Would you support a law limiting an individual's yearly personal income?

[ALago1]

Ok, so I've been wrestling with this question with regard to both the political and ethical dimensions it entails.

I begin by thinking, who really needs an income of 25 to 100 million dollars a year? Isn't living in such excess on an overpopulated planet whose natural resources are fixed be a little inconsiderate and selfish?

Would it be undemocratic and detrimental to a capitalist economy to regulate personal income, limiting personal income to say a max of 5-10 million a year? I would not venture to say that incentive to speculate and become an entrepreneur would not diminish a young investor's incentive if he could stand to make 10 million dollars max.

My ethical philosophy of simple living and helping others help themselves leads me to think that this would be a noble cause to further, although undoubtedly it would face much opposition from the right and moderate left.

Any thoughts on the subject? I've never really seen this topic discussed anywhere.

[Mizmoon]

1. Not an outright limit

I would like to see a law that says that the officers of a company can only make X times more than the lowest paid worker. I have heard there is something like this in Japan, but that's total hearsay.

[Yupster]

56. So the peanut vendor at the Meadowlands makes

$ 12 k per year. So Jason Kidd can make what? $ 120 k? 480 k?

Jason Kidd completely turned around a losing company for 30 years. He probably adds $ 25 million to the company per year. He shouldn't get a good sized piece of it?

[GiovanniC]

109. So Pay The Damned Peanut Vendor More

Than poverty wages, and Jason Kidd's cap rises, too. See? A rising tide really DOES lift all boats!

[dumpster_baby]

2. what we need is much higher tax rates for high incomes

So if a person makes $400K, then they pay ~60% or so of it in taxes. If they make over $1M, they pay 70% or so.
Works pretty well in Europe.

[Nevernose]

6. I would be happy with just taking out the loopholes

This is what the Reagan deal promised, that if we lowered the tax-rate on the uber-wealthy, then they would get rid of the loopholes. And guess what? They lowered the tax-rate, but didn't get rid of the loopholes.

[Yupster]

57. Most of the loopholes are gone

Ask any accountant who did taxes before the 80's. Used to be you could invest in a limitted partnership and over time deduct over 100 % of your investment. That's all gone.

Used to be you could deduct entertainment and business meals. Now it's down to 35 % of meals.

Used to be able to deduct interest payments. Now just mortgage.

Besides home interest, municipal bonds and retirement plans, just not much left anymore.

[lapfog_1]

38. Cost of living adjusted

$100K here in San Fran is NOT get rich money (b4 anyone jumps on
me, I've been out of work for 16 months). $200K is OK. $400K
and you can think about buying a decent house. $500K and you
can save for your kids college fund.

Or... you can knock 50 percent off the salary if you are willing to
commute about 1 hour each way.

[MontecitoDem]

47. Good point!

We moved from SF's crazy housing market to Montecito - even worse!

The median home price here is ..... drum roll please .... 2.6 million. Yes, that's not a typo. For the entire county it is now $996k. Ridiculous!

[Andy_Stephenson]

54. We bought our house 5 years ago for....

@155k today it appraises at...over 400k...Crazy!

[MUSTANG_2004]

88. Works well in Europe?

Look at Europe's unemployment compared to ours. Europe's unemployment rate has been 2 points higher than the US rate for many years. Just because they do something in Europe doesn't make it a good idea. Instead, Europe should be looking to us for examples on how to improve their economy.

[ret5hd]

92. educate yourself before typing...

europe counts ALL unemployed...

the u.s. figures you see are only counting those actively seeking work.

if counted the same way as europe, europes is actually slightly better.

[MUSTANG_2004]

95. Well, hello to you too ( are you always so polite?)

Your statement that "europe counts ALL unemployed" is absurd. That would be a worthless statistic, as stay-at-home parents, physically/mentally disabled, students and retirees can be unemployed but may not be looking for work.

I suggest you read up on it yourself. When adjusted for methods used to calculate it, the European numbers do come down, but remain significantly higher. See the links below for details:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2000/Jul/wk5/art01.htm
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf

A key item from the article: If the European rate is calculated using US methods, the rate dropped from 10.2 to 9.8.

