If There is a Minimum Wage, Then why is There not a Maximum Wage?

[Meiffert]

I don't care where they get it. It should be capped at a certain amount.

So how would that work?

You want to buy a new computer for Christmas but can't because with his shares in Microsoft and other investments, Bill Gates has reached the cap in August already and selling you another copy of Windows would put him over?

[Ave07]

People would have no incentive to work harder for more money if there were a cap on wages.

[Deleted]

Mind you, the most successful European country, Germany, didn't have minimum wage since just recently.

[Saphyron]

Its more like 43% and the tax increase starts at just above 500k.

Source: I live here

Same do I but the extra 3 % is church tax, working tax and other smaller tax.
Which is why I stated we had a base 40% tax.

Also did not know they changed it to 500k. Was almost certain it was 1M.

[Spectral]

Why would anyone treat a communist as though they're doing anything other than stirring shit and spreading propaganda on the matter? If someone openly commits to a revolutionary ideology based on class hatred, you should probably take any position they hold on the class they hate with a boulder of salt.

[Pendraeg]

People would have no incentive to work harder for more money if there were a cap on wages.

Well, if you look at when the US was its most productive (50's and 60's), you'll find that we DID have that high of a tax rate. The reason for it was simple: it was the "stick" to push investment, and it worked. Essentially, you're only taxed on your final income as a business owner. If you reinvest the capital back into your business to continue to grow the economy, you're not taxed on those funds. It keeps money flowing and eliminates "dead legs" in the economy where the rich just accumulate wealth and don't spend it.

[Deleted]

A minimum wage exists to try and make sure every with a job can actually survive etc. A maximum wage just places a cap on ambition and potentially limits tax income. For government and government controlled positions maybe but a law capping wages in private enterprises would be seen as tyrannical.

[Shinrael]

Because someone has to give you a minimum wage, nobody is going to give you a maximum wage.

This. You don't "get" a maximum wage. You make it. The people who are earning millions and billions, they aren't receiving that money from their boss. They ARE the boss.

[Deleted]

There is a maximum wage, even though it's not the same for everyone.

It's the max salary you can get with your skills, network and value creation ability on the market.

[Billy4269]

You have the hammer and sickle as your avatar, anything you say is irrelevant. Wait I forgot, communism just hasn't been implemented the right way!

[Annamarine]

That isn't actually true. Sure, if you're talking about the ACTUAL amount, then yes, rich people pay more taxes than poor people or the middle class... but they PROPORTIONALLY pay less, which is what actually matters. As a rough example, if I earn 20,000 a year but have to pay 10% of that in tax, then I'm paying $2000 a year in taxes, whereas if Bumfuck Walton III, Sam Walton's great grandson, earns a billion dollars from sitting around with his thumb up his ass, and has to pay 5% of that in taxes, then he's paying 50 million dollars in taxes. Why shouldn't Bumfuck III have to pay 100 million in taxes, the same 10% that "I" do? Sure, obviously 50 million is a lot more than 2000, but like I said, it's proportional. Bumfuck III still has 900 million left over, whereas the struggling me (in this example) only has 18k. If I paid what Bumfuck III pays, I'd have 19k left over instead of 18k, and a thousand dollars means a lot more to someone like hypothetical "me" than 50 million means to someone like Bumfuck III (this statement doesn't take pure greed into account, of course, which the Walton descendants clearly have in spades). Obviously these are hypothetical examples, but they illustrate the point I'm making... there are multiple loopholes for the rich that allow them to pay taxes at a much lower rate in proportion to their income than those who are much less well off pay... and that, quite frankly, is bullshit. I don't think there should ever be a "maximum wage" but it does seem to me that requiring businesses to pay an actual living wage isn't a bad idea. After all, it is pretty fucking ridiculous that (as ol' Jesse there used as an example) all of the Walton children are billionaires, while the US government (a.k.a. the US taxpayers) are basically forced to subsidize many low-level Wal-Mart employees because they can't earn enough to live off of. That, quite frankly, is horseshit, and a major reason why I don't shop at Wal-Mart. Fuck Wal-Mart and fuck the Waltons. Why should the US taxpayer have to subsidize low-level Wal-Mart employees because of the Waltons greed? The $10 an hour promised to Wal Mart employees (hired prior to January of 2016, of course, apparently those hired after get $9 an hour) is ridiculous, especially when you consider the wealth of the founder's children. I cannot comprehend the kind of greed that is ok with the average US taxpayer having to subsidize many of their employees while they have more money than they even know what to do with.

I'll just leave this here...

http://gawker.com/the-waltons-are-th...rld-1300311273

No one makes you work for Walmart.

[Spectral]

You have the hammer and sickle as your avatar, anything you say is irrelevant. Wait I forgot, communism just hasn't been implemented the right way!

Indeed, anyone should take critiques of the evil rich coming from someone with a hammer and sickle as being on the same level as a critique of the Jews coming from someone with a swastika avatar. I guess they could be saying something true, but if you assume that their beliefs are heavily influenced by hatred and conspiracies, you'll be on point.

[Spectral]

Wages for most people are capped according to how much the market is willing to pay for their services times how much time can spent practicing the profession.

If we're talk big corporate execs, their wealth usually isnt in liquid assets alone.

