What if no one could earn more than $100,000 a year?

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I see only good coming from a measure such as this. Anyone complaining that over $100,000 isn't enough is just a spoiled brat. There probably should be some exceptions for those with multiple kids, but I'm living with under $20k, and I'm doing alright. Culturally, we have become so greedy and self centered, that almost EVERYONE feels the need to live in a mansion with a 90' TV and a car worth more than I'll make in 10 years. We need to move away from that, because it's so shallow and it's driving a rift between the rich and poor.

winning?

just kidding, but yeah i think the good would definitely out measure the bad in time, although alot of people would be less inclined to try at all in some professions then...

not to mention anything expensive/ridiculously cool would be reduced in being invented since no one could afford it..

 

[AD-Stu]

There would be pretty much no incentive to work hard, so few people would bother, productivity drops, innovation dies... yeah, I think we'd be pretty well screwed.

Plus anyone who wanted to would find their way around it, be it through stock payments, under the table bonuses, or some other system, and it would massively incentivise people to mis-report corporate and personal earnings.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

The problem is not with people making too much money, it's with people not being taxed appropriately.

aha! the source of our problems.

which is why i am in full sport of the "fair tax" plan, as the more you spend, the more you get taxed, simple as that, all those people with such fancy toys, they'd end up paying quite a bit ;]

 

[Jodah]

Keep in mind most "obscenely rich" (oh how I loath that phrase) people aren't actually paid much salary wise. Most of their money comes from investments, not their regular income. Limiting salaries to 100k would only hurt professionals who had to work to earn that money.

 

[lacktheknack]

You DO remember that Communism kind of didn't work, right?

Generally, it's not a good idea to put a limit on what people can achieve, financial or otherwise. If someone's good at making money, let them make money. If someone's good at making art, let them make art. Etc.

 

[babinro]

If all the money made over 100,000 went into doing what sweden does and paying for literally everything, then itd probably fix the world.
But it wont happen for at least another generation or 2, theres too many rich greedy sots around who wouldnt agree to this even if you forced them into it.

This was my initial instinct to the question as well. Governments could afford to fund many useful programs that enable society as a whole to potentially improve. Proper investment to build and maintain an excellent free public transit system, free health care, free education, free wireless internet access, and so on.

It would destroy most all of our farmers and small businesses. The death tax on any worth > 1 Million dollars in the US, doesn't hurt the 'rich' but rather the farmers who have all that expensive equipment.

Money in does not equal money kept. If I take in 1.2 Million dollars off a crop, but have to spend 1.15 Million on seed, fertilizer, a new blade for a combine... You get the picture.

Small businesses who have to have a bunch of product on site run into the same sort of problems.

In the case of jobs such as farmers, major subsidies would need to be levied on their equipment and operating costs much like other businesses to ensure continued operation. Of course this would creates a new can of worms in terms of which business get subsidies and which ones still have to buy equipment through business operations.

Though I fear the reality would be much worse as what others who have posted have said. Those employed at the $100,000 cap would likely receive some amazing benefits to place them at a higher status and keep them loyal to the corporation in question. IE) company cars, housing, paid vacations, etc. The end result being that all this leads to almost no real change.

 

[orangeban]

Well, if the rich earn less that (theoretically) means more money to spread among the poor. The way I see it, it's pretty much communism lite, which is either fantastic or evil, depending on your viewpoint.

 

[Pinkamena]

Wouldn't the value of the dollar go completely haywire? I'm trying to wrap my head around it, but I have no knowledge with economics, and can't really imagine what would happen... But it's a very interesting topic!

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Then there would be no incentive to make anything of yourself.

 

[Signa]

Say goodbye to professional like Doctors, they make the big money because of the hours they work, the standards they're expected to be at and the risks involved. I knew an OB-GYN who told me he had to pay 90K a year in medical defense, that's more than most people earn a year. The problem is not with people making too much money, it's with people not being taxed appropriately.

We ARE talking theoretical systems here. In a case like that, that 90k is 100% necessary for a doctor to pay, so in our theoretical system, we'd just put a clause to say doctors can make $190k (or $100k + insurance). Maybe I read the OP wrong, but I thought the $100k max was take-home wages. A doctor making $10k after insurance would be ridiculous and broken.

 

[WolfThomas]

Say goodbye to professional like Doctors, they make the big money because of the hours they work, the standards they're expected to be at and the risks involved. I knew an OB-GYN who told me he had to pay 90K a year in medical defense, that's more than most people earn a year. The problem is not with people making too much money, it's with people not being taxed appropriately.

