I think it's time to start a discussion on how to implement a Federal maximum wage/salary.

Pot: Meet Kettle wrote:

Your (LR grammar) a "moran" (your moronic spelling).

You must be new here. Welcome!

Yammaha wrote:

Perhaps $200k/year from all income sources?

Ok, this is great. The liberal idiocy on full parade.

So how does this play out: hard working people that don't have what it takes to start a new company get a ceiling. Meanwhile, the richest among us (owners of huge companies; re-read that: owners not those big bad CEOs) would simply funnel/control their fortunes through other none-personal-income ways while reaping low-cost "hyper"-talent thanks to your ceiling.

BOOM - income/wealth/power inequality goes through the f-ING roof.

Liberals - I keep harping on this - your policies are increasing inequality because your models of the world are faulty because you based them on Disney movies. Please stop voting.

krispy kremlin wrote:

Yammaha wrote:

Perhaps $200k/year from all income sources?

Ok, this is great. The liberal idiocy on full parade.

So how does this play out: hard working people that don't have what it takes to start a new company get a ceiling. Meanwhile, the richest among us (owners of huge companies; re-read that: owners not those big bad CEOs) would simply funnel/control their fortunes through other none-personal-income ways while reaping low-cost "hyper"-talent thanks to your ceiling.

BOOM - income/wealth/power inequality goes through the f-ING roof.

Liberals - I keep harping on this - your policies are increasing inequality because your models of the world are faulty because you based them on Disney movies. Please stop voting.

BOOM - another example of you arguing against fake liberal policies.

Yammaha wrote:

Perhaps $200k/year from all income sources?

If you're trying to redistribute wealth then you should focus on wealth not "wages/salary" also known as income. The problem is that the extremely wealthy don't necessarily have a high income so a cap on income would effect the upper middle class more so than the upper class.

Also a cap on income would have huge, unintended market distorting impacts. Get ready for possibly a shortage of doctors and/or a decreased in the quality and training of doctors. Taxes on income or wealth will always be optimal to a income/wealth ceiling.

Although thinking about it more I don't see why there can't be a wealth ceiling, like no one is allowed to possess more than say $2 billion in real assets.

spade detector wrote:

krispy kremlin wrote:

Ok, this is great. The liberal idiocy on full parade.

So how does this play out: hard working people that don't have what it takes to start a new company get a ceiling. Meanwhile, the richest among us (owners of huge companies; re-read that: owners not those big bad CEOs) would simply funnel/control their fortunes through other none-personal-income ways while reaping low-cost "hyper"-talent thanks to your ceiling.

BOOM - income/wealth/power inequality goes through the f-ING roof.

Liberals - I keep harping on this - your policies are increasing inequality because your models of the world are faulty because you based them on Disney movies. Please stop voting.

BOOM - another example of you arguing against fake liberal policies.

Umm... yes, we're discussing a hypothetical liberal policy - you can call it "fake" if you want but while you're at it add a six piece chicken nuggets to my order - ranch dressing too, that sh&ts delicious.

If you want to talk about real liberal policies that are increasing inequality, we can talk about subsidized housing, quantitative easing, imprudent regulation and free community college.

The guillotine for a few select billionaires would be a good place to start the conversation. Maybe some of those hedge fund managers engaged in "high frequency trading" (called stealing in plain English) and that union busting, war mongerer, Sheldon Adelson who made his fortune swindling the suckers

kmaclam wrote:

Randy Oldman wrote:

Barely enough to get by on. The median selling price of an apartment around here is $1.2 million.

Barely enough to get by on??? I know most people don't feel the exact same way I do, but sheesh, has it really come to this in America, where nearly a quarter million dollars per year! every year! is barely enough? My gosh. Have you ever left your gated communities or downtown apartments with doormen & seen how the other 98% (closer to 99%) of the world live?

Have you ever considered that there are places with a higher cost of living than where you live? Seems like you perhaps should leave your own bubble rather than the above poster leaving his/hers as you implied.