[Commendatori]

89. Maybe, but not that high

I could see 50%, but once the feds start taking more than half of my income (regardless of what it is), I stop working and go on the dole. It's just a principle of mine - no government should be able to take more than half of what you work to earn, no matter how much money you make. My breaking point is 51% - even Bill Gates shouldn't have to give up more than half of what he makes (JMHO).

Just my opinion, feel free to disagree. I just would never bother to work for any amount of money if I knew I'd only get to keep 30% of it and still have tons of other taxes to pay. I'd rather take a crappy job where no ambition is required or just stop working.

[Gildor Inglorion]

3. I don't think so....I'd prefer steeply progressive taxation

Honestly, nobody really "earns" $100,000,000.00 per year. But if their income is at that level, they shouldn't mind paying their fair share of taxes. 80% is about right. That would still leave them with $20,000,000.00 to struggle along with, trying to keep body and soul together.

[ALago1]

16. Well...

...I'm pretty sure B. Gates earned 100 mil. last year. Granted he is only one man, but I'm just using that as the most upper bound...

[Curious Dave]

4. YES!

I love how the repugs try to spin numbers to have people believe that practically everyone out here is making over $100,000! From where I sit any family bringing in more than about $50,000 a year is RICH and any individual making over about $30,000 is RICH! Tax the rich down to an annual figure close to those numbers and redistribute the dollars to everyone else to bring them up closer to those numbers. As for corporate taxes... Tax them down to the break even point. Corporate profits only make the rich richer. And don't talk to me about all the people who have retirements invested in the stock market. With a fair system of wealth redistribution in this country people wouldn't have to risk their life savings in the Wall Street casino, hoping against hope that the wheel spins the right way and the can luck into a decent retirement.

[Mizmoon]

8. Where I live Middle Class is $100,000/year

That's what you need to buy a house around here. My family makes $130,000 and could only afford a fixer-upper in a "crummy" neighborhood. Same salary in Wichita makes you rich.

Rich is hard to define sometimes.

[Curious Dave]

12. I see your point

But in the long run if a system of fair wealth distribution was in place outrageously high prices for housing (and other things) would come down. If no one can is left that can afford to buy a $500,000 typical house, it won't be long before that house is selling for a more reasonable price.

[jayavarman]

22. Yeah

And screw those people who are paying a mortgage on a $500k house that is now "selling for a more reasonable price". They are probably assholes anyway, and besides, I was always jealous of them & their house.

They can always just declare bankruptcy or something.

[Curious Dave]

26. I'd be the first

to admit this is something we would need to ease our way into, over a period of years.

[Yupster]

58. Those houses just wouldn't be made or kept up

We would just get much smaller and simpler homes.

I sympathize with the idea, because conspicuous consumprion bothers me. Even most rich people live like everybody else in normal neighborhoods and drive normal cars.

I'm not impressed by people who feel a need to own five homes in five different cities and own 16 cars.

However, I think public revulsion would do more to end that practice than limits on income. Instead, we're all impressed by the celebraties and their many mansions. I'm not impressed.

[theboss]

103. Be careful....you just described our nominee

I kid, because I love.

[amazona]

72. yeah but OP said $25 to $100 million

No one is talking about confiscatory taxes on people earning a couple hundred grand a year. We're talking about people "earning" millions and who pay the same percentage-wise as those of us who earn a whopping four figures -- a study last year showed that all income levels paid about 17 percent a year in taxes. Don't know why I with my huge four figure income should be paying the same percentage as Bill Gates and that ilk. Rich isn't really that hard to define if we're honest with ourselves and stop trying to pretend we're something we're not. People earning 100,000 a year who kid themselves that the GOP is on their side need to stop and look again. I have a friend who has $30 million dollars who is through with Bush because what his policies are costing his small business, especially in the area of health care. We all win really if there is fair taxation and a universal health care system. Without it, in future decades, it is going to become impossible for anyone to operate a small business honestly because of those costs alone. So much for "incentive!"

[SW FL Dem]

101. Exactly

My family income is over 150K but we live in a modest home (3 BR 2 BA) on a postage stamp sized lot. We don't take vacations, drive older cars, eat at home most of the time and try to save for college and retirement.