We ARE talking theoretical systems here. In a case like that, that 90k is 100% necessary for a doctor to pay, so in our theoretical system, we'd just put a clause to say doctors can make $190k (or $100k + insurance). Maybe I read the OP wrong, but I thought the $100k max was take-home wages. A doctor making $10k after insurance would be ridiculous and broken.

I wasn't suggesting the Doctor would only make 10k, but more some of the reasons people get paid so much (at least Doctors). In this theoretical system that OBY-GYn would still have to make much more to cover other expenses, equipment, payment of employees (practice manager, practice nurses, receptionists) and rent/cost of practice rooms.

But that's completely negating the fact that without good pay people wouldn't want to do the long hours and on call, take the risks to themselves and of the consequences of making a mistake, as well as the long years of training (at the least 9 years to a General Practitioner and often more, and at 14 years to be a specialist, again probably many more), where they often have no say in where they have to work and live. Plus the initial 5-6 years of that not being paid.

This theoretical system doesn't reward people as much for studying and achieving greatly. As I said before the problem is not people being paid a lot of money, but not being appropriately taxed. My father is a surgeon, he does make a large amount of money but he has to work hard for it and in Australia he pays pretty much half of it to the government, this is however not the case in certain countries.

 

[Signa]

snip

I don't know how different things are down there in Australia, but here in America, it's increasingly becoming where it doesn't matter the drive you have to achieve, but a lot of luck and who you know helps just as much. IF you have the drive to make something of yourself, chances are you're going to get bought out or just choked by stronger competition. And I don't mean "stronger" as in they have better ideas, but just more money so they can sue you into oblivion (without a cause I might add. I'm talking about wars of attrition through legal fees) just because your ideas will lose them money.

We have a BAAAAD system in place now that favors the rich. The only foreseeable consequence of this proposed cap is that it doesn't apply to larger companies. They could get even more spare change to sue if their payroll is reduced. But I suppose a similar cap could be proposed for companies too. Make business licenses grant you larger or smaller caps, and then have all the extra go to the govt. IF the government could be trusted to spend money more wisely we could end up having a lot more government funded research and progress the country a lot better than what we have now. The real problem is the underlined part. I have no trust in this happening, and I don't see it getting fixed for decades, if ever.

 

[rekabdarb]

Then that would be communism in it's best and original form

 

[Shivarage]

Da comrade. Smells like communism...
I think that the best and brightest would leave any country that implemented something like that and thus the country as a whole would promptly enter a huge depression as all the multi billionaires take their interests elsewhere.

People would have little incentive to study and work hard when they find out they can't earn what they are worth.

Very patriotic xD

People already know they can't earn what they are worth, does that stop them? NO

People don't just stop working because "money" doesn't exist... they will realize they are wasting their lives

 

[Shivarage]

You DO remember that Communism kind of didn't work, right?

Generally, it's not a good idea to put a limit on what people can achieve, financial or otherwise. If someone's good at making money, let them make money. If someone's good at making art, let them make art. Etc.

True communism has never been tried... we would get to the point where money is eradicated then quickly turn back = not full communism

 

[ironm4id3n]

I can't think of a profession that gets 100,000 a year, except maybe football players(soccer) that get that on a weekly basis.

DUDE, ARE YOU SERIOUS? lets see where should i begin....

lawyers, doctors, contractors (my dad is one),CEO's, lobbyists, language specialists, nuclear reactor operators, personal trainers (some of them), court reporters,bank managers,jet captains (pilots), certain types of engineers, real estate agents, economists, surgeons (DUH!) specialty mechanics and pharmacists....

I am not kidding when i say these are just off the top of my head...

Therefore the list is definitely longer then that

 

[ironm4id3n]

You DO remember that Communism kind of didn't work, right?

Generally, it's not a good idea to put a limit on what people can achieve, financial or otherwise. If someone's good at making money, let them make money. If someone's good at making art, let them make art. Etc.

True communism has never been tried... we would get to the point where money is eradicated then quickly turn back = not full communism

Probably because it wouldn't work in practice, that's probably also why "true communism" has never been put into practice... because it cant

 

[ironm4id3n]

I see only good coming from a measure such as this. Anyone complaining that over $100,000 isn't enough is just a spoiled brat. There probably should be some exceptions for those with multiple kids, but I'm living with under $20k, and I'm doing alright. Culturally, we have become so greedy and self centered, that almost EVERYONE feels the need to live in a mansion with a 90' TV and a car worth more than I'll make in 10 years. We need to move away from that, because it's so shallow and it's driving a rift between the rich and poor.

Yeah who the fuck needs social programs, colleges and non-profit organizations?
bunch of greedy bastards!!!