Okay, here's the thing: The hyper wealthy do not deserve their wealth

[Paradoxical]

I've been discussing this a lot with my college brothers and sisters lately. And we have come to the conclusion that any annual personal income exceeding $500,000 is really unnecessary. That goes for any career field.

I don't care if you're a CEO or an ER doctor or a lawyer at a big firm. It doesn't matter what you do. There is no possible way that you deserve to make more than half a million dollars a year. And I feel I'm being more than generous. Especially when there are countries where people live on less than $1,000 A YEAR.

So what does that say about people making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year?

It means they're ripping us off. It's state sanctioned theft.

They do not deserve their millions, let alone their billions.

So I find it highly amusing when these idiots in the public sphere talk about how the rich are being punished by taxes.

There is literally no one in the top 5 percent in any position to be complaining about taxes.

Our tax problems would be history if we capped annual personal income at $500,000. And $500,000 is more than a comfortable income. You will never have to take the bus or apply for food stamps or go bankrupt because you cannot afford insurance premiums. You can still drive your absurdly expensive luxury sedan while you smoke cuban cigars and sip on 100 year old whisky.

[Paradoxical]

1. I will not let this die.

Fuck corporate fat cats.

[SharonAnn]

76. Abraham Lincoln said that it is Labor that creates Wealth (Capital) so those

who work to create/manufacture/grow things of value are the real creators of the wealth.

When they don't get the appropriate payment for their work and that payment is taken by the management and owners, then it has been stolen.

When we talk about how much the wealthy, particularly CEO and top management types, "earn", we're implying that they created the wealth. Actually, it was created by their workers but they didn't pay the workers anywhere near the amount of the wealth they created.

These CEOs and top management member may get PAID an unimaginable amount of money, but the certainly didn't EARN it.

In many cases, we could even say they STOLE it.

[Raksha]

171. Labor creates wealth; human inventiveness (creativity) creates wealth;

and we can't forgot our Mother Earth, who is the ultimate creator of wealth. Without her the other two would not be possible because without her we couldn't exist. Those three only are the creators of wealth. Capital exploits and abuses all three of the true creators of wealth and creates nothing.

[leftygolfer]

2. My brother-in-law prime example

I once made the mistake of asking him what he made in a year. He wouldn't answer exactly - but it was over $10 million. He knows that I live hand to mouth, that I don't make in five years what he makes in five days. He spends money on stupid things just for the sake of spending money, even knowing I had a 14 year old car in the shop. When he has helped me in the past, it was only because my sister would hound him about it and then, his "generosity" was minimal. I once asked him if it botherd him that their was such inequality in this country in terms of wages, security, etc. His response: "They should work harder." Bastard.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

4. NO ONE DESERVES 10 MILLION DOLLARS.

I don't care if you're Jesus Christ.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

9. It's thieves giving each other gifts.

Why is it my business? Because this is my planet just as much as theirs. It's my civilization just as much as theirs. It's my country just as much as theirs.

Have you ever heard the phrase "property is theft"? Well it's true. And we are all thieves.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

13. Yes, that would be ideal.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

20. I really don't care that much about the constitution to be honest.

It's a document written several hundred years ago. It has flaws.

[BzaDem]

27. Most people care about your views on property about as much as you care about the Constitution.

[Common Sense Party]

28. That's a winning campaign slogan.

"I don't care much about the Constitution. Vote for me."

Good luck.

[Paradoxical]

I'm not running for public office. So I'm not that worried.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[melm00se]

57. observation

Your comment:

It's a document written several hundred years ago. It has flaws.

applies to some aspects of the Constitution which is why there are ways to address these flaws (see Article 5).

This ability to make changes to the document is what makes this an incredibly flexible and influential document.

The US Constitution, as written, is, IMO, an all or nothing document. you don't get to pick and choose which aspects to which you will adhere to which you will not. If that were the case, some of the post Civil War Southern States would have completely ignored (with impunity) the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

The 1st Amendment would be applied if and when someone felt like it.

4th Amendment? *pffft*

5th and 8th Amendment? let's get out the rubber hoses...no need for the 7th Amendment, we'll beat the confession out of them.

and the income taxation rates (on the federal level)? nope...16th amendment...I (and most Americans) would gladly ignore that aspect of the Constitution.

[DireStrike]

64. You really think we could get a constitutional amendment on something like that?

We can't even get a public option, which over 60% of the public supports, even with the nonstop propaganda from the rich.

Personally I don't see how we're getting out of this one without a revolution, or until the system decays so badly that the ruling party decides to rewrite the constitution at whim. Great document or no, it's been defeated already.

[melm00se]

77. probably not

but that's the point of making changes to a foundational document.

It should be hard and it should require a super-majority consensus to do so.

Look at California's mess of a Constitution. You, me and a dog could get an amendment/revision on the ballot as such their Constitution is in constant flux entirely at the whim of the moment and in many ways they are paying the price for this flavor of the day mindset.

[Raksha]

172. You're not a thief if you take only what you need, and no more than that.

[Control-Z]

22. So you believe that people

paying $4.00 plus for a gallon of gas do so because they think the oil companies are worth it? I don't think so.

