Maximum wage
I find it interesting that we talk about a minimum wage all the time and how much (or little) it should be, but never discuss a maximum wage. In other words, how much money one person should be able to take just for him/herself per year. I've never heard a figure for that-- perhaps it's out there?
= new reply since forum marked as read
In my original post, I shouldn't have said "wage" but rather "income" or "wealth". Do you have a thought about what you would say is enough for a single person to be "worth" or how much an individual should "own", or however you want to put it? That was more the question I was trying to raise. And I'm not asking to suggest a policy or anything. Just asking if there's an upper limit in anyone's mind about individual wealth. And also wondering why this doesn't seem to be talked about. 
at least not in this thread I wanted to know what you think is enough money (a dollar figure) for a single individual to have/"make" per year. I guess you're not interested in answering that question...? That's fine. It's merely an intellectual exercise to see what comes from the discussion.
I'm still interested to know what you think the "real problem" is and what the fix is. Your suggestion of "increasing the pay of the poor" doesn't really work, does it? If you put the pay of the poor up by, let's say $12/hr, but the cost of food (and rent and utilities, etc) rises 1x to 3x in the same year, there's no real increase in pay, is there? Simply raising the poor's salary doesn't help, unless there's a way to control the cost of living. Perhaps you have a suggestion for that as well?
I'm sorry if I've offended you with my posts. That's not what I meant at all. I'm merely curious and like to read the posts here about interesting topics. And this one has been on my mind and I noticed no one has talked about it yet. Thus my reason for posting and replying to responses, including yours.
As for your Elon Musk example, I don't know his particular financial history, but I do know that most people who start companies, no matter how big or small, usually start it with OPM, whether it's from an investor, a bank, one's grandmother, etc. So I don't think Elon needed to invest all his own money in order to create any future companies. Since he had a track record with previous successes in fact, he would have been able to get OPM pretty easily. And he's a smart guy to boot
He's also a rather curious example -- his products are innovative yes, but also quite expensive and shall I say "exclusive" -- at least so far. (A hugely expensive car, albeit an electric one, and space travel for profit). I wonder what $164M would have done for say, funding public colleges or building shelters for the homeless.
This does bring up a corollary to my original question though and that is this: if someone keeps more than they need (as you suggest a limitless amount), then are they then free to spend that limitless amount on anything else they want? If so, then does the public at large have any say in it? Perhaps not, if the individual spends it on something that only benefits or applies to that wealthy individual. But what about them spending their wealth on something that could hurt others? The Koch Brothers spring to my mind, for example.
Therefore, shouldn't the spending of surplus (if not the limiting of the surplus) be somehow voted on, since we live in a democratic system, and since it can affect the well being or pain of everyone?
As for your last comment about how you find it unbelievable that I don't think increasing hourly rates would work, it's because I'm even more "radical" than Bernie. I think we should democratize the workplace and convert all businesses to worker-owned cooperatives. That way the profits to the business are distributed fairly to all employees. Employees set wages and pick their managers. To my way of thinking, this is the only way to eliminate income inequality. A progressive taxing system and increased hourly rates are merely a stop-gap measure that can't work long term. They're based on a purely capitalist perspective and sooner or later we'll come to realize that capitalism can't be fixed. As Hillary said, she wanted to "save capitalism from itself". I have to ask, why bother? Especially when there are other systems to explore. We'll get beyond capitalism at some point. At least I hope so.
Just because I support Bernie doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. I do agree with the majority of what he proposes and I feel his stance on climate change mirrors mine and is the one issue that I care most about. If we can't breathe, everything else is moot.
I hope I've not offended. I'm really interested in your take and enjoy reading your perspective.
Reset and understand the concept of marginal tax rates, and rates in general.
Everybody pays the same rate on their income in each bracket. The 10% number you're quoting would be 10% of income earned above $5 mill. All income up to $5 mill would be taxed at the same rates as everybody else. That's why progressive rates are constitutional. Everybody pays the same rates on the levels that they earn at. Not sure where that number would be now, but I suspect it would be in the $25-50 mill range equivalent.
IMO we should re-insitute additional brackets that were eliminated during the Reagan years, adjusted for inflation, of course.
Now, in fairness, the 50's rates were based on paying back the debts incurred from the Great Depression and WWII. Kennedy did the first round of cutting those because much of that debt had been retired by then. We could use a round of high tax rates right now to cover the Great Recession and the War on Terror debt. Even with that, it wouldn't be close to 90% though.
Hell, Clinton raised the top rate by 3% and had deficit spending under control at the end of his term. Bush repealed them and we've had deficits ever since. The Repub answer is to cut taxes more. Forgive me if I don't think that would work.
I guess what I was trying to say (and wasn't clear) was that when you stated that the tax rate in the 1950s was 90%, I thought it might mean that the remainder (or 10%) of the income was what the government felt was necessary to leave to the individual to live on. But you're right, if the person made more than the $5M upper bracket, they would keep that extra money as well, so the 10% left over after taxes is just another minimum amount, not a maximum.
See, I'm still trying to get an idea of what you (and anyone else who cares to comment) think an upper limit on a person's income should be.... no tax rates or brackets. It's actually a much simpler question I'm just curious what folks think should be a number for how much someone should be able to keep for themselves per year. Another poster has already said there should be no limit. Do you think so, too?
Thanks for replying. I do like reading your responses.
I think we need to re-incorporate some higher brackets that were eliminated under Reagan.
Unfortunately, what has happened is that now pretty much all of Congress is in that top bracket, and we would be trying to get them to vote in a tax increase on themselves. Yeah, that'll happen soon. 
but then all of the websites and message boards would go silent.
