I was making reference to corruption (perhaps this portion of your comments is more related to comments earlier in this thread regarding ENRON for instance...?).
I was making certain to address the issue of corruption. I do realize that many people who make a lot of money are overpaid in the sense that they are paid that much due to corporate corruption not due to what they do with themselves and their resources.

According to capitalist theory if a person invests their capital they should be rewarded for the success of that venture. If a person invests themself into their business and their capital and it turns out that their cut is going to be 50million after the level of taxation that would be normal for this level of gain then they should receive their money. There is little argument better than they should get it because they earn it or have it or whatever because that is sort of how the system works. If you are perceived as being worth 50mil by the market then that is what you deserve. Apparently these people are perceived as being worth 50 million dollars by their employers due to their hard work and such. If a company makes poor decisions in anything including the payment of its officers it should suffer.

I say rule because this thread is about income ceiling. An income ceiling is a very simple and uncomplicated way of dealing with a problem that is to some extent complex.

My argument is quite simple, if you do something that deserves 50mil (I don't know what would get that amount if I did I would gladly do it) then you should receive this 50mil. The only things that I can think of that would deserve 50 mil would be entrepreneurship which does deserve this amount in many cases due to the brilliance required to be a successful entrepreneur and the risk taken and possibly investing which if you invest your capital heavily then you should receive the amount that is earned from this investment.

Oh...Well at the moment I'm kinda running on auto-pilot because it's 10:05 pm and I'm doing Pre-Cal homework. Relax.

I'm just thinking on more realistic terms. People choose where they get to put their money. They choose to send it to this one man through the marketing of this man and his team. Therefore this one man gets paid more money than a teacher.

I mean really. I quit seeing where morals and common decensy (sp) fit into the world when I discovered murder.

1: How about, er, no?

2: Oh, and my terms aren't realistic? What you spew is bullshit, and nothing more. These sports teams get massive revenues from businesses their owners run, not because "people want the athletes to get a lot of money". It's highly irritating that people who build this country, i.e. industrial laborers and teachers, get jack-shit in comparison to these athletes, who are paid so much money just because their team owners have that much, and then some.

3: Well, that's really shallow-minded, I must say.

Human nature? No. I'm blaming a dumb-fuck system, because that's the reason for it. The actual hard-working people in this country get paid next to nothing compared to these guys, just because they're more entertaining.
It is human nature because these people are paying for this man and would gladly pay his 16million dollar salary otherwise the fan base of the team would not support this decision to keep the player. The guy's salary is supported because baseball is apparently a big industry and where people will compete for the really good players. I don't care about perfect world communism, I do not claim that the player should be so highly paid in a perfect system only that in the best working system that we have this man is paid so highly because people want him to have the money. If you don't like it then don't support baseball.

2: Oh, and my terms aren't realistic? What you spew is bullshit, and nothing more. These sports teams get massive revenues from businesses their owners run, not because "people want the athletes to get a lot of money". It's highly irritating that people who build this country, i.e. industrial laborers and teachers, get jack-shit in comparison to these athletes, who are paid so much money just because their team owners have that much, and then some.

3: Well, that's really shallow-minded, I must say.
No you aren't being too realistic. You are one of those communists who do not understand how the system works effectively. YES, it is the will of the people that says that the athlete is this highly paid. Managers do not want to overpay player because it cuts into their own profits. Nobody wants to sacrifice an unnecessary part of their own money but they see it as a necessity under this system. Sorry dude, this is how the economy works, it is based on rational self-interest. By the way, have you taken any course on economics?

Actually, I would say that Colodia is being realistic/cynical by thinking that perfect world morality is not something that would work in the real world.

1: How about, er, no?

2: Oh, and my terms aren't realistic? What you spew is bullshit, and nothing more. These sports teams get massive revenues from businesses their owners run, not because "people want the athletes to get a lot of money". It's highly irritating that people who build this country, i.e. industrial laborers and teachers, get jack-shit in comparison to these athletes, who are paid so much money just because their team owners have that much, and then some.

3: Well, that's really shallow-minded, I must say.
1: Well, your the one that would get the forumban for flaming, not me. I can understand how passionate you are about this, but relax. Don't flame me, for your own sake.

2: Erm, and these owners get money from where? They stole it out of the pockets of children on the streets eh? No, they got it from the pockets of those who handed the money over with a smile on their face as they buy some shiney Angels t-shirt or whatever. The people don't care where the money goes after they pay for it, but the fact is that the money goes to the players and their owners. You think people plan on it going to them? Nope. But that's where it goes.

3: Your move Holy-man. What makes you so open-minded to the world, eh? What makes you so enlightened? What's the source behind all this passion?

It is human nature because these people are paying for this man and would gladly pay his 16million dollar salary otherwise the fan base of the team would not support this decision to keep the player. The guy's salary is supported because baseball is apparently a big industry and where people will compete for the really good players. I don't care about perfect world communism, I do not claim that the player should be so highly paid in a perfect system only that in the best working system that we have this man is paid so highly because people want him to have the money. If you don't like it then don't support baseball.

Haha, sure. They're not really paying for him, you know.

All these sports teams are part of large corporations, which the team owners either control 100% or by a joint venture. These corporations make everyday things: Food products, cutlery, toilet paper, clothing, and other consumer products. These players aren't paid because of their "competitive market" (which is a total crock, which I'm sure you just pulled out of your ass); they're paid such ludicrous sums because their owners can afford it.

This isn't about "perfect-world" Communism. This is about fixing what's wrong with our current system, which would be a reasonable compromise (in regards to Communism). And hey, like I said, there's no way I can't support baseball. The owner of the Astros, Mr. McClain, owns businesses that produce products that I have to buy on a semi-weekly basis.

No you aren't being too realistic. You are one of those communists who do not understand how the system works effectively. YES, it is the will of the people that says that the athlete is this highly paid. Managers do not want to overpay player because it cuts into their own profits. Nobody wants to sacrifice an unnecessary part of their own money but they see it as a necessity under this system. Sorry dude, this is how the economy works, it is based on rational self-interest. By the way, have you taken any course on economics?

Actually, I would say that Colodia is being realistic/cynical by thinking that perfect world morality is not something that would work in the real world.

1: Actually, I do understand how the system works. I'm just pointing out the ridiculous flaws in its current form.

2: Nobody I know thinks these athletes should be getting nearly as much as they are. The athletes themselves are the ones who think so, and their managers have to pay them because, dare I say it, their Union pretty much forces them to. Yeah, I'm against one union.

3: Yeah, it's how the economy works, because it's so corrupt at this point. Surely you're not serious when you say, for example, a CEO of a major corporation, despite doing very little work, is worth ten times more than a doctor?

4: We all have our opinions. Some are just more retarded than others, sadly.

1: Well, your the one that would get the forumban for flaming, not me. I can understand how passionate you are about this, but relax. Don't flame me, for your own sake.

2: Erm, and these owners get money from where? They stole it out of the pockets of children on the streets eh? No, they got it from the pockets of those who handed the money over with a smile on their face as they buy some shiney Angels t-shirt or whatever. The people don't care where the money goes after they pay for it, but the fact is that the money goes to the players and their owners. You think people plan on it going to them? Nope. But that's where it goes.

3: Your move Holy-man. What makes you so open-minded to the world, eh? What makes you so enlightened? What's the source behind all this passion?

1: ...Which is why I didn't flame you.

2: My god, you must have mental issues. Read my post...

3: ...And what makes you so blind to the idiocy of our current economic system? We can play a game of Ping Pong; I have all night.

4: We all have our opinions. Some are just more retarded than others, sadly.
Yeah, **** *** ***.

Yeah, **** *** ***.

:D

Note that there was a time when athletes were paid an average salary in the thousands, rather than the millions. We can thank that dickhead Babe Ruth for starting the whole "athletes deserve millions" shit.

1: ...Which is why I didn't flame you.

2: My god, you must have mental issues. Read my post...

3: ...And what makes you so blind to the idiocy of our current economic system? We can play a game of Ping Pong; I have all night.
1. Yeah, calling my opinions retarded isn't at all like flaming.

2. I admire your ability to not flame me. It tries so hard and yet it sucks at it. Like a fat kid trying to play soccer and trying to keep up with the other kids.

3. What makes you so blind to the reality of the world? You want money to go to places where importance is all an opinion, and not where importance equals demand.

Which implies that 'deserving' is not really an appropriate description. When we say this person deserves X we are distinguishing them from those who do not (otherwise the statement doesnt really have any meaning). How does 'luck' make a person more deserving than someone without luck if both people have worked equally as hard, and made equally good decisions?


I'm not sure why this features as a 'but' as though it qualifies the luck that facilitated the acquisition of the resources that are the source of her power...:confused:


Yes, she owns things that allow her to earn a vast income, but that still is the same 'since she owns it she must deserve it because she must have earnt it if she owns it' argument. An argument that is entirely circular and resulting unconvincing.


Which doesnt necessarily mean that she deserves anything for having that name, or having the luck that made her name more significant than the equally hard working, equally good decisions makers who earn substantially less.


That may well be so, (although why it is the case if doing so does not remove a deserved benefit from one person and derives another hard working and good decision making person no more benefit than say the 'luck' that made the name significant in the first place, is not entirely easy to say), but it doesnt demonstrate that the person being compensated for the use of their name deserves the compensation.


I'll let you know if I ever do decide to make such an argument.


Unless you intend to argue that 'people caring about you' makes one deserving of such vast sums of money, I dont see how this is relevent to whether or not incomes of $50 million per year are 'deserved'.


Which is entirely different to such 'high pay' being deserved by the recipients.
Look, I am not going to even try to explain an entire economic system. Capitalism is the system where people with capital can invest it to get more. By investing your money you deserve whatever you get on the return.

I say luck because everything is luck, especially getting wealthy. There is always the chance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and such. You might find the girl of your dreams because you were at the right place at the right time and get her hand in marriage or body in bed (depending on your beliefs or desires) but you get the latter due to some of your own traits but being in the right place at the right time while being luck does not necessarily mean that you don't deserve her.

This economic system is based on your contributions to the system, which can be work, it can be your name, it can be your property. Paying people for their contribution can be difficult to do without a market to base the value of their work and it can offend some because they may feel that they are worth more than they are paid for whatever reason. If people feel that they are being cheated and that they can get a better deal they will leave.