They need the gas. They pay the price because they have no choice. They are being taken advantage of. And the oil companies are raking in the profits. Without the astronomical profits, the people would live a more comfortable and better balanced life while the oil company CEOs would continue living exactly the same. The only thing that changes for the filthy rich is the excess.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

35. You need to take an elementary economics class.

Seriously.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

41. Price setting only applies for non-essential products and services.

Gasoline is not a luxury item. It's a necessity. It therefore could be at almost any price and people would have to shell out the cash.

That's not a representation of supply and demand.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

51. It's not that it beats the alternative. It's that there is no alternative.

Gasoline is a vital product. Just like electricity.

It is not subject to the same "rules" as non-essential goods and services.

We aren't talking about a fucking yo-yo.

Without gasoline, our economy would literally come to a grinding halt.

It's perfectly inelastic.

And even beyond that, the price of gasoline is subject to manipulation by commodities trading of unrefined oil and government subsidization.

[Mojeoux]

40. $10 Million was Bernie Madoffs' required amount or he

wouldn't even touch your money. And no pesky questions allowed.

The proof of what you say is proven by the ease with which Bernie got money from very rich people, who sucked up to him for years before they even asked him to invest for them.

I'm sure some very nice and worthy souls were ripped off by Maddoff.

However, if somebody has an extra 10 mill to wave in the rock-star investor guy's face, they DON'T deserve that money.







(edited to add bling)

[slackmaster]

91. Did someone actually tell you that life would be "fair"?

Your attitude seems kind of immature to me.

[EOTE]

104. Did anyone tell you that we shouldn't, as a society, strive for fairness?

Your attitude seems worse than immature to me, it's also destructive.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

139. Fairness does not mean that everyone gets the same amount of money or stuff

The only kind of fairness that matters in how people treat each other, and how people are treated by the law.

Confiscating wealth from hyper-rich people would do nothing to make the society more fair.

[Paradoxical]

152. Not immature. I think fresh is a better descriptor.

[Common Sense Party]

153. No, immature is the right word.

You'll learn, someday.

[Paradoxical]

155. LOL. Your assumption is that I haven't learned yet.

Do you make it a habit of slapping people in the face when you have a disagreement?

[Common Sense Party]

168. Do you make it a habit of alerting on anyone who disagrees with you?

LOTS of deleted posts in your threads.

[Paradoxical]

175. I alerted on no one. You got your own posts deleted.

[ljm2002]

7. The lawyer that saved the company $10m...

...likely used loopholes to do it -- i.e. took advantage of inherently unfair laws.

The hedge fund manager who makes his client $100m likely used unfair practices to do so.

The property developer put $50m of capital raised through others -- don't worry, they didn't risk their own fancy homes.

And CEOs as often get $5m, or $50m in stock after they've run a company into the ground.

The thing is, when the whole game is rigged, the rosy arguments you put forward here no longer resonate in any positive way.

We no longer reward people for true creativity and solid contributions IMO. Rather, we reward them for being ruthless money grubbing bastards.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Amonester]

10. And what if another CEO bankrupts the company and gets bonuses?

Or what if corrupt banksters get billions at very low interests rates from the Fed, and turn around to loan those almost "free" billions to the Treasury AT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER INTERESTS RATES....(which taxpayers must pay back to THEM)?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x577843

The thing is?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Amonester]

32. Looks like some kind of a Mega Ponzi scheme, isn't it?

Where does the 'Interests' portion come from in the Capitalist system?

It has to come from somewhere, but it doesn't exist anywhere.

[Control-Z]

21. In every case,

the top earners and those making a percentage off of them are taking far more than they deserve from all the little people needed for such profits.

[Hannah Bell]

5. you don't get it. they need way more than that so they can play in the global casino

& try to corner the world.

[villager]

8. most however will keep groveling to prop up the system that allows such theft

n/t

[Amonester]

17. As we've already seen in this thread.

Imagine "outside" DU....

[Hugabear]

12. Amen. Gladly K&R.

Nobody needs that much money. Is it possible to spend all that money? Of course, just look at how many celebrities have squandered all their money and wound up broke. But the fact of the matter is that nobody actually needs that much. If you're finding it difficult to get by on $500,000 per year, then you need to take a look at your finances and reevaluate your spending.

[cliffordu]

14. K&R

Just for shits and giggles....Be sure to duck, the greedy will be here shortly to take your inventory......

[Paradoxical]

45. We've already hooked in a couple.

[ljm2002]

16. I agree...

...although what with inflation and all, I'd allow a yearly income of $1M tops.

It has always amazed me how glibly the CEOs of the world and their boards of directors have made the argument that "Well we have to pay them that much or we won't get the top talent". One of the things that you learn in the business world is that it's all about incentives: if you want to build a certain kind of behavior, then you put incentives in place that encourage the desired behavior. When it comes to CEOs, the incentives are all about their greed and little else. In other words, all these obscene compensation packages do is select for the greediest people, not the "best" or "most talented" people.

[moondust]

23. Fine.

While you're at it you might also want to consider doing away with inheritance. Then nobody would be born on third base (think George W. Bush, Donald Trump, and the Koch brothers) and amassing enormous excessive wealth would be rather pointless because it could not be passed on to heirs. :)

[Paradoxical]

24. My god, think of the children.

What will they do if they don't inherit the millions their parents stole from the working class?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

31. I mean they made money through unethical means.

They stole it.

[dkf]

29. There goes the lottery and jackpots. How's about huge punitive settlements?

Investments capped too? What about Bieber? One concert and he is done for the year? Boxers have one fight? Baseball players play for a month maybe?

