Should there be a salary cap?

[runningbooii]

Do you think there should be a salary cap or savings cap? By which I mean, if a person makes more than X dollars a year gross income, he pays everything in excess of X to the government as taxes.

If so, what should it be?

I would say that $100,000 is enough for the average person but allowances should be made for certain situations, such as medical expenses (since we don't have universal healthcare).

Personally I am not only for a salary cap, I am also for a net-worth cap. You simply don't need millions and millions of dollars lying around the house when you couldn't possibly spend it all; you don't need a private jet and a private yacht and a 40-room mansion for you, your wife, and two kids.

 

[McBell]

Do you think there should be a salary cap or savings cap? By which I mean, if a person makes more than X dollars a year gross income, he pays everything in excess of X to the government as taxes.

If so, what should it be?

I would say that $100,000 is enough for the average person but allowances should be made for certain situations, such as medical expenses (since we don't have universal healthcare).

Personally I am not only for a salary cap, I am also for a net-worth cap. You simply don't need millions and millions of dollars lying around the house when you couldn't possibly spend it all; you don't need a private jet and a private yacht and a 40-room mansion for you, your wife, and two kids.

What would be the incentive to work?
I mean, once a person reaches the salary cap.

 

[outis]

Do you think there should be a salary cap or savings cap? By which I mean, if a person makes more than X dollars a year gross income, he pays everything in excess of X to the government as taxes.

No, there's no point in having such caps. And advocating for them is probably counter-productive. It's needlessly confrontational.
That's not because they'd be no reason for people to work if they reach the cap (people work for free all the time) but because of the inefficiencies involved. Taxes incite people to fraud and tax evasion which have unwanted effects besides the loss in revenue. You want to balance the downside with the upside of taxes and the balance is undoubtedly reached long before you get to hard caps.
More generally, there are people who are competitive. I do not have a problem with letting people try to have more money or luxury items than the next guy. I do support keeping excesses in check and especially keeping people from playing dirty but there's little doubt we can all benefit from the actions of honest people motivated by the pointless accumulation of personal wealth.

 

[Reverend Rick]

100K is nothing when you have children going to college. People in this bracket don't get much help and have to pay it all.

A million or two might be necessary to retire comfortably for 30 years, especially when you consider inflation.

Another factor is where you live. 100K is good money in Kentucky but not very much if you live in New York or California.

Also you have to consider taxes and insurance which can take up as much as 75% of that 100K some places.

 

[Koldo]

100K is nothing when you have children going to college.

This is an exaggeration.

But i agree with everything else you said.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is an exaggeration.

But i agree with everything else you said.

Do the math, In New York, Federal, state, and local taxes can be 60% of that 100K

That leaves you 40K after tax money and you can easily spend 20K a year to keep your child in college.

If there are other children in the home, you could easily fall below the poverty line.

You keep forgetting, when you get no assistance, it gets expensive paying your own way.

 

[Shermana]

Private individuals who pay themselves vast amounts of money is not the problem. Let the CEO get paid $100 million a year if that's what the Shareholders agree to.

It's when the average worker isn't paid enough to the point that there's not enough people who can actually buy products that Domestic industry is producing. That's probably the main reason why so many businesses are failing. Not enough money circulating and people with the means to buy what they're offering. A better approach would be to require corporations with a certain profit ratio to be required to give their employees a living wage, and if they don't like it, blast them with negative PR so that companies like Costco who DO give them a living wage will make good use of the bad publicity.

It's when the extra rich get out of paying the taxes they are supposed to because of loopholes and off shore accounts.

It's when the extra rich are able to use their money to lobby politics to support their unethical business practices at the expense of everyone else.
The problem isn't in how much the rich are earning. It's how much the workers are not earning, and it's how much the rich are dodging the rules of the game.

And even if there was to be a salary cap to address issues of the rich not being able to disproportionately affect Industry and labor practices through corporate politicking, $100,000 is plain stupid. Maybe $10,000,000 at best. Even Huey Long had plans for a $50,000,000 wealth cap, which was about a billion in 2013 dollars.

A socialist society does not mean a universally lower-middle class society.

 

[Koldo]

Do the math, In New York, Federal, state, and local taxes can be 60% of that 100K

That leaves you 40K after tax money and you can easily spend 20K a year to keep your child in college.

If there are other children in the home, you could easily fall below the poverty line.

You keep forgetting, when you get no assistance, it gets expensive paying your own way.

Your child is not going to remain on college forever though.
And that's the cumulative result of choosing to have children and not saving up money.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Your child is not going to remain on college forever though.
And that's the cumulative result of choosing to have children and not saving up money.

In my example, a family would need to pay off their home and cash flow college.

You could instead save money for college and then make a house payment.

Saying a family should do both is raising the bar quite a bit.

If you have several children college bound this would take much longer than you realise. Not too many make the walk in 4 years and it some times takes longer.

Many get advanced degree as well.

Depending on the age range of your children, you could have multiple children in college at the same time or if they are spaced out by age, it could take 20 years to see all of them through.