The high pay of these people is based on the capitalist system and I am not the best person to explain it perfectly. I have just drifted in this direction over the course of time due to my experience and what I have heard from others and my economics class and studies. I know that I cannot convince somebody of the capitalist system, it requires one to study it and realize why it works on their own to some extent. I would recommend that you take an economics class though. Not all contributions are work though, and if you contribute to the economy in anyway then you deserve some fraction of the benefit that you have contributed if simply to create incentive to continue contributing.

1. Yeah, calling my opinions retarded isn't at all like flaming.

2. I admire your ability to not flame me. It tries so hard and yet it sucks at it. Like a fat kid trying to play soccer and trying to keep up with the other kids.

3. What makes you so blind to the reality of the world? You want money to go to places where importance is all an opinion, and not where importance equals demand.

1: Eh? I was stating that some people's opinions were more retarded than others, which is true.

2: Behold... Contradiction!

3: Excuse me while I gag. *gags* There we go.

"Opinion", eh? So, it's just my "opinion" that somebody who saves lives is more important than some dumbass who hits a ball with a stick? Get back to me when you find what's left of your consience.

1: Actually, I do understand how the system works. I'm just pointing out the ridiculous flaws in its current form.

2: Nobody I know thinks these athletes should be getting nearly as much as they are. The athletes themselves are the ones who think so, and their managers have to pay them because, dare I say it, their Union pretty much forces them to. Yeah, I'm against one union.

3: Yeah, it's how the economy works, because it's so corrupt at this point. Surely you're not serious when you say, for example, a CEO of a major corporation, despite doing very little work, is worth ten times more than a doctor?

4: We all have our opinions. Some are just more retarded than others, sadly.
1. I don't think that the current system is ridicuolously flawed, there is no perfect system though.

2. There are fans who willingly pay for these athletes to have these incredibly high salaries, if there weren't then the market could not support these overpaid people. You may not openly state that you favor the overpayment of athletes but you give you assent to it everytime that you buy a ticket or support the team in any way. Money talks and if the corporation is not getting enough of it then it will listen.

3. CEOs of a major corporation undoubtedly do a lot. They at the very least make major decisions and CEO is never a starting job. They are highly paid because others have to believe that you are worthy of this important position. Also, they want to attract the best minds to this job, if they only paid 30,000 dollars/yr for a CEO then they would only get nitwits with nothing better to do with their time.

4. Everyone has their beliefs, I just do not think that many leftist beliefs take into account human nature and the fact that people seek their best deal. People are often highly paid because of the competition for their services.

1: Eh? I was stating that some people's opinions were more retarded than others, which is true.

2: Behold... Contradiction!

3: Excuse me while I gag. *gags* There we go.

"Opinion", eh? So, it's just my "opinion" that somebody who saves lives is more important than some dumbass who hits a ball with a stick? Get back to me when you find what's left of your consience.
1. O RLY?

2. Think that was flaming? Heh. Cute.

3. What? You think I like it? You think I orgasm all over the idea that baseball players (I hate the sport, BTW) are living the life as compared to teachers?

"Opinion", eh? So, it's just my "opinion" that somebody who saves lives is more important than some dumbass who hits a ball with a stick? Get back to me when you find what's left of your consience.
Conscience is not how the world works. You are right, in a perfect world a doctor would be paid more, heck in a perfect world people would be happy all getting the same amount of money and there would not be all of these problems. This world is not perfect and probably will never be perfect. It most certainly will not become better through foolish idealism that rails against working beliefs to replace them with beliefs that don't work. The labor system of value is not the best way to run an economy because it stifles the natural flow of human interest, or it causes an overflow or something. It does not work. Conscience like I said earlier is not how the world works, pragmatism is how the world works.

1. I don't think that the current system is ridicuolously flawed, there is no perfect system though.

2. There are fans who willingly pay for these athletes to have these incredibly high salaries, if there weren't then the market could not support these overpaid people. You may not openly state that you favor the overpayment of athletes but you give you assent to it everytime that you buy a ticket or support the team in any way. Money talks and if the corporation is not getting enough of it then it will listen.

3. CEOs of a major corporation undoubtedly do a lot. They at the very least make major decisions and CEO is never a starting job. They are highly paid because others have to believe that you are worthy of this important position. Also, they want to attract the best minds to this job, if they only paid 30,000 dollars/yr for a CEO then they would only get nitwits with nothing better to do with their time.

4. Everyone has their beliefs, I just do not think that many leftist beliefs take into account human nature and the fact that people seek their best deal. People are often highly paid because of the competition for their services.

1: Hah! You're not admitting that it isn't flawed, therefore admitting it is flawed.

2: Oh yeah, fans are just going to baseball games to put money in the players' pockets, rather than to have a good time with their friends and family. :rolleyes:

3: There's no doubt that they make important decisions, but the actual work they do pales in comparison to the work of their laborers. Now, I'm not saying they should be paid less than said laborers; I'm saying they shouldn't be paid outrageous salaries. Oh, and go ahead and throw qualifications out the window, because that goes toward furthering your argument. Whatever gets you ahead, eh?

4: No; we just think that people should be paid based on their actual importance, rather than what people and the market think they should be paid.

1. O RLY?

2. Think that was flaming? Heh. Cute.

3. What? You think I like it? You think I orgasm all over the idea that baseball players (I hate the sport, BTW) are living the life as compared to teachers?

1 & 2: I'd laugh, but I'm too shocked to do so.

3: Well, judging by your "points", I can definitely see you creaming your pants all over them getting paid so much.

1 & 2: I'd laugh, but I'm too shocked to do so.

3: Well, judging by your "points", I can definitely see you creaming your pants all over them getting paid so much.
1 and 2: I'd laugh too, but I don't see the funny.

3: Yes. By the time I'm trying to make a kid my balls will be so tired of making sperm they'll just fight their way out.

Conscience is not how the world works. You are right, in a perfect world a doctor would be paid more, heck in a perfect world people would be happy all getting the same amount of money and there would not be all of these problems. This world is not perfect and probably will never be perfect. It most certainly will not become better through foolish idealism that rails against working beliefs to replace them with beliefs that don't work. The labor system of value is not the best way to run an economy because it stifles the natural flow of human interest, or it causes an overflow or something. It does not work. Conscience like I said earlier is not how the world works, pragmatism is how the world works.

Oh, we're turning this into a "perfect world" argument, now, are we? Sucks to lose an argument, eh?

Stifles the natural flow of human interest? "...or it causes an overflow or something. It does not work." Sounds like the words of somebody who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Yeah, let's just drop any thought of actually attempting a labor-based value economy, because it might hurt the fat fucks who do nothing but sit at their desks all day. And don't get started with that "deadweight loss" bullshit, because that's exactly what it is.

1 and 2: I'd laugh too, but I don't see the funny.

3: Yes. By the time I'm trying to make a kid my balls will be so tired of making sperm they'll just fight their way out.

Dude, do you even realise what you're doing?

*laughs uncontrollably*

Dude, do you even realise what you're doing?

*laughs uncontrollably*
Yes. At the moment my hands are in my pants and I am masterbating to this thread.

Yes. At the moment my hands are in my pants and I am masterbating to this thread.

Wow... You're totally missing it! Burn!

Wow... You're totally missing it! Burn!
Oh GAWD it's coming! (Ha, you get the pun?)

1: Hah! You're not admitting that it isn't flawed, therefore admitting it is flawed.

2: Oh yeah, fans are just going to baseball games to put money in the players' pockets, rather than to have a good time with their friends and family. :rolleyes:

3: There's no doubt that they make important decisions, but the actual work they do pales in comparison to the work of their laborers. Now, I'm not saying they should be paid less than said laborers; I'm saying they shouldn't be paid outrageous salaries. Oh, and go ahead and throw qualifications out the window, because that goes toward furthering your argument. Whatever gets you ahead, eh?

4: No; we just think that people should be paid based on their actual importance, rather than what people and the market think they should be paid.
1. Is there a perfect system? Only a complete moron would say that there is. I just don't know of a better working system.

2. Well, there is obviously a high demand to have a winning team because isn't it true that winning teams tend to be more popular with crowds and such so therefore in the competition for victory top teams will pay their top players a lot of money. If these families want to watch baseball but hate the current system then they can watch little league or try to find/establish a local group of amateur baseball players to watch their games. People pay for the games and players demand their own cut, obviously the players must not be very expendable otherwise they would be cut for cheaper players.

3. These companies pay for the most qualified leaders and therefore must put up a high salary so that they can pick and choose between the best applicants. Under an ideal capitalist system if these bosses were being overpaid then they would have to be fired/salary cut so that the company pays less. We all know that this is not ideal capitalism because of corruption but it is difficult to figure out how to fix it. Why not take advantage of it while it exists though?:D

4. Actual importance is very difficult to determine. How would you determine the precise importance of a person's job? If you do a bad job determining it then there will be problems which is why price fixing and such is generally bad. However, letting the market decide is similar to letting it be decided by the people in this market(the market includes most people)

I was making certain to address the issue of corruption. I do realize that many people who make a lot of money are overpaid in the sense that they are paid that much due to corporate corruption not due to what they do with themselves and their resources.
Ok.;)

According to capitalist theory if a person invests their capital they should be rewarded for the success of that venture.
Well not exactly. According to capitalism, the purpose of capital is the creation of further capital. This theoretically implies that people who are able to generate capital from capital will accrue ever greater amounts of capital; 'should be rewarded, deserves, or earnt it' are not part of that theory, but rather rationales that can be applied to outcome of the theory.

If a person invests themself into their business and their capital and it turns out that their cut is going to be 50million after the level of taxation that would be normal for this level of gain then they should receive their money.
What do you mean by 'should'? In terms of capital theory, if someone's capital generates capital that someone should in theory (ie according to the theory the predicted outcome is) own more capital than they started with. This is a theoretical 'should' not a moral 'should'.

There is little argument better than they should get it because they earn
That's as may be, but there is little evidence that such vastly disparate (to the income of other members of society) sums of money are 'earned'.

it or have it or whatever because that is sort of how the system works.
If that's true then there is no good argument that they 'should' (as in a moral 'should') get it. Obviously the system works like that (that's why it is characterised by those outcomes), but that doesnt mean that everyone is deserving of the outcomes generated.

If you are perceived as being worth 50mil by the market then that is what you deserve.
I'm not convinced that this is necessarily true. In fact to be honest I think that 'perceived ...by the market' is in itself a misleading conception (although obviously not one you are personally responsible for having given life to)...