This would probably cut down the volume of entertainment a lot. How would you put together a blockbuster movie with huge downside and hardly any upside?

Wouldn't this make big projects obsolete?

[leftstreet]

30. "What about Bieber? One concert and he is done for the year?" YES!!!

:applause:

[dkf]

36. All your favorite artists too. One and done.

[themadstork]

47. Any artist who stops creating because they've capped out their income

is not much of an artist.

[Paradoxical]

33. I don't care about any of those people. Like literally none of them.

Give another stab at it.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

38. His argument doesn't appear to be about a lack of property rights, but more a progressive tax code.

So that, if you earn $5 billion a year you get taxed at the Super Uber 99.9% Percentile.

:hi:

(Anyone who makes it to the 99.99% Percentile gets to be King of the Planet.)

[themadstork]

46. Yes, this!

No one person generates a million dollars of real value in a year. It just can't happen. We have this view of executives as One Man Fixing The World. And it's bullshit. It'd be like paying the director of a blockbuster movie 10mil while the rest of the crew gets pennies. We don't live in a vacuum.

[dkf]

39. Nothing you spend your free time on generates more than $500,000?

No movies no music no sports no tv shows? Nothing?

[Paradoxical]

42. I bet a lot of what I spend goes to millionaires. That doesn't make it right.

That merely proves the argument that rich people make obscene and unjustified amounts of money.

[dkf]

43. My point is what if they only worked til they made $500,000?

Wouldnt you miss watching them, listening to them, etc? Why should they work more than a month if they already max out their income?

[Paradoxical]

44. Yeah, I'm sure I would miss them. That still doesn't justify their income.

It merely means that I'm a human being with emotions.

To say you're grasping at straws is an understatement.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

52. I know why they earn millions of dollars. This is a matter of ethics.

The nature of the exchange.

This is philosophical. Not a math problem.

You clearly do not understand that and would rather sit on here and turn money-grubbing douchebags into patron saints of humanity.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

53. No, because can you understand just how many more people would be able to make it to 500k...

...if they didn't have to pay disproportionately for the system, or if they were allowed a chance and unfair business practices weren't basically legalized?

[fishwax]

137. if every athlete, actor, author, or other entertainment figure only put in half a mil of work per yr

I think I would still get along just fine :shrug:

(Of course, that's probably not how it would actually work, but even if it did ...)

[xocet]

173. Maybe, they enjoy what they do. n/t

[WatsonT]

88. Ok, I take it you own a computer?

Imagine if steve jobs or bill gates had given up once they were able to sell half a million worth of goods.

What kind of computer do you suppose you'd have? Oh and no iphone of course. Why bother? They'd make enough to just hit that mark and then stop because it's not worth the effort. Computers would be specialty items that you would be able to telegraph your parents about if you ever got to see one.

[hunter]

141. You mean Microsoft and Apple wouldn't own our computers?

How is that a bad thing?

[slackmaster]

146. They don't. You have choices.

There is plenty of software out there, much of it available for free, that doesn't benefit Microsoft or Apple in any way.

[WatsonT]

159. Right, no one would, they wouldn't exist.

[My Good Babushka]

68. Or they could just pay ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE

who work on the movie or concert or event a lot more. That way EVERYONE can keep making money for the year.

[Travelman]

149. Neat idea, but it still doesn't work

OK, you're at the concert. It's ... hell, I don't know. We'll say that for whatever reason, you're at a Frank Sinatra concert.

Ol' Blue Eyes gets a half mil for the gig. One night in Vegas or whatever. For the sake of simple math, let's say the venue seats 70,000, and all the tickets cost $50, whether they are within touching distance of the stage or nosebleeds. The gig brings in $3.5M. Blue Eyes gets his half mil and goes back into retirement for another year. Next year, maybe he'll play Yankee Stadium and really get the fans going with "New York, New York."

We'll say that there are a total of 12 people working the backstage: sound guys, gaffers, spotlight guys, the works. They each get a quarter mil for the night's work. They can work one more concert this year before they max out. And next week, Wayne Newton is playing to a sold-out crowd. All these backstage folks will max out next week and retire for the year.

Then, maybe, another crew can come in for the N Sync concert, sold out to 70,000 former teenagers who can't let go. That crew each gets their quarter mil, and then they get another quarter mil the next week when, inexplicably, Milli Vanilli manages to sell not just one ticket, but 70,000 of them. They're done for the year.

Sounds good, right? People are making money hand over fist, only having to work a couple of weeks a year, and poverty is solved!


Or is it?


See, the problem with this is that there are other people who work at these concerts who aren't on the regular payroll. Many of them are innovators, hustling to make a buck. The guy who sells the T-shirts, the woman who hawks the CDs at the end of the show, the folks who go around and sell concessions. These folks are all there working independently, hustling to make a buck. But instead of lots of shows, now there's only one. If they don't clear their half mil, then they're back for more, but the number of concerts has dropped precipitously. They have to try a lot harder to get what the stagehand gets, so if that's the case, why bother? Just try to get on as a stagehand, right? Why in the world should these people hustle and struggle all year long when they could just be a stagehand and get it all over with in a couple of weeks? But there's still only so many shows, only so many stagehands needed. It's not like there's an endless source of sell-out crowds out there for shows. What do we do with all of the stagehands who don't get lucky enough to work two shows this year and go home? Do we just tell them "tough shit, maybe next year?"