If you want your economies of scale, your endless TV, your silly movies, your cheap goods, and your mass consumption then you need people living in megalopolises with a high cost of living, paying high rents, and paying more for everything so that everyone in the rest of the US can continue living the same quality of life.

krispy kremlin wrote:

Umm... yes, we're discussing a hypothetical liberal policy - you can call it "fake" if you want but while you're at it add a six piece chicken nuggets to my order - ranch dressing too, that sh&ts delicious.

If you want to talk about real liberal policies that are increasing inequality, we can talk about subsidized housing, quantitative easing, imprudent regulation and free community college.

Quantitative easing is 100% not a liberal policy and is almost definitely not a partisan policy.

You are a moron and also a typical modern conservative/teabagger. You take non-partisan issues and turn them into partisan issues. Extremists like you and also the so-called liberal troll who started this thread give everyone else in your respective parties a bad name and also highlight the problem with the current two party system and media trends, which is that CRAZIEST voices manage to garner the most attention.

spade detector wrote:

krispy kremlin wrote:

Ok, this is great. The liberal idiocy on full parade.

So how does this play out: hard working people that don't have what it takes to start a new company get a ceiling. Meanwhile, the richest among us (owners of huge companies; re-read that: owners not those big bad CEOs) would simply funnel/control their fortunes through other none-personal-income ways while reaping low-cost "hyper"-talent thanks to your ceiling.

BOOM - income/wealth/power inequality goes through the f-ING roof.

Liberals - I keep harping on this - your policies are increasing inequality because your models of the world are faulty because you based them on Disney movies. Please stop voting.

BOOM - another example of you arguing against fake liberal policies.

You could have learned something but - BOOM - you avoid the discussion like every liberal creep does.

libs can't recognize a spade wrote:

spade detector wrote:

BOOM - another example of you arguing against fake liberal policies.

You could have learned something but - BOOM - you avoid the discussion like every liberal creep does.

There is no discussion to be had because everyone is in agreement that this would never be enacted and never should be. Typical conservative straw man tactic.

Agreed! "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That principle worked out great in places like Soviet Russia and it's time we put it into practice here. Then America can finally join enlightened countries like Cuba and North Korea.

heyyo wrote:

krispy kremlin wrote:

Umm... yes, we're discussing a hypothetical liberal policy - you can call it "fake" if you want but while you're at it add a six piece chicken nuggets to my order - ranch dressing too, that sh&ts delicious.

If you want to talk about real liberal policies that are increasing inequality, we can talk about subsidized housing, quantitative easing, imprudent regulation and free community college.

Quantitative easing is 100% not a liberal policy and is almost definitely not a partisan policy.

Whaaaat? This is really scary because unlike the other things you typically say, I think you might actually believe that.

Quantitative easing - an un-tested, un-proven, belief-based monetary policy of the federal reserve is inherently liberal. You, and a lot of society, have only been exposed to a sliver (if any) of the monetary policy spectrum and thus you believe it is nonpartisan. Any and all actions of the Central Bank of america (or any central bank for that matter) is an implicitly anti-free market action - they believe they know what is best for you and have a law put in place so that they can act on it (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913).

Americans know more about the effects of a deflated football than they do the effects of their central bank.

BOOM B-B-BOOM ... BOOM BOOM

As a hobby jogger, I think we should implement the same principle in races. Limit the top speed of runners...set the marathon finishing time at....say... 5hr15m. Fine anyone who runs faster by taking their surplus speed and giving it to people below the 5hr15m line. Then every few years, we can hold an election and argue whether to lower it another 27 seconds or not.

A wage is something paid to an employee form an employer.

You can set a maximum wage at $200K but many people receive pay not from wages but from contracts or a return on investments or royalties and such.

I think what you are asking is for a 100% marginal tax rate for income above $200K.

Compensation would then get configured to work around this.

But this would help somewhat to increase medium income and employment.

I am looking for an executive order to achieve this.

