Would a maximum wage make life better?

Money is not made or lost, it simply moves. One person's loss is generally another's gain, right? In order for top hedge fund manager, John Paulson, to have made $3.7 billion dollars last year, who lost? I'm not saying he directly stole from anyone, it's all perfectly legal, but is it right? That huge paycheck didn't just materialize out of nowhere. Let's look at the foreclosure rates sweeping the nation. Here, we see who is losing, but who is gaining? One could argue that in order to achieve financial gain, someone or something must be exploited, either directly or indirectly.

A maximum wage would put a handle on the craziness. Who on Earth needs 3.7 billion dollars? In one year, no less! I say the maximum household yearly income should be no more than a half million dollars, with excess income going to the charity of your choice. The living minimum wage could be as high as $20 per hour. Labor cost would drive up the cost of consumer goods, but guess what? We would all be able to afford them. Our income tax base would afford health benefits for all. Our non-profit organizations would be well-funded and out there working for the common good. Go ahead, call me a communist, but this would be a world of equality where 90% could consider themselves in the middle class, a sustainable society where no ones really loses, even those who are sacrificing their excess to charity. Think about it: An owner of a fine dining establishment can rest assured that with everyone else out there earning a reasonable salary, his restaurant will always be full. Even though he will make no more than a half million per year, he is guaranteed a steady business. Small businesses would flourish! Most folks would be much better off. Imposing this new payment structure will allow people to find out that the meaning of success has nothing to do with unfettered wealth, but it has to do more with satisfaction of one's self, just going to bed knowing you've done your best.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the minimum wage workers. Perhaps with this wage, some workers could even choose to cut their schedule down to a semi-retirement pace of 20 hours per week to spend more time with children, enjoy life or rest after many years of hard work. Right now, many of our elderly should be enjoying their slower time in life, instead, they're toiling away their golden years just to be able to afford to live- that's a whole other post!

But, alas, some would suffer. Who? Let's see...hedge fund managers, warmongers, sports stars, virtual real estate agents for the game Second Life, doctors who like greased palms. I could just imagine the argument: but...but...if we don't make more money than god, we won't be inclined to do our best. Would this create a society of people who only do the minimum and don't strive for more? Not strive for a half million bucks? C'mon. The folks making more than that aren't really working anyway. The really hard workers are the minimum wagers. It's common knowledge that the less you work, the more you get paid. Besides, if you really love what you do, you'll do it well. If you don't love it, you should find something else and stop letting money be the reason you keep doing it.

Is this a joke?

"Money is not made or lost, it simply moves."

And here lies the core of so-called "liberal" economic thought. That humans do not create wealth, it is simply a resource to be distributed as "society" decrees. Since no one creates money or wealth, no one can lay any claim to it, and therefore the state has every right to decide its owner.

 

It is the economic activity of humans that creates wealth, and that the hard-working individual who makes over 500k creates more wealth (through providing useful good or service to others) than the person sitting on his back side receiving a check is something that liberals find baffling. They cannot comprehend why the hard worker should have any more money than the idler. They demand that the greedy worker give liberally of his "ill-gotten gains" that he has stolen from the idler forthwith!

Absolutely!

The idea of capping income or wealth has been around since the time of Plato -- and resurfaces whenever extravagant quantities of treasure start concentrating in a precious few hands.

In the United States, we once had a President who proposed what amounted to a maximum wage. Back in 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress to enact a 100 percent top tax rate on annual individual income over $25,000, about $315,000 in today's dollars.

Congress didn't buy FDR's 100 percent top marginal rate. But lawmakers did set the top rate at 94 percent on income over $200,000, and that rate would hover around 90 percent for the next two decades, years that would see the greatest period of middle class prosperity in U.S. history.

More on this history in this online book excerpt:
http://www.greedandgood.org/BookPDFs/gghistoric....

 

 

Come on!

Your claim is utterly ludicrous.  What you are essentially proposing is a 100% tax on all income above $500K.  Given human nature, no one would work anymore that what made them 500K.  It would utterly destroy the economy.   Why would you discourage people from activity that benefits all of society?

 

Need proof?  Google Laffer Curve.

 

What we need is what is called a fair tax.