And there are more problems. For some people, getting to see Frank Sinatra is worth a lot more to them than $50. So they'll go and spend $1000 on a decent ticket, maybe $5000 or $10,000 on really good seats. So the price of tickets skyrockets. Now it's become a hardship for a lot of people to see a concert at all, because scalpers are vacuuming up dozens or even hundreds of tickets at a time. They'll then sell what they can up to a half mil. And then, presumably, they'll somehow stop this unethical behavior of price-gouging on tickets because ... well, no they won't. They'll just take it underground. Before long, buying a ticket to a concert turns into something like a cocaine deal.



And the concert is just an example. The point is that amongst other things, this cap would create a huge black market for just about anything and everything, greatly hampering enforcement of the maximum wage in the first place. There is far less production on the whole because people just do a little bit of work and quit for the year. What happens when a can of beans is selling for $500 on the black market? Have we really lifted someone out of poverty when they have drawn the short straw of being a ditch-digger who, while making half a million dollars a year, still can't afford to feed his family because the cost of goods has skyrocketed out of control?

All this really would do is create a true two-class tier system: the haves, who get lucky enough to get a good job that pays them the max in a few days or weeks, and the have-nots, who just weren't lucky enough to win the lottery of getting to be able to work like that.

[Blecht]

48. A-fucking-men

You couldn't be any more dead-on correct than what you wrote.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

54. Thoughts from an old hippie/corporate pig.

For context, I have a weird bio. I made a bundle in Silicon Valley during the 90's dotcom boom and subsequently lost it (long story). Today I have a ponytail again and am trying to break into academia, where I can be happy but broke.

Anyway, I agree with your sentiment, but think the idea of capping income is politically untenable. My focus is not how the wealthy are doing, but how the majority of people are doing. The good news is that we can make things much better for most people by simply having a slightly more progressive tax code. Clinton proved that by passing a tax bill which raised the top marginal rate a little bit and thereby achieved the greatest financial boom in world history.

If we can just get a Democrat back in the White House someday, we can achieve that. I include a link to George Lakoff (it's long, but profound). In it, Lakoff addresses how to frame taxing the rich.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM

[badtoworse]

55. Ahhh! The naivety of youth.

Hopefully you'll mature out of this and start dealing with what is politically achievable.

[Zywiec]

58. +1000 I think that with almost every one of this OP's threads. n/t

[kentuck]

59. I agree with your sentiments.

However, I have no problem with people becoming millionaires. Or even making $10 million dollars. Or even making $100 million per year.

But I believe in the Democratic principle of progressive taxation, as should all true Democrats. Anything above $100 million should be taxed at least by 90%. The only exemption from having this imcome taxed is to put it back into the economy, by creating jobs and building stuff. No off-shore accounts and building of personal wealth for wealth sake.

[Recovered Repug]

60. Well,

since a bunch of college kids think $500k is more than enough - it must be true.

[cali]

61. Life is full of such.

I'm opposed to capping income. I think 1950s era taxation is a far better route.

[Courtesy Flush]

62. The Punishment-for-success argument

Freepers love to say we are punishing people for being successful. My response to that: "Does the government punish people for wearing shoes? Because I had to pay sales tax on mine."

Does the government punish working people for having jobs? Are we being punished for buying food and clothing? No, taxes are the cost of living in this nation. If you want a great nation, somebody's got to pay for it.

[My Good Babushka]

70. A Plus

When the biggest problem we have is "Too Big To Fail" the answer is "TAXES". We can get ourselves some nice public infrastructure and investment AND keep mega-corporations from having enough pocket money to buy legislators. Win-win.

[LibertyFox]

132. At what point DOES it become punishment.

Is there a point where government spending and taxation inhibit growth?

[DireStrike]

63. I wonder if we should work to make this idea mainstream.

I happen to agree with you, but I dunno if it would be an effective argument. It might well be.

[cali]

65. Not a chance and it's ridiculously untenable.

total waste of time. better to work on raising taxes on the wealthy.

[ClassWarrior]

67. Why not? What harm can it do by trying?

NGU.

[DireStrike]

69. Hah! Good point.

[cali]

75. wasting time that would be better invested elsewhere.

[cali]

66. Okay, I've got a quesion

incomes are capped at 500,000; a movie studio makes a film that makes 2 billion in profit, does all the profit just go automatically to the gov't? What about reinvestment?

[My Good Babushka]

71. How about paying everyone who works on the movie

more money? Spreading the profit out amongst everyone. And everyone can keep working all year and make a good living.

[cali]

73. sure, but even if you paid everyone who worked on the movie

500 grand, you'd still have an enormous profit.

[yawnmaster]

115. Where does the studio get the capital to make the next movie? eom

[My Good Babushka]

117. From reinvesting excessive blockbuster profits

Escape taxation by reinvesting profits in new projects that employ more people at better salaries.

[haele]

130. Reinvestment is not income. Reinvestment is an expense.

Paying employees is an expense.
Agreed, people should be able to make as much as they can - there shouldn't be a cap on salaries, but as the old saying goes - to whom much is given, much is expected.
People who make more money tend to use more government infrastructure and services. Therefore, they should pay more in taxes on the revenue they call their income.
If they take more of their revenue and plow it back into their business than they pay themselves as income, then they pay less taxes on their own income.