[jayavarman]

9. Given what you consider "rich"

I must know a whole lotta rich people living hand to mouth & driving beat up old used cars . . . . Here's some statistics to make you think:

Average annual earnings based on education: (Census Bureau)
Did not graduate from high school- $ 22,969
High school graduate- $28,816
Bachelor’s Degree- $52,462
Median income based on family status (Census Bureau)
Married couple- $60,741
Male head of household, no wife- $40,715
Female head of household, no husband- $28,142

from http://www.billsaver.com/household.html

Looks like we are a nation of rich & nearly rich folks!

[Curious Dave]

14. hmmmmmm

If these are the averages I guess I'd think my numbers weren't too far off the mark. As I read these numbers if a couple makes over $60,000 they are in the upper half of earners. My point is, if you're in the upper half you could be taxed down to the average and all those people in the lower half of wage earners could be lifted up to the average.

[jayavarman]

18. Then why work?

Shit, I'll just hang out all day & let some other sap wake up every morning & go bust their butt . . . . We will all get the same 60k at the end of the year so who cares.

On second thought, I'm all for it!

[Curious Dave]

24. You might be right

But I hope you're not as it paints a very sad picture about human nature :(

OTOH I know a lot of "working poor" people whose pride keeps them from applying for assistance they are eligible for.

[Yupster]

59. Marx talked of a new man

After years of socialism, a new man, "Communist Man" would evolve. Communist man works for the betterment of society, not for his own enrichment. Once communist man was the norm, then all could work for earth's betterment, and the state would wither and die.

Unfortunately, until communist man is created, a strong government will be needed to force workers to work who won't work hard for the betterment of all.

None of the tries so far have gotten past that strong state faze.

My own personal opinion is that it is in the nature of every central government to capture more and more power to themselves over time, and therefore, Marx was a wanker.

[rinsd]

96. LOL...

I've heard Marx called many things, wanker hasn't been one of them.

[theboss]

104. Under your proposal, I would lose $15K up front in salary

And lose the equity in my home.

Guess what? I am quickly converting what is left off my assets into some kind of cheap beachfront property where I shall live out my days as a bum and you can find someone else to tax down.

[MontecitoDem]

36. Totally disagree

Everyone shouldn't "make" the same amount. While every human being is equally valuable, the work we do is not. Some folks deserve to earn more by virtue of their value to the marketplace. If shareholders don't like it, they should be able to do something about it.

But people who are making a lot more should be taxed at a higher rate - say, how about the rate they used to be taxed at in the 80's? You know, when good old Ronnie was in charge? I'm sure somebody has that figure handy.

Besides, if your method is adopted there will be less incentive for producing better/faster/etc. plus people will take other perks instead of salary to avoid the higher taxes.

[Curious Dave]

40. I just wish

I could put more faith in a marketplace that says teachers are worth $30,000 a year and athletes are worth $10,000,000 a year.

[Rabrrrrrr]

42. It's a system that works

While I agree that, let's call it "in absolute terms", a teacher is more important and far more valuable than some mere sports guy, economically, the mere sports dude is worth $10 million bucks because his presence on the team brings in, perhaps, a million more ticket sales a year for the team than they would get if he wasn't on the team. That means more concession sales, it means more licensing deals for the team logo as fans want to show their support for a winning team, it means more notariety for the team, which means more TV time, which means more advertising sales. The owner of the team, by spending 10 mil on a good player, might end up with an extra 50 mil in profit JUST FOR HAVING THAT GUY (or, more realistically, for having a full set of good players) on the team.

The teacher, by comparison, is an expense, and that's it. The teacher brings in no extra income for the school, no extra advertising dollars, no branding possibilities.

So it's not that "playing football" is worth more than teaching, it's that "football player A" brings in a hell of a lot more revenue than the teacher.

And that's a fair system.

Should teachers be paid more? I think so. Should sports dudes be paid less? I think so, so I don't pay for sports, but I would never support legislation of ANY kind that would limit a sports dude's earnings. Let the market beare what it will bear.