Rich people depend on the government to stop the poor people from raiding their mansions and killing and eating them.

Time and again history has proven that whenever the rich get uppity and refuse to bribe the poor to not kill and eat them, guess what, the poor kill and eat them! The French revolution killed and ate them. The Russian revolution killed and ate them. The Chinese revolution too. Spartacus and his horde of valiant freedom fighters killed and ate thousands of degenerate romans.

If you are rich, you better chip in with the other rich people to not be KILLED and EATEN. Ethics, morality, economics, government, socialism, capitalism, all has nothing to do with it. Either protect yourself or don't.

200,000 dollars is about right, gated-community level.

In some countries these thiefs would be called oligarchs or dictators...in the US they are capitalists...bullsh*t...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/carlyle-founders-took-in-800-million-in-2014-1425003260

TinWhistle wrote:

In some countries these thiefs would be called oligarchs or dictators...in the US they are capitalists...bullsh*t...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/carlyle-founders-took-in-800-million-in-2014-1425003260

The plural of thief is thieves.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Rich people depend on the government to stop the poor people from raiding their mansions and killing and eating them.

Time and again history has proven that whenever the rich get uppity and refuse to bribe the poor to not kill and eat them, guess what, the poor kill and eat them! The French revolution killed and ate them. The Russian revolution killed and ate them. The Chinese revolution too. Spartacus and his horde of valiant freedom fighters killed and ate thousands of degenerate romans.

If you are rich, you better chip in with the other rich people to not be KILLED and EATEN. Ethics, morality, economics, government, socialism, capitalism, all has nothing to do with it. Either protect yourself or don't.

200,000 dollars is about right, gated-community level.

The rich people in this country contribute ridiculous amounts to society before even considering the taxes they pay.

Let's say we let Bad Wigins, a noted-bleeding heart liberal, "kill and eat" the rich in this country (say, anyone making $1m+ or with $5m+ net assets). This country stops working.

French, Russian, and Chinese cultures could get away with it because they were agrarian societies and you don't need some 1%'er managing a 10 person farm. But cut out the top class at tech firms/biotech firms/materials firms and advancement grinds to a halt.

The primary flaw in the argument of this thread is that someone - somewhere is still going to capture the margin. Example: if you limit the salary of Mark Fields (CEO of Ford) to $200k, the majority shareholder in Ford - the Ford family (or whoever else own the company - other investors) reap the benefits of top-flight management without the cost. Another example would be Warren Buffet, a noted liberal - who has been gaming his tax return since his years as a paperboy - earns 100k in salary - simple liberal taxation policies do nothing to address Buffet's "income inequality" (ok, total compensation, $485 - but he would simply drop that to $200k to continue his tax dodging ways).

(One final note on the scumbag Warren Buffet - he contributed to Obama and is holding up the XL pipeline deal until he can liquidate his 2009 acquisition of BNSF Railroad which continues to benefit significantly from the shale oil boom in ND and would get crushed by the economic effect of a simple pipeline addition.) Another dirty-a$$ liberal move. People: wake up.

These ridiculous liberal societal-engineering policies are crazy town. If liberals want this "better society" they should lead their lives as such and stop imposing their belief on everyone else.

You're just making this all up. Have you been smoking too much crack in the southie projects and now you're cooking up conspiracy theories? The prime implementer of quantitative easing in the United States was Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke who is a Republican and was originally appointed by the Republican president, George W. Bush.

You are right that the democrats have embraced QE, however

what's unusual about the current Democratic embrace of QE (and the current Republican opposition to it) is that quantitative easing is a descendant of the monetarist philosophy of the libertarian Republican economist, Milton Friedman.

The democrats have simply been pragmatic and realize that they needed to support QE in order to advert an imploding financial economy due to a liquidity crisis caused by the housing market crash. They supported even while realizing that policy would mean saving the very banking institutions that created the crisis. Banking institutions that are very much the mutant children of republican financial policies that created the modern investment bank.