I won $25000 in a lottery last year. One time "found money", same as an increase in income just for last year. I have no problems whatsoever with the 25% taxes I paid (up front, thank goodness!) on it, just as I have no problems paying my fair share of taxes on my regular income.

I do have a problem with profiteers who don't pay their fair share, though. And that doesn't mean the people who barely survive on minimum wage or with help from the government. No matter how much help the government gives them, those on the lower end of the income spectrum sure as hell aren't making enough to live even a comfortable, middle class existence.

Haele

[JackRiddler]

148. The studio is not an individual.

[LanternWaste]

72. I imagine a subsistence farmer and his family in sub-Saharan Africa...

I imagine a subsistence farmer and his family in sub-Saharan Africa feel the same way about each and every American with heating, cooling, refrigeration and a bed-- anything and everything else being mere excess. I also imagine we will find a way to defend, justify and rationalize our own excess at the expense of that farmer...

[cali]

74. codswallop. everything over a bed, refrigeration and heat is "mere excess"?

that is garbage.

[WatsonT]

85. Refrigeration and central heat are luxury items to much of the world

as is a bed that consists or more than simply rags.

Everyone has their "bear minimum" level of existence.

But for everyone it is different. Likely for many people the thought of living without a tv, computer, cellphone, etc is unbearable. These things are not particularly expensive so even our poorer citizens can afford at least one of them. But for much of the world they are unheard of luxuries.

[cali]

100. yes it is. and yes, context is important.

but in any case, there a distinction between luxury and necessity.

[WatsonT]

101. Heating and cooling can be either

keeping your house at 65 is a luxury. Keeping it above freezing is a necessity.

Where do you draw the line?

[Odin2005]

78. K&R. Profit is THEFT.

[cali]

79. not necessarily.

[Common Sense Party]

81. That's an extremely foolish thing to say.

[Yavin4]

96. So, The Musician Who Sells Out Concerts Is Stealing?

The author that sells $2 billion in book sales is stealing?

[Odin2005]

129. No, that's making a living. "profit" is income made by exploiting others.

[WatsonT]

82. I favor letting people earn as much as they possibly can

of course they have to pay taxes on it but there should be no cap.

I just don't think you should be able to pass it on: inheritance taxes preventing the donation of more than X amount. X maybe being 5 times the median income that year.

What's collected in taxes can be used for education, small business loans and initiatives, scholarships, etc. So that everyone has a more equal chance at succeeding.

Start people off at the same point then let them run as far and as fast as they can. Just don't give anyone too much of a head start.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

83. The hyper-wealthy having their wealth does no harm to anyone else

Envy is a sin that will eat your soul if you allow it to.

[MilesColtrane]

111. "The hyper-wealthy having their wealth does no harm to anyone else"

Extreme concentration of wealth leads to economic and social instability. (in which very real harm befalls people)

[slackmaster]

112. Baloney

You're just envious of other peoples' good fortune.

You want more money for YOU.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

119. That is false. The purpose of an economy is to have a means of distributing resources.

That breaks down when too few have to large a share of the money.

If you don't think there is an issue with 400 having more resources than 150 million then I don't know what to tall you. The pie is not infinite. If a millionth of one percent eat half of it then the other 99.999999% are going to have some slim pickings.

Once you get past the top 20% the rest of us have about nothing. The bottom 40% must get by on 5% or less. Your post is illogical or predicated on infinite available and distributed resources.

Envy has nothing to do with it, there is too little activity and too many fighting over slivers while a few have so much they puke at every meal, eat the puke, and run off with the buffet, table and all. The system falls apart when too few have too much and blows to Kingdom Come once they have no effective benefit from investment.

[kentuck]

121. delete

wrong location. Sorry Kentuckian

[LibertyFox]

131. The pie is not infinite but it's not static.

If the pie was static we'd be economically stagnant and have been for a long time.

When impoverished Americans can have air conditioning, television, and DVD players its proof that prosperity is not entirely zero sum.

[slackmaster]

140. Wealth is not infinite, but new wealth is being created all the time and there is no absolute limit

Someone having a shitload of money somewhere is not stopping you from creating art or music, inventing something, starting an innovative new business, etc.

The pie is expandable, and its growth is limited by the bounds of peoples' creativity and industriousness, not by a few people sitting on some money.

[TheKentuckian]

143. It is expandable but people have to be able to purchase new products and everybody is not going

to invent an operating system or write the next Sargent Pepper.

Build it and they will come is all supply side. You can't have all the wealth concentrated and expect the transactions needed for a functional economy. We have tried it like you guys envision for more than a generation and it has proven to be a massive failure.

THE PURPOSE OF AN ECONOMY IS TO DISTRIBUTE THE RESOURCES.

If you cannot accept that simple premise then I'm just burning daylight here.

Feel free to cheer as all resources are funneled to the few and society comes apart at the seams. This is not a religion, an economy is a system and it can lose equilibrium. Ours has and it doesn't matter if you think it is okay for a minuscule amount of people to have more than the bottom 50% combined because reality is bearing its fangs.

[slackmaster]

144. No, not everybody can invent or create. Some of us are paid to operate and produce things.

Build it and they will come is all supply side.

True enough, but "Build it and they will come" is not an accurate representation of what I've said here. I think you have mistaken me for a member of the group you referred to as "you guys." I'm a hard-working middle class person who happens to have a skill set that is in high demand at the moment.