Apparently these people are perceived as being worth 50 million dollars by their employers due to their hard work and such.
Perhaps, although to be honest I rather think that this is a rare happenstance if it happens at any rate of significance at all. Rather, if a person is employed for $50 million, I believe that this is because their employers believe that they can earn a substantial profit as a result of the arrangement.

If a company makes poor decisions in anything including the payment of its officers it should suffer.
'Should' as in morally deserves to, or 'should' as in 'theoretical prediction concerning the likely result'?

Evidently what is a poor decision in this context? I suspect you might consider the answer is obviously a decision that fails to make money (or worse looses money), which really brings us back to 'deserving' apparently meaning simply that 'that's what they've got', so they must deserve it because they must have earnt if they've got it...'
It's the same circular argument repackaged.

I say rule because this thread is about income ceiling.
Aha, but I've already stated outright that I think such a rule is undesirable.

An income ceiling is a very simple and uncomplicated way of dealing with a problem that is to some extent complex.
I dont disagree, and have already stated explicity that I dont support the notion of an 'income ceiling'.

My argument is quite simple, if you do something that deserves 50mil (I don't know what would get that amount if I did I would gladly do it) then you should receive this 50mil.
Aha, but your argument entirely fails if there is not something that does deserve 50 million in the particular context of a particular society.

The only things that I can think of that would deserve 50 mil would be entrepreneurship which does deserve this amount in many cases due to the brilliance required to be a successful entrepreneur and the risk taken

Well I'm not convinced this is so. What exactly in such a circumstance makes the person deserving in the context of the much greater risks undertaken by others in society with far lesser incomes? What aspect of the kind of 'brillance' that makes for entreprenueral success is inherently meritous so that it's possessor is rendered 'deserving'?

and possibly investing which if you invest your capital heavily then you should receive the amount that is earned from this investment.
Aha, but that is not the same as 'deserving' the profits generated.

Jeff Bagwell, a baseball player, makes $16,000,000 a year. A teacher, on average, makes $30,000 a year. I rest my case.


american federation of teachers (http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2004/071504.htm)The 2002-03 average teacher salary was $45,771, up 3.3 percent from the previous year, according to the report...

Now, the reason for a teacher making a teacher's salary instead of a baseball player's salary is a whole bunch of things, including relative scarcity of professional baseball playing jobs vs relative abundance of teaching positions, but I have a feeling (speaking as the son of a career public school teacher) that if infinite money were available, teachers would still be paid less. Now school administrators would make baseball players salaries under the infinite budget circumstance...;)

Oh, we're turning this into a "perfect world" argument, now, are we? Sucks to lose an argument, eh?

Stifles the natural flow of human interest? "...or it causes an overflow or something. It does not work." Sounds like the words of somebody who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Yeah, let's just drop any thought of actually attempting a labor-based value economy, because it might hurt the fat fucks who do nothing but sit at their desks all day. And don't get started with that "deadweight loss" bullshit, because that's exactly what it is.
I am not losing the argument. It is just that you are basing your point on ideals otherwise you would not make a reference to conscience when dealing with Colodia and such. I think that this market is the best option, there is no perfect system out there and the "perfect world" argument is a good way to highlight the flaws of the labor system of value and such.

Actually, I do know what I am talking about to some extent, the overflow or something comment was half sarcastic as I was making reference to how a poorly designed system will cause problems due to the supply and demand curves not being at equilibrium, which causes problems. The overflow is a reference to how when these curves are not in equilibrium there can be a surplus of goods or shortage based on the positions of the supply and demand curves in relationship to one another. Problems with supply and demand if not dealt with by the legitimate government are often dealt with by the black market. If there is a price ceiling on pay then what we have is people being paid under the table or paid with favors of some form. I know what I am talking about, I just do not always remember my economics perfectly, I took micro and macro econ last year and forgot some over the summer.

The labor value of things does not work because this value has to be assigned and may not be based on how much people will actually pay. It is sort of an artificial system that would not occur naturally outside of a commune or system where supplies were incredibly rare. Systems often need to let the markets decide certain things because the market reflects the needs, wants and desires of society as a whole and if there are flaws in a system they will often be rectified by this market but not always. If you think that your system is more efficient try to see if a business running on the labor value model does better in our economy or worse because capitalism seeks the most efficient companies to make up society.

1. Is there a perfect system? Only a complete moron would say that there is. I just don't know of a better working system.

2. Well, there is obviously a high demand to have a winning team because isn't it true that winning teams tend to be more popular with crowds and such so therefore in the competition for victory top teams will pay their top players a lot of money. If these families want to watch baseball but hate the current system then they can watch little league or try to find/establish a local group of amateur baseball players to watch their games. People pay for the games and players demand their own cut, obviously the players must not be very expendable otherwise they would be cut for cheaper players.

3. These companies pay for the most qualified leaders and therefore must put up a high salary so that they can pick and choose between the best applicants. Under an ideal capitalist system if these bosses were being overpaid then they would have to be fired/salary cut so that the company pays less. We all know that this is not ideal capitalism because of corruption but it is difficult to figure out how to fix it. Why not take advantage of it while it exists though?:D

4. Actual importance is very difficult to determine. How would you determine the precise importance of a person's job? If you do a bad job determining it then there will be problems which is why price fixing and such is generally bad. However, letting the market decide is similar to letting it be decided by the people in this market(the market includes most people)

1: Exactly, because we haven't tried any others yet. And don't get started on the U.S.S.R. --- That's Totalitarianism, through and through.

2: True, but it's ridiculous, really. I just don't think an athlete should be paid more money than a doctor or a teacher, and with certain restrictions, that could change.

3: Sadly, that's the thing... You have to take advantage of this system, because currently, that's all we've got.

4: It's not total price fixing. It's really just taking it at a glance: You're in this sector, so you could be paid anywhere from x-salary to x-salary, or you're in this industry, so you could be paid anywhere from x-salary to x-salary. See what I'm getting at?

It'd be like this: Rather than the average teacher making ~$45,000 a year (thanks for the correction, Ruloah), and the average NFL player making ~$750,000 a year (using this as an example rather than the average MLB player, because I'm not too sure about the league average), the average teacher would make ~$60,000 a year, and the average NFL player would make ~$50,000 a year.

Tough shit if some players don't think it's good enough. Personally, I think it'd actually do the league a lot of good. It'd get the high-stepping, flashy trash out (and the ridiculously-overpaid quarterbacks), and bring the league back to the days of Vince Lombardi.

Now, this would circulate more money to more people, because players wouldn't take so much money from the corporations that run the teams. Of course, since the salaries in said corporations would also be restricted, this would prevent CEO's and board members from just pocketing the extra money.

I am not losing the argument. It is just that you are basing your point on ideals otherwise you would not make a reference to conscience when dealing with Colodia and such. I think that this market is the best option, there is no perfect system out there and the "perfect world" argument is a good way to highlight the flaws of the labor system of value and such.

Yeah, because you have to use the perfect world argument rather than actual examples; something you can do with Capitalism.

Actually, I do know what I am talking about to some extent, the overflow or something comment was half sarcastic as I was making reference to how a poorly designed system will cause problems due to the supply and demand curves not being at equilibrium, which causes problems. The overflow is a reference to how when these curves are not in equilibrium there can be a surplus of goods or shortage based on the positions of the supply and demand curves in relationship to one another. Problems with supply and demand if not dealt with by the legitimate government are often dealt with by the black market. If there is a price ceiling on pay then what we have is people being paid under the table or paid with favors of some form. I know what I am talking about, I just do not always remember my economics perfectly, I took micro and macro econ last year and forgot some over the summer.

Who's saying it's poorly designed? And the black market making up for the lower pay is just absurd --- Yes, it will happen (and it does happen), but saying it will happen at such a frequency is ludicrous. Strawman, nothing more.

The labor value of things does not work because this value has to be assigned and may not be based on how much people will actually pay. It is sort of an artificial system that would not occur naturally outside of a commune or system where supplies were incredibly rare. Systems often need to let the markets decide certain things because the market reflects the needs, wants and desires of society as a whole and if there are flaws in a system they will often be rectified by this market but not always. If you think that your system is more efficient try to see if a business running on the labor value model does better in our economy or worse because capitalism seeks the most efficient companies to make up society.

You say that it simply cannot work because you refuse to believe anything but the system you've been indoctrinated to believe in. I'm not saying this system would be any more efficient than the current one (as it likely wouldn't), but it's not about efficiency. It's about fair pay for fair labor.

Capitalism does seek the most efficient companies to make up a society, and therein lies its fundamental flaw.

Whether you think someone deserves something is irrelevant. If you think they don't deserve it, don't spend money on it.

What matters is voluntary exchange. Oprah makes her money because people give it to her in exchange for goods and services.

If the board of a company think a particular executive is worth $50 million, then that executive is worth $50 million. The board thinks he deserves it, or they wouldn't give it him. The reasons are none of your busines because its not your company (the main reason is that the executive's successful actions and decisions have added value to the company)

Another point about income ceilings, one I can't believe no one has brought up in 7 pages of thread: If you set a ceiling, they will stop working once they get there, or they will hide the surplus. You may well reply "the police will find out about it", but since the police haven't been able to stop such things so far, there is no reason why they would with an income ceiling.

Also, no one addresses questions of legitimacy. Why should the state have the right to dictate how much you earn? The only people the state has any business setting wages for are people who are employed by the state.

Ok.;)


Well not exactly. According to capitalism, the purpose of capital is the creation of further capital. This theoretically implies that people who are able to generate capital from capital will accrue ever greater amounts of capital; 'should be rewarded, deserves, or earnt it' are not part of that theory, but rather rationales that can be applied to outcome of the theory.


What do you mean by 'should'? In terms of capital theory, if someone's capital generates capital that someone should in theory (ie according to the theory the predicted outcome is) own more capital than they started with. This is a theoretical 'should' not a moral 'should'.


That's as may be, but there is little evidence that such vastly disparate (to the income of other members of society) sums of money are 'earned'.


If that's true then there is no good argument that they 'should' (as in a moral 'should') get it. Obviously the system works like that (that's why it is characterised by those outcomes), but that doesnt mean that everyone is deserving of the outcomes generated.


I'm not convinced that this is necessarily true. In fact to be honest I think that 'perceived ...by the market' is in itself a misleading conception (although obviously not one you are personally responsible for having given life to)...


Perhaps, although to be honest I rather think that this is a rare happenstance if it happens at any rate of significance at all. Rather, if a person is employed for $50 million, I believe that this is because their employers believe that they can earn a substantial profit as a result of the arrangement.