This is an important point - Jeff Bezos is apparently now worth $100 billion, but the vast majority of that wealth is in shares of companies he owns. What, exactly, does the OP think should be done with Amazon? Confiscate it because it's too valuable of an asset? Well, I suppose as a literal communist, that's exactly what he thinks, but those of us that aren't driven purely by hatred of capitalists probably shouldn't be inclined towards that.

[melodramocracy]

People would have no incentive to work harder for more money if there were a cap on wages.

That's assuming most people would even come close to reaching the cap, be in a position to do so, or that increased salary is actually a reflection of how hard someone works.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would anyone treat a communist as though they're doing anything other than stirring shit and spreading propaganda on the matter? If someone openly commits to a revolutionary ideology based on class hatred, you should probably take any position they hold on the class they hate with a boulder of salt.

Do you consider sports leagues that have salary caps to be communist?

[Enthusiastic Steward]

People would have no incentive to work harder for more money if there were a cap on wages.

That depends entirely where the cap was. If it was at $100k a year, absolutely. If it was at $20 million a year, then the overwhelming majority of workers are so far removed from that it will have absolutely no impact on them.

[Spectral]

Do you consider sports leagues that have salary caps to be communist?

This response verges on being deliberately idiotic. Organizations aren't nations. Organizations can choose their employee's salaries. In the case of professional sports organizations, this is the result of negotiation with unions to optimize league and employee outcomes. There is no plausible analogy to nation-states.

[Rosefern]

Although I can get behind the idea of sharring the wealth and decreased wage gaps, the maximum wage thing is probably more difficult to actually put in place then it would ever do good.

In Canada for example there is a salary cap on doctors (at least her in Ontario). The government will only pay that doctor X amount of dollars per year.
The amount varies and depends on their specialization and where they live. The average gross pay for a doctor sits at $339,000. Family physicians make about $271,000 while medical specialists make about $338,000 and surgical specialists earn $446,000 (i googled it quickly so these numbers may be old)

Point is, I know a fair number of these doctors actively stop working when they've hit their quota for the year. They will take months long holidays and cut hours way back. They cant be completely absent if they want to keep their general practice, but they basically reshuffle their hours around to make sure they don't work for free.

[Deleted]

Same do I but the extra 3 % is church tax, working tax and other smaller tax.
Which is why I stated we had a base 40% tax.

Also did not know they changed it to 500k. Was almost certain it was 1M.

Church tax is somewhere between .75 and 1%. Theres a difference in the "state" tax, so that might be the rest.

Are you sure it has ever been at 1mil? According to wikipedia is was 234.000(after ATP) in 1994.

[melodramocracy]

This response verges on being deliberately idiotic. Organizations aren't nations. Organizations can choose their employee's salaries. In the case of professional sports organizations, this is the result of negotiation with unions to optimize league and employee outcomes. There is no plausible analogy to nation-states.

That's not why they're in place. If anything, player unions probably dislike the idea of caps, but they're in place because not having them creates uneven playing fields and ultimately stifles competition and growth.

[Vash The Stampede]

That isn't actually true. Sure, if you're talking about the ACTUAL amount, then yes, rich people pay more taxes than poor people or the middle class... but they PROPORTIONALLY pay less, which is what actually matters. As a rough example, if I earn 20,000 a year but have to pay 10% of that in tax, then I'm paying $2000 a year in taxes, whereas if Bumfuck Walton III, Sam Walton's great grandson, earns a billion dollars from sitting around with his thumb up his ass, and has to pay 5% of that in taxes, then he's paying 50 million dollars in taxes. Why shouldn't Bumfuck III have to pay 100 million in taxes, the same 10% that "I" do? Sure, obviously 50 million is a lot more than 2000, but like I said, it's proportional. Bumfuck III still has 900 million left over, whereas the struggling me (in this example) only has 18k. If I paid what Bumfuck III pays, I'd have 19k left over instead of 18k, and a thousand dollars means a lot more to someone like hypothetical "me" than 50 million means to someone like Bumfuck III (this statement doesn't take pure greed into account, of course, which the Walton descendants clearly have in spades). Obviously these are hypothetical examples, but they illustrate the point I'm making... there are multiple loopholes for the rich that allow them to pay taxes at a much lower rate in proportion to their income than those who are much less well off pay... and that, quite frankly, is bullshit. I don't think there should ever be a "maximum wage" but it does seem to me that requiring businesses to pay an actual living wage isn't a bad idea. After all, it is pretty fucking ridiculous that (as ol' Jesse there used as an example) all of the Walton children are billionaires, while the US government (a.k.a. the US taxpayers) are basically forced to subsidize many low-level Wal-Mart employees because they can't earn enough to live off of. That, quite frankly, is horseshit, and a major reason why I don't shop at Wal-Mart. Fuck Wal-Mart and fuck the Waltons. Why should the US taxpayer have to subsidize low-level Wal-Mart employees because of the Waltons greed? The $10 an hour promised to Wal Mart employees (hired prior to January of 2016, of course, apparently those hired after get $9 an hour) is ridiculous, especially when you consider the wealth of the founder's children. I cannot comprehend the kind of greed that is ok with the average US taxpayer having to subsidize many of their employees while they have more money than they even know what to do with.

I'll just leave this here...

http://gawker.com/the-waltons-are-th...rld-1300311273

Oh yea, I totally agree. Ideally someone earning 20k a year should have lower % taxes than someone earning 20 million a earn. Rather than putting in something like a maximum wage, we should just enforce a higher minimum wage.