Your solution seems to be simply taking money away from people who have it and giving it away to people who don't have it. That may lead to increased consumer spending, but nothing new gets created unless some people are willing to put their own time and resources at risk.

The purpose of an economy is to provide a common framework for the exchange of goods and services. It's not about splitting things up equally. Some people have more creativity, intelligence, and motivation than others. Generally they are able to earn more money. The business I work for is owned by a family of entrepreneurs. They're very bright, and have been very successful at starting businesses. I don't begrudge our CEO his Lamborghini or his nice beach house. He earned them. Taking his stuff away, or putting a high rate of tax on his income, would not motivate him to start additional businesses or to hire more people.

Of course there are also people who fell into money by dumb luck, accident of birth, etc. I don't see much value in confiscating what they have - That is a finite resource at best. Taxing high income carries a risk of high earners switching to other forms of compensation that are not taxable.

[TheKentuckian]

150. I made no statement about an equal distribution. You give no credence to demand and have bought

supply side, trickle down economics hook, line, and sinker.

Might makes right economics aka fairytales in the face of being demonstrably false.

I believe in demand.

[slackmaster]

151. You've done a very thorough job of misconstruing my position

Thanks for the chuckle.

[U4ikLefty]

157. You made your position clear.

and it WAS a chuckle!!!

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

160. It's quite a leap to say I'm a supply-side advocate because I don't believe in wealth confiscation

You really don't get it.

[deaniac21]

84. Run this by the children you go to school with:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-11-17-college-presidents-salaries_N.htm

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yavin4]

89. I Disagree. I Don't Want to Confiscate Anyone's Wealth

I do want them to pay taxes on it, and I would want them to be given tax breaks for investing their wealth in businesses that create jobs here in the U.S.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KatyMan]

92. So if after you graduate you are offered a job making

$1 million per year you would turn it down? If salaries are capped at $500k, what happens to the rest of the income on something like a movie (as mentioned above), a manufacturer, etc? Who decides who has enough and who doesn't? If I come up with an idea for an improved widget and they sell like gangbusters, shouldn't I get that profit?
It's not about capping salaries, etc, it's about fair taxation. If I make $1 million per year, I should pay at least the same percentage of tax (on all income) as I pay now on my modest salary.

[Nye Bevan]

116. If the OP is offered a job paying $1 million per year....

I suspect that his benchmark income limitation will quickly rise to, say, $10 million per year.

[Quantess]

93. I can agree that no one's work should be worth more than $500,000

but that doesn't mean someone making more than that should be forced to give up all of the extra $.

The problem right now isn't with people who make $600,000 a year. That's small potatoes. Those are regular people we can run into at malls, who mingle among the general masses.

How about the uber-rich? The .001%? The controlling class? You know, our owners?

[KittyWampus]

94. Your rationale is EXACTLY equal to "why should union workers get benefits when -I- don't get any.

Instead of fighting to lift ALL working Americans up, you want to drag us all down to your level.

You say "hyper" wealthy and then point to upper middle class americans.

[Paradoxical]

156. Sorry, but 500 K a year is not upper middle class.

Whoever told you that is lying.

[Yavin4]

95. Let's Say You're A Musician

And you can sell out gigantic sports arenas because your fans want to see you live. Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to make more than $500,000 even though you're able to sell $5 billion in tickets alone?

If you say, "yes", then what's the incentive for the musician to even perform?

[Dr. Strange]

102. They can perform because they want to.

I think the more interesting question becomes: since Barbara Streisand makes $500,000 in like three days, she's clearly getting paid in full for her music. So if I download her music off the internet without paying, am I committing a crime? She can't make any money off the music anyway, so I'm not depriving her of income.

[Dr. Strange]

97. Stephen King makes about $84 million a year.

You're the first person I've seen accuse him of theft.

But after he gets his $500,000, what happens to the rest of the money? Are his books given away for free? Does the publisher get to keep all the extra money?

[hifiguy]

98. Gaming the system to benefit yourself

at the expense of others is not "work." It is THEFT.

And what today's uberrich do is exactly what Marx predicted 150 years ago. His term for it was "the expropriation of the value added" by the working classes IIRC.

I don't care if some athlete or entertainer makes obscene amounts of money. I am perfectly free to avoid their products if I see fit. Those who profiteer off of the necessities of life (food, energy, health care, etc.) deserve only confiscation of every penny they steal and a quick trip to the gibbet.

[Fire1]

99. Don't "deserve" it? Hell, most didn't even "earn" it. n/t

[cali]

103. this is so ill thought out and well, dumb, that it really doesn't deserve

real discussion.

[badtoworse]

105. It's sad that some here actually take the OP seriously

[krabigirl]

147. agreed.

[FLAprogressive]

154. This.

[BOG PERSON]

106. $500000 seems a little arbitrary

[Cid_B]

107. Let me guess...

The excess would go to those who you ( and those who think like you) deem worthy.

Fucking thuggish...

[Dreamer Tatum]

109. Easy solution: just cap yours at $500K. Send the excess wherever you like. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

110. So you think NewsCorp should have gotten every dime of

Avatar profits, none for the creators, the actors, the man who wrote it, directed it, developed the tech used to make it? He should get 'capped' and Rupert should get the rest?
Who should get the money when an author puts ink on blank pages and sells it for 3 million? Should the publisher get it for 500K, and keep the rest as 'non personal' income, ie profit for the corp? That is what you are advocating when you advocate for a cap. The corp can make billions from our work, yet we get 500k tops? How is that fair?