'Should' as in morally deserves to, or 'should' as in 'theoretical prediction concerning the likely result'?

Evidently what is a poor decision in this context? I suspect you might consider the answer is obviously a decision that fails to make money (or worse looses money), which really brings us back to 'deserving' apparently meaning simply that 'that's what they've got', so they must deserve it because they must have earnt if they've got it...'
It's the same circular argument repackaged.


Aha, but I've already stated outright that I think such a rule is undesirable.


I dont disagree, and have already stated explicity that I dont support the notion of an 'income ceiling'.


Aha, but your argument entirely fails if there is not something that does deserve 50 million in the particular context of a particular society.


Well I'm not convinced this is so. What exactly in such a circumstance makes the person deserving in the context of the much greater risks undertaken by others in society with far lesser incomes? What aspect of the kind of 'brillance' that makes for entreprenueral success is inherently meritous so that it's possessor is rendered 'deserving'?


Aha, but that is not the same as 'deserving' the profits generated.
Well, the earning of this capital is what should happen according to this system so according to this system they do deserve it in the context of the system. In the context of a labor value system they may not deserve it but we do not have a labor value system, the capitalist system is not the labor value system and they follow different logic. Reality is not run by morality, if you can create a moral society that can still take part in and compete with the greater world then go ahead but I am not convinced it is so. Capitalism is not really a moral system in my opinion, only a practical one and practical methods are what get the job done.

The logic is circular I suppose because the nature of an economy is to use resources to acquire more resources in an endless cycle. Capitalism is not a moral system and is instead one that lives off of the get money so whatever is good is exactly whatever gets money and therefore acquiring the money through legal means is deserved money under the capitalist system.

My argument has no meaning if there is nothing that will get you a 50 million salary in my society. There is no point for any argument over something that does not exist. However, in our capitalist system a person can deserve the 50million by being worth the money according market pressures.

Deserving is created by risking a sufficient amount of resources and labor such on something in such a way that the resulting profit is 50 million. That is the only judge. I do not consider capitalism a moral system and do not try to even describe it with high minded considerations, after all a system completely based on greed should not be considered very moral anyway only very practical because almost all humans have desires that they need fulfilled and such demands on them force them to contribute in some way that satisfies the market.

What is this system that everyone is speaking about?

Is there someone, somewhere, who sits down, looks at what every individual person is doing for a living, decides what the pay should be for that job, sends out a memo, and sits back while all corporate/government/capital entities adjust peoples' pay accordingly?

Is there a conspiracy afoot?

Is there a grand master of capitalism that sets it all up?

Or is this just that sometimes, people look at their bosses, and think, "boy, I could do what he/she's doing" or "he just sits around all day, doing nothing---I could do that"?

Right now, my wife tells me that most of her fellow employees constantly say about her boss, "he doesn't do anything, he doesn't work"---but of course, they know nothing. They don't realize that he is on call literally 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He gets calls all day and all night, to fix problems, plus has to make sure everything is running smoothly, people have the resources to do their jobs, that people are there to do the jobs, and if someone does not call in, and just doesn't show up, he goes and works their shift, and the business runs 24/7, so he can get called at anytime, day or night, and he has a wife and children to interact with as well, etc etc.

Most people don't seem to realize what anyone else does on their jobs, they just know what they themselves do, and how important it is to the overall organization. And some people think that there is no value to a college education, or getting a degree---because why should someone with a degree or two get paid more than them? They just sit around, maybe go out and play golf occasionally, why do they deserve to get paid more?

Try looking into what the people who make $50 million did to earn that money, rather than supposing that they stole it, or that it just fell out of the sky on them, or that a board of directors just picked some person at random to give money to, or some other b/s reason for hating someone whose worth to somebody/some corporation is a lot more than what they want to pay you...

BTW, I support a couple of well-paid managing directors at my company, and I am glad that I don't have to do what they do to make the money. Sure, I would like to make more, but I don't want to go out and meet people to sell, sell, sell constantly, and then travel, travel, travel all over to make things happen, away from home and wife constantly. I would rather stay home with my honey, that is my priority.

Now if you want to make $50 million, change your priorities. That is the beauty of living in the USA. You can do it, if you really want to. That may sound like b/s, but it is the truth, for so many who come to these shores!
I know that, because I know and have known so many of them. And I am a lazy natural-born American who does not want to work as hard as they do to get rich...:D

Look, I am not going to even try to explain an entire economic system.
That's good since it doesnt appear to be necessary that you do so, so far as I can tell.

Capitalism is the system where people with capital can invest it to get more.
I am aware of this fact.

By investing your money you deserve whatever you get on the return.
If that were so, I suspect it would not be so difficult to come up with a sound argument demonstrating as much.

I say luck because everything is luck, especially getting wealthy.
If that is true, unless you have an argument that demonstrates that only people who deserve to be lucky are lucky, or alternatively that the good fortune of being lucky somehow makes one deserving, I'm confused as to why you insist that those who have such high incomes, 'deserve' them.

There is always the chance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and such. You might find the girl of your dreams because you were at the right place at the right time and get her hand in marriage or body in bed (depending on your beliefs or desires) but you get the latter due to some of your own traits but being in the right place at the right time while being luck does not necessarily mean that you don't deserve her.
It doesnt necessarily mean much of anything relevent to whether or not incomes of $50 million are 'deserved'.

This economic system is based on your contributions to the system,
which can be work, it can be your name, it can be your property.
All economic systems are based on contributions to the system, including communism.

Paying people for their contribution can be difficult to do without a market to base the value of their work and it can offend some because they may feel that they are worth more than they are paid for whatever reason. If people feel that they are being cheated and that they can get a better deal they will leave.
Paying people for their contribution is not a necessary aspect of capitalism, arguably not paying people the value of their contribution is. As for whether or not 'leaving' (I presume you mean one's employment) is a viable alternative to continued employment in a particular position for any particular person, either way, I dont see how that is relevent to whether or not any one person deserves $50 million per year in income.

The high pay of these people is based on the capitalist system and I am not the best person to explain it perfectly.
More accurately it is an outcome of a capitalist system.

I have just drifted in this direction over the course of time due to my experience and what I have heard from others and my economics class and studies. I know that I cannot convince somebody of the capitalist system, it requires one to study it and realize why it works on their own to some extent.
I dont see that I need convincing of the capitalist system (by this I presume you mean convincing of it's merits).

I would recommend that you take an economics class though.
I'll take it under advisement...

Not all contributions are work though, and if you contribute to the economy in anyway then you deserve some fraction of the benefit that you have contributed if simply to create incentive to continue contributing.
I'm not convinced we are discussing 'some fragment' of the benefit, nor am I convinced that because something is pragmatic the beneficiary of that something is necessarily deserving of the entire benefit, nor am I convinced that without regard to other factors all and any contribution to an economy is desirable and so ought to be encouraged.

And the black market making up for the lower pay is just absurd --- Yes, it will happen (and it does happen), but saying it will happen at such a frequency is ludicrous. Strawman, nothing more.

According to former Soviet economist, Timofeyev, "The entire Soviet economy, from top to bottom, is permeated by black-market relationships, which are in fact the living blood circulating in this dead organism."

Highly regulated economies feed black markets, and the more they are regulated, the more black market there is.

I'm not saying this system would be any more efficient than the current one (as it likely wouldn't), but it's not about efficiency. It's about fair pay for fair labor.

Capitalist systems already take care of "fair pay for fair labour", all that socialist governments do is take that power for themselves, and the main effect of that is to make people dependent on the socialists.

Efficiency is important, if an economy is inefficient, it won't fill the demands of the population, which necessitates rationing. Again, the primary effect of this is to make people dependent on the socialists.

Capitalism does seek the most efficient companies to make up a society, and therein lies its fundamental flaw.

That's a flaw?! Looks like a strength to me.

Yeah, because you have to use the perfect world argument rather than actual examples; something you can do with Capitalism.

Who's saying it's poorly designed? And the black market making up for the lower pay is just absurd --- Yes, it will happen (and it does happen), but saying it will happen at such a frequency is ludicrous. Strawman, nothing more.

You say that it simply cannot work because you refuse to believe anything but the system you've been indoctrinated to believe in. I'm not saying this system would be any more efficient than the current one (as it likely wouldn't), but it's not about efficiency. It's about fair pay for fair labor.

Capitalism does seek the most efficient companies to make up a society, and therein lies its fundamental flaw.
I am sorry that I do not use very many actual examples, I don't like dealing with such things. I suppose that actual examples of the system at work are all around us considering that the US has a high level of employment, good levels for wages, and it is a rather successful and powerful country. Really, most nations around us are capitalist so I think that to some extent real world examples are sort of redundant. I do not read much news nor do I care about many events, I would forget it all really. I just want to learn that which will get me into a good field of study. I do realize that I do use some arguments from capitalist theory to get my point across but I feel that because of how basic these arguments are in a theory that has been tested for such a long time these theories are basicly true.

Poorly designed because human systems cannot usually estimate these markets very well especially without being directly influenced by them. Look at the soviet union price fixing situation where bread was worth less than grain. That is price fixing at work. I do not claim that every time it happens a black market pops up but I simply state that it is incredibly likely to happen.

I care about efficiency. Fairness is an abstraction, if a society fails to be efficient then people leave to where they can get what they think satisfies them in the most efficient way. If efficient is fair then so be it, if it isn't then so what? To fail to be competitive is weakness and this may be my own take on weakness but I believe that weakness is an evil.

I seek efficiency so therefore I seek some level of capitalism.

I am sorry that I do not use very many actual examples, I don't like dealing with such things.

And there you have it, kids. I've had enough of the bullshittery in this thread.

*walks out*

That's good since it doesnt appear to be necessary that you do so, so far as I can tell.

I am aware of this fact.

If that were so, I suspect it would not be so difficult to come up with a sound argument demonstrating as much.

If that is true, unless you have an argument that demonstrates that only people who deserve to be lucky are lucky, or alternatively that the good fortune of being lucky somehow makes one deserving, I'm confused as to why you insist that those who have such high incomes, 'deserve' them.

It doesnt necessarily mean much of anything relevent to whether or not incomes of $50 million are 'deserved'.

All economic systems are based on contributions to the system, including communism.

Paying people for their contribution is not a necessary aspect of capitalism, arguably not paying people the value of their contribution is. As for whether or not 'leaving' (I presume you mean one's employment) is a viable alternative to continued employment in a particular position for any particular person, either way, I dont see how that is relevent to whether or not any one person deserves $50 million per year in income.