My biggest issue is we tax folks making 300K at the same rate as billionaires.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How could you enforce a salary cap? and why would you want to?

Investment depends on people having more than they need.

Salesmen, and bank employees often earn more than their CEO.
You may ask why should a company go along with that?
It is because they are earning even more for the enterprise.

It is in no ones interest to create an earnings cap.
Even the tax man benefits.

Nor does an earnings cap on the rich, put in or withhold a single penny from a poor mans pocket.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Seriously, it take alot of money to pay off your home, save for retirement, and put your kids through college. Taxes and insurance can never be paid off nor can utilities and food.

People need to obtain extended care insurance as well.

Being responsible and raising a family takes mega bucks.

 

[runningbooii]

100K is nothing when you have children going to college. People in this bracket don't get much help and have to pay it all.

A million or two might be necessary to retire comfortably for 30 years, especially when you consider inflation.

Another factor is where you live. 100K is good money in Kentucky but not very much if you live in New York or California.

Also you have to consider taxes and insurance which can take up as much as 75% of that 100K some places.

What if it could be adjusted for educational, medical, and other expenses. So let's say you make 105K & after sending a kid to college you're down to 80K, then say you needed to get some minor surgery down and you're down to 70K. So you wouldn't lose any money since after your expenses you are under the amount.

Also things could arrange it depending on where you live and perhaps also make allowances for groups which have been historically disadvantaged to keep some more in their pocket.

 

[Musty]

I do feel that there are many cases where a persons remuneration does not reflect the value of what they actually do. Generally speaking a jobs wage is based on the availability of people with that skill set and required experience, the profits generated by that particular post, and old boy network connections. It seems rare for people to be paid well for doing a job which is beneficial to their community but isn't profitable.

Many of the high paid jobs seem to be for things which I personally find to be largely devoid of any societal value.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What if it could be adjusted for educational, medical, and other expenses. So let's say you make 105K & after sending a kid to college you're down to 80K, then say you needed to get some minor surgery down and you're down to 70K. So you wouldn't lose any money since after your expenses you are under the amount.

Also things could arrange it depending on where you live and perhaps also make allowances for groups which have been historically disadvantaged to keep some more in their pocket.

How about we just focus on the top .01 percent who are decamillionaires and billionaires and leave the hard working professionals who work hard every day alone?

These are the stepping stone folks who are trying to achieve wealth. Lets not penalise them and let them prosper for a while until they obtain something.

Seriously, you have to bleed money to live some places.

Take Tiger Woods for instance. He was not born rich and California and the government take the lions share of his purse. Is this not enough?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would say that $100,000 is enough for the average person but allowances should be made for certain situations, such as medical expenses (since we don't have universal healthcare).

$100,000 a year, although alot of money, would be to punish people who have went the extra mile in school, took the extra risks in business, etc., etc. It would kill off the competition for acceptance into school programs that revolve around high-demand and high-wage careers, and why would you go to school for a doctorates when your earning potential will never raise above a masters degree? That $100,000 mark is very often where you find people who have made sacrifices, took risks, and have worked hard to get what they have (Doctors, business owners of all sizes, skilled trade). And there are some fields that require so much experience and so many years of schooling that the starting level wages begin around $100,000 just because you do know so much more and have so much more experience that nearly everybody else. And then there are some fields, especially computer related, that are in such a high demand and require levels of mathmatics that are becoming harder and harder to find in the average American that it is simply nothing more than the invisible hand moving their wages easily upwards of $100,000.
And of course where I am at $100,000 is enough to comfortable live off of for a several years easily if you don't waste it, but in many parts of New York that same $100,000 would vanish seemingly overnight even if you are a penny pincher.
Also many millionaires and billionaires regularly give large chunks of their own money to charity. Bill Gates is an example of someone who has done alot of good throughout the world with his vast fortune.
But why should there be any sort of wage cap? Even if it's a million dollars, people are people and will not work at a rate to do anymore than that.Why are you going to go through years of schooling, staying home weekend after weekend to study to make the grades to be a doctor when you just be a physicians assistant and make the same and not have the responsibility of being on call 24/7? Why are you going to risk it all by starting a business when the earning potentials, especially if you have someone else contributing, will not be that much higher than a number of unionized manufacturing jobs? Why be above average when you and your spouse can get the best there is to get on just average?
My problem isn't a yearly salary of some (although the likes the professional athletes and screen actors are not worth the millions they can make), it's when those in higher positions take away from those below them so they can have more. Or if they just take and take and take while only giving very little to the people earning them that money, many times no more than what is legally required.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think there should be a salary cap or savings cap? By which I mean, if a person makes more than X dollars a year gross income, he pays everything in excess of X to the government as taxes.
If so, what should it be?
I would say that $100,000 is enough for the average person but allowances should be made for certain situations, such as medical expenses (since we don't have universal healthcare).
Personally I am not only for a salary cap, I am also for a net-worth cap. You simply don't need millions and millions of dollars lying around the house when you couldn't possibly spend it all; you don't need a private jet and a private yacht and a 40-room mansion for you, your wife, and two kids.