[Dreamer Tatum]

114. No, here is what the OP has in mind.

You earn as much as you can. Then, at the end of the year, the excess over $500K is determined, and you are frogmarched naked in a public square, where you are surrounded by people who made $499,999.99 or less. While you are being fastened to the stocks, your excess income is confiscated and turned over the the government, where no corruption has ever occurred or will ever occur. Your crimes against society are then read aloud, and the gatherers are then let to throw rotten fruit at you until you are sufficiently penitent for stealing what could not ever possibly be yours.

Then all those people go home and try to make as much money as you did.

[indepat]

120. "state-sanctioned theft" hits the nail on the head knowing the state could discourage

this gargantuan theft rather than promote/encourage it through a carefully orchestrated policy of non-taxation. :patriot:

[kentuck]

122. Show this thread to ten strangers...

and everyone will think most people here are a bunch of tight-ass Republicans. Is this really Democratic Underground or did we take a wrong turn someplace. Stop reading and posting and turn on Rush and Hannity. You will feel right at home.

[KatyMan]

123. Not really...

the OP and some subsequent posts are obviously written by people who are very young or very naive. The gov't can't tell people how much they can earn, that's a ridiculous premise.

[ProudDad]

126. Yes, the government could and used to

when there was a 90% marginal tax rate for the super-rich...

There's nothing in the Constitution that would preclude a 110% tax rate for the Ubber-Rich!

[KatyMan]

127. That's not what the OP said

I'm happy to pay whatever taxes are fair and beneficial to society, whether property taxes, income taxes, payroll, etc, and I would feel the same if I made 10 or 100 times my salary. I have no problem with tax rates going back to Clinton or even Ike-era rates. I do have a problem with the OP saying nobody can earn over a certain amount. The idea is sophomoric, and makes the left look bad.
And full disclosure, I make less than 100k.

[Silent3]

166. Only "tight-ass Republicans" would object to a $1/2M yearly wage cap?

Really?

You seem to be confusing "Democrat" with "radical socialist". What makes a Democrat a Democrat, hard though a concise definition might be to pin down, is what rank-and-file registered Democrats believe in overall and support as policy. I don't think I need to conduct an opinion poll to know that the proposal in the OP would not go over big among a majority of Democrats.

Maybe it's that we're not being "underground" enough for you here. :)

[xocet]

174. +500,000 n/t

[Obamanaut]

124. Don't go to this thread (link in message box). There's some serious

love going on regarding some of the wealthy members of congress, and/or their families.

[fascisthunter]

125. they are like Drug Addicts and their Drug is Wealth and Power

nobody should EVER have that much.

[moondust]

128. MAXIMUM WAGE isn't a new idea.

You just never hear about it. Rather than pick an arbitrary number out of thin air, you could peg it to a multiple of the minimum wage. That way all boats would rise and fall together. It would probably temper much of the selfishness and destructive pursuit of excess, although it's hard to tell what kind of tricks the lawyers and con men would come up with to get around it.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

133. You have no right...

To say what someone should and should not make. If someone makes a million dollars then I'm fine with it.

Sure lets cap personal income and take away freedom while were at it because it's not like it matters any more. /sarcasm

It's amusing you feel the right to judge all of these people too. I think someone's just a bit jealous..

[Jack Sprat]

134. If he doesn't have the right to say it,

then how do you have the right to disagree with what he said? The fact is that he has a right to say it and you have a right to disagree.

[LibertyFox]

135. A bit much.

To imply that the super rich do not deserve their wealth smacks of morality based reasoning. To say that one group of people "deserves" only to earn this much implies another "deserves" more than they get. When you speak from that kind of moral high ground many people have an instinctive gut reaction against it, myself included. Morality like that smacks of totalitarianism.

I'm not going to argue against taxing the rich, goodness no. If you want to accomplish your goals of raising revenue there are so much more constructive ways to argue your case or accomplishing your goals.

We COULD confiscate wealth above $500000 per annum but from the numbers I've looked at that won't even completely cover the projected 1.5 trillion deficit. Not even if you confiscated all wealth above $500000, and you could only do that once. Remember that because they're rich they can afford to not work and to not earn an income, therefore avoid these new taxes.

You COULD set the tax rate for the rich at 90% again but this isn't 100 years ago. The rich are more mobile than ever and if we set a rate at 90% there's nothing stopping them from getting into their private jet and taking residence in a place like Signapore, New Zealand, or Ireland where there'd a significantly lower tax rate. You then lose more of that % that the top 1% pay. There's a motivation to at least keep the rich since they aren't totally parasites.

That is all assuming that you're wanting to confiscate wealth for the purposes of funneling it into the federal coffers to pay for programs that benefit everyone. If you're wanting to do flat out distribution I don't have as much of a response since I don't believe it's been done in an developed economy. If I had to predict it'd be that the result would be the same as massive inflation when the entire population has a sudden rise in income and the same number of products to spend it on.

TL:DR We definitely should tax the rich but if we want a better future for everyone we need to make sure that our fiscal policy is sustainable. Setting caps and arbitrarily deciding who can have what doesn't have a great track record for success since people change behavior depending on conditions.