More accurately it is an outcome of a capitalist system.

I dont see that I need convincing of the capitalist system (by this I presume you mean convincing of it's merits).

I'll take it under advisement...

I'm not convinced we are discussing 'some fragment' of the benefit, nor am I convinced that because something is pragmatic the beneficiary of that something is necessarily deserving of the entire benefit, nor am I convinced that without regard to other factors all and any contribution to an economy is desirable and so ought to be encouraged.
Alright, what the heck is so hard to believe about getting what you deserve when you invest?? I give Johnny 10 bucks for him to start a lemonade stand. With this 10 bucks Johnny creates his lemonade stand and makes money for himself. So Johnny in return pays me back the 10 dollars and the interest which is to some extent set by contractual agreement and can often be based on time. Johnny can make his profit because he took the initiative to create his lemonade and sell it and I get my profit for risking my money on a venture that could have failed and for helping Johnny try to get his lemonade stand started.

You cannot be wealthy without both luck and ability. If you have great luck but lacking ability then you will not be able to take advantage of your opportunity effectively. If you have great ability but don't have the luck then you will probably just land somewhere in the middle class or possibly in debt if you risked a lot on your venture. Having both luck and ability gets you to the top because there are limited opportunities and there is no real system for distributing opportunity. You could meet Dr Drake Vorhan, a brilliant physicist, have him discover your gift for atomic physics and end up as a great inventor all because some guy found you out of the blue and gave you an opportunity to reach your potential. No system can be perfectly fair and lack a luck factor. The example that I gave was a semi-economic example that sort of paralleled the 50 million dollar discussion and luck.

All economic systems are based on contributions but Communism often cannot adjust for non-labor contributions or even adjust for above average work like capitalism can.

Paying people for their contribution is a necessary part of a free market which is part of capitalism. There is rational self-interest and if people feel that they are not receiving their due then they can decide to not work or not support something and considering the laws we have that protect individuals which I do support these people do have to be paid for most of the non-money contributions.

Ok, so you are an intelligent person who just likes to attack arguments without a position of your own. Why? (I mean the real reason not simply stating rational self-interest) I simply think that capitalism is good because it can reward effort and such better than communism. It is not a perfectly moral system but that does not prevent the capitalists from being moral people and philanthropists it only ensures that the system works even when people are not altruists.

If a cap of...say $2,000,000/ year was implimented would it really effect most people?

"Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer each received total compensation of $901,667 in Microsoft's 2004 fiscal year, up 4.4 percent from $863,447 one year ago.

Gates, Microsoft's chairman and chief software architect, and Ballmer, the software maker's chief executive officer, each received a base salary of $591,667 and a $310,000 bonus for the 12-month period ended June 30, according to documents filed this week with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission."

Of course he is WORTH much more.

And there you have it, kids. I've had enough of the bullshittery in this thread.

*walks out*
Right, and I thought that you were the one who was full of bullshit because you do not offer a system that will work or be efficient or anything. All you have done is whined about a capitalist system and how the markets do not work for some reason despite the fact that we have all sorts of other useless crap because a large group of people are stupid enough to want it. I don't read very much news and don't care for very much history so I don't have very many examples.

There *is* no social justice only social reality. If they coincide then it is good if they don't then let us just hope that it will be short term. Besides, I am tired anyway considering that I should have gone to sleep a few hours ago.

Whether you think someone deserves something is irrelevant.
Whether or not someone deserves something is not irrelevent to whether or not someone deserves something.

If the board of a company think a particular executive is worth $50 million, then that executive is worth $50 million. The board thinks he deserves it, or they wouldn't give it him.
No, if a board gives an exec $50 million it's because they believe they will benefit financially from such an arrangement, (at least if the board have any economic sense whatsoever). Unless the board are a bunch of economic idiots, what they think the person deserves isnt relevent to how much they will pay them.

Another point about income ceilings, one I can't believe no one has brought up in 7 pages of thread: If you set a ceiling, they will stop working once they get there, or they will hide the surplus.
You need not believe it, the point came up a few pages back although not necessarily in the exact words you have employed.

Well, the earning of this capital is what should happen according to this system so according to this system they do deserve it in the context of the system.
Er no, capitalism is an economic system not a moral system. While you can choose to view capitalism as being an economic system that generates outcomes compatable with your (or society's) morals, such morals are not relevent to the system's functioning.

In the context of a labor value system they may not deserve it but we do not have a labor value system, the capitalist system is not the labor value system and they follow different logic.
I take it the phrase 'labour market' is not one you are familiar with?

Reality is not run by morality, if you can create a moral society that can still take part in and compete with the greater world then go ahead but I am not convinced it is so.
How are these comments relevent? I cant help but get the impression you have lost sight of the comments you were actually arguing against...

Capitalism is not really a moral system in my opinion, only a practical one and practical methods are what get the job done.
That's right, it isnt a moral system, that is why it is not true that according to the system anyone deserves anything, because 'deserving' is a moral distinction, ie something that is not relevent to the functioning of capitalism.

The logic is circular I suppose because the nature of an economy is to use resources to acquire more resources in an endless cycle.
The nature of capitalism does not make an unsound argument sound, and all circular arguments are unsound.

Capitalism is not a moral system
Aha, that's why it makes no sense at all to suggest that according to capitalism something is deserved. Whether or not something is deserved is a moral distinction, ie a distinction that capitalism does not tell us anything about whatsoever.

and is instead one that lives off of the get money so whatever is good is exactly whatever gets money and therefore acquiring the money through legal means is deserved money under the capitalist system.
Despite realising that capitalism is not a moral system, and cannot render judgements about moral distinctions (such as deservedness) you still keep stating the opposite. Is it really that painful to admit that some people benefit beyond what they deserve?

My argument has no meaning if there is nothing that will get you a 50 million salary in my society.
Your argument fails if what can get someone 50 million per year in income is not in the context of the income of other members of their society 'deserved'.

There is no point for any argument over something that does not exist. However, in our capitalist system a person can deserve the 50million by being worth the money according market pressures.
That one can generate a particular outcome does not make one deserving of the outcome.

Deserving is created by risking a sufficient amount of resources and labor such on something in such a way that the resulting profit is 50 million.
I dont see that risking material possessions makes one deserving of $50 million per year income.

That is the only judge.
The ends justify the ends...mmm interesting moral perspective you apparently have.

I do not consider capitalism a moral system
which makes your insistance that it is capable of rendering moral judgements all the more strange.

and do not try to even describe it with high minded considerations, after all a system completely based on greed should not be considered very moral anyway only very practical because almost all humans have desires that they need fulfilled and such demands on them force them to contribute in some way that satisfies the market.
Right. I gotta ask, do you still actually know what it is that I stated that you are arguing against because I honestly think you have lost track and are now either trying to argue against things I did not state, or trying to convince me of things that actually are not contrary or even relevent to the comments you initially replied to argue against.:confused:

Whether or not someone deserves something is irrelevent to whether or not someone deserves something.

Whether or not you think someone deserves something is irrelevant. No one appointed you Dictator Of The Universe.

No, if a board gives an exec $50 million it's because they believe they will benefit financially from such an arrangement, (at least if the board have any economic sense whatsoever). Unless the board are a bunch of economic idiots, what they think the person deserves isnt relevent to how much they will pay them.

Nonsense. They will reward people who have financially benefitted the firm, they have rewarded such people, ever heard of a "golden handshake"?

That's right, it isnt a moral system, that is why it is not true that according to the system anyone deserves anything, because 'deserving' is a moral distinction, ie something that is not relevent to the functioning of capitalism.

It is a moral system, based primarily on the idea that the individual is supreme.

Heh, I'm glad I stayed out of this one.

Alright, what the heck is so hard to believe about getting what you deserve when you invest?? I give Johnny 10 bucks for him to start a lemonade stand. With this 10 bucks Johnny creates his lemonade stand and makes money for himself. So Johnny in return pays me back the 10 dollars and the interest which is to some extent set by contractual agreement and can often be based on time. Johnny can make his profit because he took the initiative to create his lemonade and sell it and I get my profit for risking my money on a venture that could have failed and for helping Johnny try to get his lemonade stand started.
We are not talking about 'a profit' we talking about 10's of millions of dollars a year in return for risking property.

You cannot be wealthy without both luck and ability.
Sure you can.

If you have great luck but lacking ability then you will not be able to take advantage of your opportunity effectively.
Untrue, an idiot could have the luck to win a big lottery prize, could get out a phone book and rip up bits of paper with the names of financial advisors, chuck the names in a hat and by good fortune (and in no way due to ability) happen to pull out the name of an astute and honest financial manager.

If you have great ability but don't have the luck then you will probably just land somewhere in the middle class or possibly in debt if you risked a lot on your venture.
Exactly. Now what distinguishes the equally able but unlucky person from the one with $50 million other than luck and the millions? Anything that actually renders the millionaire more deserving rather than just luckier...?

Having both luck and ability gets you to the top because there are limited opportunities and there is no real system for distributing opportunity. You could meet Dr Drake Vorhan, a brilliant physicist, have him discover your gift for atomic physics and end up as a great inventor all because some guy found you out of the blue and gave you an opportunity to reach your potential. No system can be perfectly fair and lack a luck factor. The example that I gave was a semi-economic example that sort of paralleled the 50 million dollar discussion and luck.
Yes, once again I have to ask if you actually know what it is you are arguing against; offering examples that support the assertion you are trying to argue against is certainly an unconventional way to go about things...:confused:

All economic systems are based on contributions but Communism often cannot adjust for non-labor contributions or even adjust for above average work like capitalism can.
That's neither here nor there with regards to the assertion that you arguing against.

Paying people for their contribution is a necessary part of a free market which is part of capitalism.
A free market is one possible arrangment within a capitalist economic system. It is possible to have a free market without capitalism and capitalism without a free market.

There is rational self-interest and if people feel that they are not receiving their due then they can decide to not work or not support something and considering the laws we have that protect individuals which I do support these people do have to be paid for most of the non-money contributions.
Whether or not leaving one's current employment is a viable alternative to continuing the employment range, for any particular person at any particular time is irrelevent to the point you are attempting to negate, and so irrelevent to negating that point.

Ok, so you are an intelligent person who just likes to attack arguments without a position of your own.
:confused: What? The fact that you have forgotten the point you were arguing against, yet continue to argue, leads you to conclude that the person who made the point you have forgotten but still are attempting to argue against, has no position...confused:

Why?(I mean the real reason not simply stating rational self-interest) I simply think that capitalism is good because it can reward effort and such better than communism. It is not a perfectly moral system but that does not prevent the capitalists from being moral people and philanthropists it only ensures that the system works even when people are not altruists.
None of which implies or is even relevent to whether or not $50 million per year incomes are 'deserved'.