Your post reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's story, Harrison Bergeron.
From Wikipedia.....

It is the year 2081. Because of Amendments to the Constitution, every American is fully equal, meaning that no one is smarter, better-looking, stronger, or faster than anyone else. The Handicapper General and a team of agents ensure that the laws of equality are enforced. The government forces citizens to wear "handicaps" (a mask if they are too handsome or beautiful, earphones with deafening radio signals to make intelligent people unable to concentrate and form thoughts, and heavy weights to slow down those who are too strong or fast).

May your frightening world never come to pass.
Otherwise......
- Mystic would be saddled with weights, so that she could dance no better than a drunken aged Scotsman.
- Rev Rick would have his trigger finger amputated, so that his accuracy would be no better than a drunken aged Scotsman.
- Monta (where is she?) would have a noise box on her head to disrupt her thoughts, so that her limericks would be no cleverer than a drunken aged Scotsman.
- I would be free from the Handicapper General's sanctions, since I'm a drunken....you get the idea.

 

[Falvlun]

Do the math, In New York, Federal, state, and local taxes can be 60% of that 100K

That leaves you 40K after tax money and you can easily spend 20K a year to keep your child in college.

If there are other children in the home, you could easily fall below the poverty line.

You keep forgetting, when you get no assistance, it gets expensive paying your own way.

Then they should get scholarships like the rest of us hardworking talented people who earn our way through college.

 

[Falvlun]

Private individuals who pay themselves vast amounts of money is not the problem. Let the CEO get paid $100 million a year if that's what the Shareholders agree to.

It's when the average worker isn't paid enough to the point that there's not enough people who can actually buy products that Domestic industry is producing. That's probably the main reason why so many businesses are failing. Not enough money circulating and people with the means to buy what they're offering. A better approach would be to require corporations with a certain profit ratio to be required to give their employees a living wage, and if they don't like it, blast them with negative PR so that companies like Costco who DO give them a living wage will make good use of the bad publicity.

It's when the extra rich get out of paying the taxes they are supposed to because of loopholes and off shore accounts.

It's when the extra rich are able to use their money to lobby politics to support their unethical business practices at the expense of everyone else.
The problem isn't in how much the rich are earning. It's how much the workers are not earning, and it's how much the rich are dodging the rules of the game.

And even if there was to be a salary cap to address issues of the rich not being able to disproportionately affect Industry and labor practices through corporate politicking, $100,000 is plain stupid. Maybe $10,000,000 at best. Even Huey Long had plans for a $50,000,000 wealth cap, which was about a billion in 2013 dollars.

A socialist society does not mean a universally lower-middle class society.

I highlighted all the awesome in this post. Spot on, Shermana.

I think the idea of a salary cap is unproductive and doesn't address the actual issue. There is a problem, however, when businesses are making record profits and don't share that back with all the people who made it happen. (The CEO, for whatever his or her hardwork, did not do it by him or herself and should not be one of the only people to get a bonus or a payraise.)

 

[Falvlun]

I do feel that there are many cases where a persons remuneration does not reflect the value of what they actually do. Generally speaking a jobs wage is based on the availability of people with that skill set and required experience, the profits generated by that particular post, and old boy network connections. It seems rare for people to be paid well for doing a job which is beneficial to their community but isn't profitable.

Many of the high paid jobs seem to be for things which I personally find to be largely devoid of any societal value.

Another great point.

Do business owners work hard? Yes. Are bank executives intelligent? I'm sure they are. Do CEOs have to put their neck on the line and make the tough decisions? Yup, and I'm glad I don't have to.

Do teachers work hard? Yes. Are mechanics intelligent? I'm sure they are. Do nurses put their neck on the line and make tough decisions? Yup, and I'm glad I don't have to.

Conservatives claim that rich people are rich through hard work, intelligence, and risk taking. But if that were the case, then why aren't teachers and nurses making as much as stock brokers and CEOs?

We as a society need to reassess our "merit" system. If we are going to reward hard work, then we need to reward all hard work-- and not just that that happens to deal with the financial industry. If we are going to reward people who make the hard decisions, then we need to reward all those people, and not just CEOs and heads of companies.

And if we don't want to, then we need to stop this charade that wealth is accrued through merit.

And as, Musty points out, personally, I'd prefer the hard work of a teacher to be compensated more than the hard work of a lawyer, if that's the way we are going to reward people.

 

[runningbooii]

Private individuals who pay themselves vast amounts of money is not the problem. Let the CEO get paid $100 million a year if that's what the Shareholders agree to.

It's when the average worker isn't paid enough to the point that there's not enough people who can actually buy products that Domestic industry is producing.

I agree that workers should be paid more, but how many raises could you afford if you cut down the CEO's salary. Let's say that you're hiring someone at minimum wage which right now is 7.25. Let's say that you could double it so that minimum wage is 14.50 and assuming a 40 hour work week and 50 weeks/year you come to $29,000 a year. The salary of a CEO is about 10 million a year. For that kind of money you could hire hundreds of new workers.