[RandomThoughts]

136. Your comment about them moving overseas.

Is why many countries have laws about foreign ownership of property, and tariff systems, and even don't allow foreign money in elections.

However your argument is not consistent with current actions of governmental agencies. If we can abduct 'terrorist' that are poor, why not economic terrorist.

They could not run, unless we let them.

On a side note, I think better regulatory protections on obscene wealth, and protections from overseas economic terrorist havens, is a better idea then abductions and water boarding at Gitmo. That is the purge stuff I disagree with, and think should be avoided.

[Duppers]

138. And that goes for actors, sports figures, singers, and any kind of entertainers

nt

[Modern_Matthew]

142. Get a fancy job title, do less, and get paid more than those doing all the hard work...

What a wonderful system to live under. Take it from them and give it to those who deserve it. We'll worry about the democratic process later.

[Scuba]

145. Hedge fund managers made as much as $2.4 Million per HOUR last year....

...takes the average American household 47 years to make that much.


But frankly, it's not the rich getting too much that bothers me, it's the poor getting too little.

[tiny elvis]

158. too vague

personal income exceeding $500,000 is really unnecessary

necessity is not a thing of degrees
what is not necessary can be qualified by categories, but not comparatives

I feel I'm being more than generous

feelings are not an argument unless you are arguing with your girlfriend

people live on less than $1,000 A YEAR

a comparison with an unjustifiably low income is a comparison to something invalid
your generosity can be shown with a comparison to a living wage

what does that say about people making tens or hundreds of millions
It means they're ripping us off

step 3: profits!
step 2: ?
step 1: steal underwear
we know that $500,000 is more than enough income and we know how rich people steal,
but you have assumed the premise that making too much money is theft because it is too much

They do not deserve their millions

the first time you wrote 'deserve', i equated it with your use of 'necessity'
this second use of 'deserve', following the premise that making too much money is theft,
associates 'theft' with 'unnecessary' income, not just tens or hundreds of millions

you should make it clear whether making too much money is caused by theft or is itself theft
and present an argument for either

[themadstork]

161. This is a fine example of criticizing the sentences a person wrote without actually addressing

their argument.

Your rebuttal is a series of abstruse pseudo-rationalist red herrings that fail to make any kind of substantive point. The OP's argument was a moral one; if you're going to respond in kind it'll be with a moral counterargument, not stuff like "necessity is not a thing of degrees."

[Silent3]

162. Partial agreement

I really don't care how high the high end of wealth goes as long as enough of all of our combined wealth, with truly progressive higher tax rates for upper income levels, is used to secure a good basic minimum standard of living for everyone, for universal healthcare, for keeping our public infrastructure in good shape, for keeping the environment healthy, and for the kind of forward-thinking research and bold public projects that private industry will never provide.

But capping maximum income, especially a level like $500,000... I don't think even most poor people would accept that concept, even poor people free from the "lotto mentality" of thinking they're going to be rich themselves someday. I think most people like the idea that big things are possible in terms of personal financial success, and like that this kind of dream is somewhat open ended, not capped off an arbitrary (and, as "big dreams" go) fairly low level.

[TheKentuckian]

163. I don't think a hard cap is desirable but a multiple on the lowest paid is great.

I'm fine with a CEO making 20 million if that means the person that cleans up makes a million or so. The rising tide deal is fine by me.

I also don't think a 100% tax rate is ever acceptable, in fact if the high end paid 60% things would be peachy.

I think something like a refundable tax credit for all income 20k (or so) for single filers underneath a progressive structure with additional brackets going up to a billion or so capping at around 60% would foster the kind of balance we need to have a healthy economy with broad prosperity. I'd also notch up investment income taxes as well but maintain a lower rate to continue to encourage folks to re-invest.

I'd probably even support an exception for the first 10-15k in investment returns (non-refundable) in addition to the refundable income exemption.

I think the idea should be not to limit wealth or growth but to make it responsible and not a scheme to make the poor pay for the party for the wealthy.

[sfpcjock]

164. Corps. are allowed to pay no tax...

on salaries and giant bonuses to goldbrick CEOs. That's why they do it. It contributes to a culture of "moral hazard" and general irresponsible and unaccountable behavior. The CEOs are allowed to hand pick the people who determine their wacko salaries.

[ParkieDem]

165. Wow, this is fun.

:popcorn:

I like guessing what each of the deleted comments says :D

[jmowreader]

167. A person who generates sufficient value for money should be compensated

There's this little company out on the coast called the Seattle Mariners. They have an employee named Ichiro Suzuki. You might have seen him--little skinny guy.

If Ichiro, who seems to be the only competent employee of the company, did not work for the Seattle Mariners, they'd have to pay people to go to the ballpark. As it is, the only reason half the people in the stands and half the people in the home audience are there is to see Mr. Suzuki hit baseballs.

Mr. Suzuki enables the rest of the Mariners organization, the employees of all the outside companies that are dependent on the Mariners, and the employees of all the companies that supply the first two groups to live indoors and eat regularly. Therefore, I feel that Mr. Suzuki is worth every nickel of the $18 million they pay him.

OTOH, we have the fucker who's running AIG. That guy should be making about $75,000 a year.

[Zanzoobar]

169. The hyper poor do not deserve their impoverishment

Let's just snatch it away from them! Problem solved.

[Keith Bee]

170. K...too late for R

:(