Whether or not you think someone deserves something is irrelevant. No one appointed you Dictator Of The Universe.
Whether or not I think someone deserves something is materially relevent in a discussion about my views on whether or not someone deserves something...in this case it just so happens that I was discussing my view on whether or not someone does deserve something. It seems a bit pointless to argue that the subject of a discussion is not relevent to the discussion....

Nonsense. They will reward people who have financially benefitted the firm, they have rewarded such people, ever heard of a "golden handshake"?
Yes I have, however I dont have any particular reason to believe that any of the golden handshakes I am aware of were based on feel good cuddlies rather than financial considerations.

It is a moral system, based primarily on the idea that the individual is supreme.
No it is an economic system based on concept of capital generating surplus capital which in turn is used to generate yet more surplus capital. That it might facilitate moral outcomes, or function in a way compatable with moral concepts, or may be adopted due to percieved moral benefits, or may even form the basis of particular people's value systems, does not change the fact that it is an economic system.

Untrue, an idiot could have the luck to win a big lottery prize, could get out a phone book and rip up bits of paper with the names of financial advisors, chuck the names in a hat and by good fortune (and in no way due to ability) happen to pull out the name of an astute and honest financial manager

The decision to purchase the services of someone with ability when you don't have the ability yourself is a sound decision, therefore that is a case of someone risking his resources on a decision, if he makes a sound decision, he should be able to keep the rewards for doing so, likewise if he makes a bad decision (hires an idiot or a crook in this case), he will take responsibility because he loses those resources.

Exactly. Now what distinguishes the equally able but unlucky person from the one with $50 million other than luck and the millions? Anything that actually renders the millionaire more deserving rather than just luckier...?

Define "deserves" in a manner that is not in any way subjective.

None of which implies or is even relevent to whether or not $50 million per year incomes are 'deserved'.

The question of whether or not the $50 mil pa income is deserved is not germane to the subject of 'income ceilings'.

Whether or not I think someone deserves something is materially relevent in a discussion about my views on whether or not someone deserves something...in this case it just so happens that I was discussing my view on whether or not someone does deserve something. It seems a bit pointless to argue that the subject of a discussion is not relevent to the discussion....

"Deserving" is irrelevant. Voluntary trading is the essence of capitalism. People don't get paid because they pass a magical test which find that they "deserve" something, they are paid because the person paying them agreed to do so in return for work.

There is no universal test for "deserving" something, therefore the whole discussion of whether someone "deserves" the pay they are getting is irrelevant, it has no bearing on the question of whether or not there should be an income ceiling.

The whole notion is nothing more than a barely disguised advocacy of sacrificing the rights of some for the interests of others.

The whole notion is nothing more than a barely disguised advocacy of sacrificing the rights of some for the interests of others.
All political theory is exactly that - including libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and whatever other form of "leave the rich people alone"-idea we have come up with.

And before you start explaining what "rights" are - it's irrelevant, because if you can't enforce your right, you might as well not have it at all. The result is the same.

There are two problems with the original poster's idea, one legal and one social.

The legal problem is with regard to personal freedom. "Why do we have people making 50 million dollars a year? Does anyone really need that much money?" Maybe not, but is it the state's job to decide how much anyone needs? In a free society, probably not.

The social problem is that, in a prosperous society, you need an incentive for people to generate wealth. I'm all for a progressive tax system, where the rich pay more than the less-rich for government, but what you're suggesting is a punitive tax system, which discourages what a sound tax system encourages, which is wealth creation, which leads to prosperity.

A more sound policy would be (why are there so many threads about taxes, this is the third time I write this?) to allow the rich to rebate most of their taxes in donations to charity. That way, people wouldn't just be writing off a check to the government, they would be actively looking for organizations that will put their money to good use, thus promoting better welfare.

The decision to purchase the services of someone with ability when you don't have the ability yourself is a sound decision,
So is eating often enough to prevent starvation. Making a sound decision does not always require particular or even average aptitude.

therefore that is a case of someone risking his resources on a decision, if he makes a sound decision, he should be able to keep the rewards for doing so, likewise if he makes a bad decision (hires an idiot or a crook in this case), he will take responsibility because he loses those resources.
Whether or not an idiot who happens to win a major prize in the lottery and then by good fortune randomly pulls the name of a good financial manager out of a hat full of random names of financial management practitioners, 'deserves' their good fortunes doesnt change the fact that the financial benefit of the idiot's good luck can be sufficient to categorise the idiot as wealthy and yet did not require any expectional (or even average range) ability on the part of the idiot.

Define "deserves" in a manner that is not in any way subjective.
:confused: Whyever would I do that?:confused: Deserves is a moral distinction, and it is my view that moral distinctions are subjective. Not only would such an attempt be contrary to my understanding of the nature of the word (and the concept that it is a linguistic symbol of), I see no utility in doing so; I dont see that such a definition would demonstrate anything of relevence to the discussion...:confused:

The question of whether or not the $50 mil pa income is deserved is not germane to the subject of 'income ceilings'.
The question of whether or not the $50 mill pa income is deserved is germane to the discussion of my veiw that such an income is not in most cases (where it occurs) deserved, which discussion followed on from an earlier poster's comments that such incomes were in most cases deserved.

It is entirely true that I dont see that the deservedness of such incomes is ought to decide whether or not such a ceiling ought to exist. Indeed it would be self contrary to state (as I did) that I do not support such a ceiling and yet also state (as I did) that I doubt very much 50 million dollar a year incomes are in most cases deserved.

"Deserving" is irrelevant.
Deserving cannot be irrelevent to a discussion in which it is the subject, which in the case of the discussion between myself and those I was having a discussion with, it was.

Voluntary trading is the essence of capitalism. People don't get paid because they pass a magical test which find that they "deserve" something, they are paid because the person paying them agreed to do so in return for work.
Actually generating excess capital that can in turn generate excess capital is the essence of capitalism. The fact that payment and 'deservedness' need by linked in way, is one reason why I am somewhat dubious about the claim that most of the people who have incomes in excess of 50 million dollars actually deserve such incomes.

There is no universal test for "deserving" something, therefore the whole discussion of whether someone "deserves" the pay they are getting is irrelevant, it has no bearing on the question of whether or not there should be an income ceiling.
Topics often branch out, and you neednt feel compelled to join in such 'branching off' from the main topic, however if you do so, it's probably a good idea to not confuse the two seperate subjects. Personally I dont believe such incomes are in most cases deserved, so arguments supporting a no-income-ceiling view, that require such incomes be deserved, are of little interest to me. Although I concede I cannot possibly predict every possible argument, I find it unlikely that an argument which premises the undeservedness of such incomes as it's primary rational would convince me that income ceilings are desirable...

The whole notion is nothing more than a barely disguised advocacy of sacrificing the rights of some for the interests of others.
Which 'whole notion'?

So is eating often enough to prevent starvation. Making a sound decision does not always require particular or even average aptitude.

Perhaps you've not heard of responsibility (those who advocate socialistic system don't seem to have). If you make a sound decision, you should get the rewards for doing so, if you make a stupid decision, you should pay for it.

Whether or not an idiot who happens to win a major prize in the lottery and then by good fortune randomly pulls the name of a good financial manager out of a hat full of random names of financial management practitioners, 'deserves' their good fortunes doesnt change the fact that the financial benefit of the idiot's good luck can be sufficient to categorise the idiot as wealthy and yet did not require any expectional (or even average range) ability on the part of the idiot.

A sound decision has still been made. No reason for the person who made it to be denied the just rewards.

The question of whether or not the $50 mill pa income is deserved is germane to the discussion of my veiw that such an income is not in most cases (where it occurs) deserved, which discussion followed on from an earlier poster's comments that such incomes were in most cases deserved.

You've not established that one gets an income because they pass some arbitrary test, nor have you shown why your views on what people deserve should change anything for anyone.

I see no utility in doing so; I dont see that such a definition would demonstrate anything of relevence to the discussion...

It is quite simple. State caps on income are being justified because people don't "deserve" such high incomes.

Topics often branch out, and you neednt feel compelled to join in such 'branching off' from the main topic, however if you do so, it's probably a good idea to not confuse the two seperate subjects. Personally I dont believe such incomes are in most cases deserved, so arguments supporting a no-income-ceiling view, that require such incomes be deserved, are of little interest to me. Although I concede I cannot possibly predict every possible argument, I find it unlikely that an argument which premises the undeservedness of such incomes as it's primary rational would convince me that income ceilings are desirable...

If you're paying, then what you think people deserve is relevant because its your money. If I'm paying, then what you think my employees deserve is irrelevant.

Actually generating excess capital that can in turn generate excess capital is the essence of capitalism.

Voluntary trade is why that can happen at all.

Which 'whole notion'?

That incomes ought to be capped because certain levels of income are not "deserved".

Perhaps you've not heard of responsibility
Aha, sure have.

(those who advocate socialistic system don't seem to have).
Mmm, I dont know if that is the necessarily the case, but it's probably not important so far as this particular discussion is concerned.

If you make a sound decision, you should get the rewards for doing so, if you make a stupid decision, you should pay for it.
That may or may not be the case, but whether it is or not, the fact still remains that it is an entirely possible situation in which a person could become wealthy without having both luck and ability. The purpose of the example was to demonstrate that it is possible to become wealthy without necessarily having both luck and ability, and thus that the claim it was posted in response to (that both these things were necessary for one to be wealthy) is not necessarily true. None of your comments appear to support either the original claim or my contrary assertion or even to have any relevence to either claim. In short it's not entirely clear why you think such comments constitute a relevent response...:confused:

A sound decision has still been made. No reason for the person who made it to be denied the just rewards.
Whether that is the case or not, I simply dont see how it is relevent to the claims the example relates to.

You've not established that one gets an income because they pass some arbitrary test,
I should hope that would be the case. Why ever would I wish to establish such a claim?

nor have you shown why your views on what people deserve should change anything for anyone.
What makes you think I have a desire to show such a thing? Whether or not my views ought to change anything for anyone appears (to me at least) to be irrelevent to the subject being discussed in the comments you appear to have posted in response to...(specifically whether or not it is true that in most cases where people have an income of 50 million per year, such an income is deserved).

It is quite simple. State caps on income are being justified because people don't "deserve" such high incomes.
Justified according to who? I've yet to see any compelling argument that justifies such caps by positing premise that people can and do benefit beyond what they deserve. That's not to say that such an argument cannot exist, but in my experiance I have yet to encounter one.

If you're paying, then what you think people deserve is relevant because its your money. If I'm paying, then what you think my employees deserve is irrelevant.
Who is paying is not relevent to whether or not a particular benefit is deserved.

Voluntary trade is why that can happen at all.
What exactly do you mean by voluntary trade? So far as I can tell, that all parties to trade transactions be entirely free to enter into the transaction or not, is not necessary to the functioning of capitalism.

That incomes ought to be capped because certain levels of income are not "deserved".
Ok, well whether or not your annalysis of the notion is correct, it is of little benefit to me personally. I dont consider it (as a premise) to be either necessary or sufficient to establishing an argument supporting the non-desirability of such ceilings.

tag (subscribe thing not working for me)

Mmm, I dont know if that is the necessarily the case, but it's probably not important so far as this particular discussion is concerned.

It is important. He who is responsible for a good decision should be able to be rewarded, and there is no compelling case for outside parties to impose limits on that reward.

What makes you think I have a desire to show such a thing? Whether or not my views ought to change anything for anyone appears (to me at least) to be irrelevent to the subject being discussed in the comments you appear to have posted in response to...(specifically whether or not it is true that in most cases where people have an income of 50 million per year, such an income is deserved).

You say something's not deserved. Why should anyone take a blind bit of notice of what you think is or is not deserved?

If you're not paying it, then your views on if it is deserved are not relevant.

In any case, discussions of whether a particular income is deserved do not provide any insight on why a third party should be able to restrict income because the people paying it will believe that the person being paid it deserves it, or they believe they will be advantaged by it. If they didn't, they wouldn't pay it.

Who is paying is not relevent to whether or not a particular benefit is deserved.

The question of whether or not it is deserved (in your opinion only) is of no relevance to the point of this thread.

Anyone may have his say on whether a particular income is deserved. Only the views of the people paying it matter because they are paying it.

There is no universal test on whether something is deserved or not.

What exactly do you mean by voluntary trade? So far as I can tell, that all parties to trade transactions be entirely free to enter into the transaction or not, is not necessary to the functioning of capitalism.

It is necessary because capitalism is driven by an individuals desire to further his own interests. That is the psychological aspect that drives it.

Ok, well whether or not your annalysis of the notion is correct, it is of little benefit to me personally. I dont consider it (as a premise) to be either necessary or sufficient to establishing an argument supporting the non-desirability of such ceilings.

The question of capping incomes is based on one of two premises, the perceived amount one needs, or the perception of what he deserves, though each premise boils down to essentially the same thing: envy.

You aren't referring to perceptions of necessity, you're not saying that someone who earns $50 million a year doesn't need that much to meet his necessities, and are instead questioning whether or not he deserves it, my analysis is relevant.

Jeff Bagwell, a baseball player, makes $16,000,000 a year. A teacher, on average, makes $30,000 a year. I rest my case.

How many teachers do you know that can play baseball as well as Jeff Bagwell? I rest my case.

You just don’t’ get it, do you? Who the fuck do you think creates jobs, develops property? The filthy stinking rich that’s who.
We need fabulously wealthy people, and we need the ability to become fabulously wealthy. The rich invest in already existing ventures and create their own. (employment, goods and services for you and, most importantly, me) They only do this because the rich see money differently than you and me. We see it for what we can buy with it, they see it as a means to make more money.
If you take that away from them, well you know the poor you commie bastards seem to like so much? You’ll be joining them in destitution, along with everybody else, except for the damned FDRs of the world.
Maybe I've missed something, but I'd have thought the last thirty years have more or less proved that trickle down theory is crap, far from providing better opportunities for the underclass money being concentrated in the hands of a power elite does precisely the opposite.

Jeff Bagwell, a baseball player, makes $16,000,000 a year. A teacher, on average, makes $30,000 a year. I rest my case.

You make choices in life, if you want to be a teacher then be a teacher, if you want to be rich then don't be a teacher.

I don't see how someone would choose to be a teacher and do it to get rich, they do it because they want to teach.

I don't see the point of your argument

My point is that a teacher's more important than a fucking athlete, entertaining or not.

The impotance of a job is not the only factor in determining salary.

...The actual hard-working people in this country get paid next to nothing compared to these guys, just because they're more entertaining.

The "actual" hard working people are the ones handing over their hard earned cash to watch him play baseball. They are the ones who think he is worth $16,000.00 a year. So blame the hard working people for paying him that huge unfair salary.

Why do we have people making 50 million dollars a year? Does anyone really need that much money? Obviously not, and the government sure seems to be lacking what it needs to fix it's runaway spending (more money). Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed an income ceiling for income over $80,000 a year. Meaning any income made over this amount goes directly to the government. To me, this makes a lot of sense. If we set an income cap at, say 1.5 million a year, adjusting for inflation, rich peeps can still buy their idiotically expensive luxury goods, or charge them to their company holding, and the amount of money brought in from taxes would allow the country to pay off the massive Social Security debt, along with give everyone a tax cut that would increase their total incomes. Makes quite a bit of sense to me. Anyone else have thoughts?
Here's a thought:
:upyours:

Here's a thought:
:upyours:
I love the calm and rational arguments the right wing elements here are wont to come out with.

The thing is, no one needs an income of $50 million a year to live comfortably. A life of luxury has fooled them into believing they do.
And what if you want to send men to Mars? $50 million/year isn't nearly enough.

And what if you want to send men to Mars? $50 million/year isn't nearly enough.
Is your government in the havbit of letting people launch privately owned rockets, though? I'd assume at the moment that they're likely to be keeping a close eye on anyone stockpiling propellants.

I love the calm and rational arguments the right wing elements here are wont to come out with.Ooh, I'm a right wing guy today! Neato! Anyway, sometimes it just feels to let everyone know how I really feel about something. Sure it's not the most productive form of discussion, but I know better than to expect much from a person who would start a thread like this. Folks smarter than me have beat these kinds of ideas to death several times, but nobody ever listens. I lose patience.

Is your government in the havbit of letting people launch privately owned rockets, though? I'd assume at the moment that they're likely to be keeping a close eye on anyone stockpiling propellants.

Yes. Have you heard of the Xprize and SpaceShip One?

http://www.xprizefoundation.com/

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/SpaceShipOne2004/

Ooh, I'm a right wing guy today! Neato! Anyway, sometimes it just feels to let everyone know how I really feel about something. Sure it's not the most productive form of discussion, but I know better than to expect much from a person who would start a thread like this. Folks smarter than me have beat these kinds of ideas to death several times, but nobody ever listens. I lose patience.
If you're not going to contribute anything to the discussion besides cheap, dismissive abuse, what do you expect?
Arguments about rich bastards funding private rocket research always put me in mind of Robert Heinlein, which is plenty right wing enough for most purposes.

Yes. Have you heard of the Xprize and SpaceShip One?
That single stage to orbit contest? I didn't think that was anything to do with your government or any of its agencies.

Why do we have people making 50 million dollars a year? Does anyone really need that much money? Obviously not, and the government sure seems to be lacking what it needs to fix it's runaway spending (more money). Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed an income ceiling for income over $80,000 a year. Meaning any income made over this amount goes directly to the government. To me, this makes a lot of sense. If we set an income cap at, say 1.5 million a year, adjusting for inflation, rich peeps can still buy their idiotically expensive luxury goods, or charge them to their company holding, and the amount of money brought in from taxes would allow the country to pay off the massive Social Security debt, along with give everyone a tax cut that would increase their total incomes. Makes quite a bit of sense to me. Anyone else have thoughts?

Well, it removes anyone's interest in investing in anything. Because you would only be making money that would go straight to the government. You wouldn't bothering inventing or discovering anything, because that would be much harder than just sitting around flipping burgers all day - and for which you would get no essential reward (other than that you might like what you made).

So, in very short order, we all become a massive nation of slackers.

That single stage to orbit contest? I didn't think that was anything to do with your government or any of its agencies.

The question was, "Is your government in the havbit of letting people launch privately owned rockets, though?"

The answer is yes our government is in the habit of letting people launch privately owned rockets. If you go back a couple of posts, did an edit and provided links.

By the way, SpaceShip One has linked up with the owner of Virgin Atlantic and will be building the space ships for Virgin Galactic. If we had capped people’s income, all of this private space venture would not be possible.

Is your government in the havbit of letting people launch privately owned rockets, though? I'd assume at the moment that they're likely to be keeping a close eye on anyone stockpiling propellants.Well, they do like be in charge of such things, but civilians are still allowed to launch rockets here. In fact, I'd be shocked if the US did not have the largest amatuer rocket community of all the nations on the globe. Perhaps you've heard of a Burt Rutan and his SpaceShipOne (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/04/spaceshipone.attempt.cnn/)? It's not exactly a rocket per se, but it did get a guy into space. That took $30 million of private funding. Up that number by about 10-fold or so and they might just start to get a return on their investment. The sooner that gets going, the sooner normal people like us will benefit.

The question was, "Is your government in the havbit of letting people launch privately owned rockets, though?"

The answer is yes our government is in the habit of letting people launch privately owned rockets. If you go back a couple of posts, did an edit and provided links.

By the way, SpaceShip One has linked up with the owner of Virgin Atlantic and will be building the space ships for Virgin Galactic. If we had capped people’s income, all of this private space venture would not be possible.
Fair enough: I had forgotten about that. I'm not sure how viable an argument it as nobody doing it has got close to escape velocity yet.

Sierra: that isn't quite true. You seem to be assuming that income would be capped at a much lower level than anybody has suggested if you're going to come out with an argument about such a programme killing all ambition.

The question was, "Is your government in the havbit of letting people launch privately owned rockets, though?"

The answer is yes our government is in the habit of letting people launch privately owned rockets. If you go back a couple of posts, did an edit and provided links.

By the way, SpaceShip One has linked up with the owner of Virgin Atlantic and will be building the space ships for Virgin Galactic. If we had capped people’s income, all of this private space venture would not be possible.Yeah, especially if FDR managed to cap income at $80,000/year. Hell, the USA would probably not exist today if that had been passed into law. It would certainly be very different at least. And yes, I know $80,000 then could buy a several times the butter that it can today.

Fair enough: I had forgotten about that. I'm not sure how viable an argument it as nobody doing it has got close to escape velocity yet.

Sierra: that isn't quite true. You seem to be assuming that income would be capped at a much lower level than anybody has suggested if you're going to come out with an argument about such a programme killing all ambition.

It would kill quite a bit of it if you capped income at 80,000.

Most of the people in the DC Metro area make more than that.

Jeff Bagwell, a baseball player, makes $16,000,000 a year. A teacher, on average, makes $30,000 a year. I rest my case.
Was your point that people tend to value the labor of a talented baseball player far more than that of a teacher?

Go ahead, judge all of society by it's values that you apparently disagree with, but first keep in mind that I pay so little attention to baseball that I don't know who Jeff Bagwell is and intend to actually spend my own money on educating my son.

It would kill quite a bit of it if you capped income at 80,000.

Most of the people in the DC Metro area make more than that.
As has been pointed out, that's the figure Roosevelt came out with back when there was rather less inflation and the dollar was worth a lot more. You'd need to set it a lot higher now.

3: Yeah, it's how the economy works, because it's so corrupt at this point. Surely you're not serious when you say, for example, a CEO of a major corporation, despite doing very little work, is worth ten times more than a doctor?
CEOs do very little work? Have you ever met a CEO? Are you high? If they're so overpaid, why do stockholders overpay them? Do you claim to be vastly wiser than the investing public?

I'm all in favor of an income ceiling. It should work just like the ceiling for the social security tax. Income is taxable up to a level and after that level, the earner gets to keep everything.

Why discourage success with heavy progressive taxes unless you are a communist. We know how successful they have been and it seems they are just jealous of everyone else's success.

As far as CEO work goes, pay the the good ones what they want. No one has more influence on a company, for better or worse. Throw out the bad ones as fast as you can.

That is a terrible idea. It destroys a lot of the incentive for people to work hard, get an education, and compete in the workforce. It effectively punishes people for their success, which is inherently against the economic system of the United States. Doing this would dry up billions in spending and investment in the US, greatly reduce our tax revenue, cost thousands of jobs in the upper-end sectors of the economy, and overall crimp our economic growth to that of a roaring country like North Korea.

I'm sure Wal-Mart wouldn't mind it though, because they've got the lower income market cornered, and this would likely bring them even more money.

So basically, you want an economic system based on personal morals of certain individuals (because not everyone has the same morals and opinions) because...somehow you are a superior thinker or something? Teehee.

So basically, you want an economic system based on personal morals of certain individuals (because not everyone has the same morals and opinions) because...somehow you are a superior thinker or something? Teehee.
I think that could be a fair summary of libertarian values, really.

As has been pointed out, that's the figure Roosevelt came out with back when there was rather less inflation and the dollar was worth a lot more. You'd need to set it a lot higher now.

How about capping it at "all the money I can legally earn?" Oh, and if you earn it illegally, and we can prove it in a court of law, we will tax you at 100%. Now, that is fair taxation. :D

How about capping it at "all the money I can legally earn?" Oh, and if you earn it illegally, and we can prove it in a court of law, we will tax you at 100%. Now, that is fair taxation. :D
Not a bad idea, but the US government often seems wary of taking even illegal money off those who make more than a million or two of it a year.
(Though they are willing to make them pay tax on it: just look at what they locked Al Capone up for...)

Why do we have people making 50 million dollars a year? Does anyone really need that much money? Obviously not, and the government sure seems to be lacking what it needs to fix it's runaway spending (more money). Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed an income ceiling for income over $80,000 a year. Meaning any income made over this amount goes directly to the government. To me, this makes a lot of sense.
No, unless it was applied to the whole world, the rich would all just move away, and then we would be fucked. They pay for public services. I prefer the good old progressive income tax.

I'm all in favor of an income ceiling. It should work just like the ceiling for the social security tax. Income is taxable up to a level and after that level, the earner gets to keep everything.
What kind of warped, evil thinking is this? How can you ever be justified in taxing the poor more than the rich?

If you say "to encourage people to be successful" then answer this: denying the poor the right to vote would probably also drive them to be more successful. Go on, you agree with that as well, don't you?

CEOs do very little work? Have you ever met a CEO? Are you high? If they're so overpaid, why do stockholders overpay them? Do you claim to be vastly wiser than the investing public?

NVA - this is not meant for you, but the person you were replying to (Potaria). I agree whith what you are saying. The other person has no concept of the real world. Sorry if I caused you any confusion.

Have you ever been a CEO? How do you know how much or little work they do? Have you ever worked with or for one? Obviously, the stockholders do not think they are overpaid. If they did they would fire them and hire someone who would work for less.

One thing we all forget and that is we, and companies, pay people for their skills and talents. Skills and talents that are in demand make more money than skills and talents that are not in demand.

Examples:

1. The skills and talents of an excellent baseball player is more in demand than the skills of someone who is playing in the minor leagues.

2. The skills and talents of the CEO are more valuable to the company than the master tool and dye maker. Why? The CEO can make more money for the company than the master tool and dye maker.

3. The skills and talents of the master tool and dye maker are more valuable to the company than the janitor. Why? The master tool and dye maker can make more for the company than the janitor can.

So, the bottom line is people are paid a salary equal to their contributions to the company or society. That's why the President and Congress get more money than a secretary does. That is why Generals in the military are paid more than lower ranking people. Their skills, education, and experience are worth more.

I damn sure wouldn't work as a manager of a fast food outfit if I were paid the same salary as a dishwasher. So why should we ask people who have worked and strived to get where they are today to take a smaller salary than they are worth? :confused:

So why should we ask people who have worked and strived to get where they are today to take a smaller salary than they are worth? :confused:
When did anybody suggest that?
There's no way in hell a tool and die maker is going to be earning enough to have their income capped, while a CEO might.

That is a terrible idea. It destroys a lot of the incentive for people to work hard, get an education, and compete in the workforce. It effectively punishes people for their success, which is inherently against the economic system of the United States. Doing this would dry up billions in spending and investment in the US, greatly reduce our tax revenue, cost thousands of jobs in the upper-end sectors of the economy, and overall crimp our economic growth to that of a roaring country like North Korea.

I'm sure Wal-Mart wouldn't mind it though, because they've got the lower income market cornered, and this would likely bring them even more money.
It just occurred to me that there is already an income cap. Didn't the Fed limit salaries to $1 million? That's how all these stock compensation schemes came to cause so much trouble with companies like Enron.

What kind of warped, evil thinking is this? How can you ever be justified in taxing the poor more than the rich?

If you say "to encourage people to be successful" then answer this: denying the poor the right to vote would probably also drive them to be more successful. Go on, you agree with that as well, don't you?
This opens up a whole new world of thinking. Why should we tax income, anyway? I don't think we should. We should tax consumption on retail goods. We should enact HB 25 immediately.

And as far as the red herring on voting goes, I think only tax payers ought to vote. It makes it a lot easier to justify a universal right to vote if we have a consumption tax.

It is important. He who is responsible for a good decision should be able to be rewarded, and there is no compelling case for outside parties to impose limits on that reward.
Good and well, but I was not discussing socialistic systems, have already stated that I dont approve of an income-ceiling, so important or not, how is the comment actually relevent to any discussion I was/am engaged in?

You say something's not deserved. Why should anyone take a blind bit of notice of what you think is or is not deserved?
Well who said anyone has to take a blind bint of notice. I certainly am not forcing you to take notice of my comments (much less reply).

If you're not paying it, then your views on if it is deserved are not relevant.
When the subject of a conversation is whether or not something is deserved then the veiws anyone involved in the conversation have about whether or not that thing is deserved are entirely relevent. If someone states something is deserved, and someone else expresses doubt about that or openly contests it, and if subsequently someone else contests that contestation, and discussion of these two points of veiw ensues, then opinions (of those taking part in the discussion) on whether or not the something referred to is deserved are relevent.

In any case, discussions of whether a particular income is deserved do not provide any insight on why a third party should be able to restrict income
That would actually depend on the discussants.

because the people paying it will believe that the person being paid it deserves it, or they believe they will be advantaged by it. If they didn't, they wouldn't pay it.
Your assertion regarding insight does not follow from this premise. More to the point, I suspect that you are confused about the reason why 'deservedness' was being discussed in the context of my comments and the comments made by posters I was engaged in discussion with, and that the above argument was tendered pursuant to your confusion.

The question of whether or not it is deserved (in your opinion only) is of no relevance to the point of this thread.
Yay! We have a break-through. That is correct. The question of deservedness is relevent to a side-discussion that arose out of comments made within the thread, it is not directly linked (at least not in the discussion I was engaged in) either as a supporting premise or a negating premise, to the original premise posited as the subject of the thread.

Anyone may have his say on whether a particular income is deserved. Only the views of the people paying it matter because they are paying it.
Matter to what? The discussion about the deservedness of particular incomes matters as a source of entertainment, but not much else, much like anything and everything on this site. If you dont wish to engage in a discussion where the subject is 'the deservedness of particular income leves' there is no requirement that you do so.

There is no universal test on whether something is deserved or not.
Of course there is not. Deservedness is a moral distinction and concepts/ideas/beliefs about morality are not universally standard, so it follows that there is not a universal standard of deservedness much less a universal test. Probably the best that can be expected is a wide spread concensus.

It is necessary because capitalism is driven by an individuals desire to further his own interests. That is the psychological aspect that drives it.
It is not necessary. The fact that one's choices are restricted does not in itself negate the desire to further one's interests.

The question of capping incomes is based on one of two premises, the perceived amount one needs, or the perception of what he deserves, though each premise boils down to essentially the same thing: envy.
Who says it is based on two premises, I can think of other premises on which to form an argument in support of income ceillings, it just so happens that I find the arguments against income ceillings to be more compelling.

You aren't referring to perceptions of necessity, you're not saying that someone who earns $50 million a year doesn't need that much to meet his necessities,
Why would I? Someone else has already said as much (so it would be redundant for me to restate it) and despite any merit of such an argument (in favour of income ceillings) I dont find it compelling enough to overcome arguments against income ceillings.

and are instead questioning whether or not he deserves it, my analysis is relevant.
Relevent or not generally, it isnt relevent to me. If it were possible to demonstrate empiracally that incomes over a certain level are not deserved (which it is not, since deserved is a moral distinction) or even to demonstrate that there is a wide spread concensus (amongst those who the ceiling income might or might not be imposed on) that such incomes are not deserved, it wouldnt cause me to change my mind about income ceilings because I dont find it a compelling argument in favour of such ceilings, much less a compelling enough argument to overcome relevent counter-arguments.