Comparing sports dudes salaries to teacher's salaries is a specious argument.

Though I am totally in support of escalating tax rates for high income earners, so that maybe one or two mil of the sports dude's 10 mil will go to teachers and schools.

[Curious Dave]

45. The teacher's work doesn't bring

an immediate economic payback. But in the longer term if no one was there teaching kids how to read and write... Lets see, 20 kids per classroom times a 35 year teaching career = 700 students. 700 people who never received basic job and life skills because the marketplace valued athletes more. So each of these 700 spends their adult life on some form of public assistance (or in jail) at a cost of $30,000 a year. OK... 700 times $30,000 = $21,000,000 times 50 years = $1,050,000,000.

Granted, I'm taking a few liberties with logic here, but to say that comparing teacher's salaries with athletes is a specious argument oversimplifies the issue.

[Rabrrrrrr]

49. But those 700 students will also have time with 50 other teachers

so, as long as the miminal system provides, maybe, a 50% hit ratio of good teachers, we're doing fine.

Do I agree with it? No, not necessarily.

And yes, I do agree that a good teacher is worth far more than his/her pay in terms of providing decent people for the future of the country. But that is amazingly difficult to quantify and put into economic terms. One of the pisspoor bad things about capitalism is that it doesn't want to hear from a 20-year projection of economic return.

But as soon as a stockbroker on Wall Street figures out a system to do it, you'll see a nbig chnage in the way teachers are compensated, and a quick push to make it more efficient.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to provide less school administration and much higher salaries for teachers - make the field truly competitive with at least lower-level corporate jobs - and help guarantee that truly qualified people want to and are willing to enter teaching as a profession, instead of leaving it to a few people who will teach no matter what it pays and a large group of people who teach because they're half-incompetent and can't get any other employment.

[Yupster]

61. You're assuming that if a kid

misses one good teacher in whatever grade, then the kid won't be educated. That doesn't seem reasonable.

However, I would say that if the Nets didn't have just one Jason Kidd, then they wouldn't have ever made it to the NBA Finals.

[MontecitoDem]

46. I know what you mean!

Here's some teacher salary data for the interested:

California had the highest average and South Dakota had the lowest.

Average teacher salary in California 2003: $56,283
Average teacher salary in South Dakota 2003: $45,891

(source )

Median income family of 4 California 2002: $65,766
Median income family of 4 South Dakota 2002: $55,359

(source http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html)

[Yupster]

55. Those aren't so awful looking to me

a couple of average teachers in South Dakota would make over $ 91,000 per year. Is that bad? Seems like that would be bordering on rich, and their benefits are much better than average too.

I think the teachers are underpaid argument carried a lot more weight 30 years ago than it does today.

[ArkDem]

98. Not to mention vacation

[Yupster]

60. Most teachers make way more than 30k and

few athletes make 100 mill.

Also, bad teachers make 40 - 50k for 30 years and bad athletes don't make nuthin, not fir athleting anyway.

They are two very different animals. Athletics is very merit based, and teaching is not.

Also, the athlete directly brings profit to his boss. The teacher does not. You can bet though that a teacher working for a corporation that can teach salesmen to increase their sales by 50 % is not making $ 50k. He's rewarded for the profit he brings to the company. And when his work no longer drives the numbers, he's gone. A teacher however, can be terrible for 30 years, and will keep his job.

[gpandas]

71. athleting? n/t

[Yupster]

90. athleticizing?

I like neologisms.

[redqueen]

82. Why are you bringing up averages?

Sure, lump the top 1% (or top 1/2%, or 1/4%) in with the rest of us, and it looks like nothings really so wrong.

We need to stop looking at the breakdown of wealth distribution in averages, or in quintiles either.

It completely skews the picture.

[jayavarman]

5. Absolutely not.

What is trickyest about it is the definition of 'income'. Say someone comes up with some crazy invention or something. They build a successful company & maybe pay themselves 300k/year. At some point down the line they sell the company for 20 million. Would that be counted as income, or not?

Putting limitations on human achievement, of any kind, is a slippery slope.

What if there were limits to all kinds of human expression- What if the gov't chose to limit the food you east, or how big your house could be, or what kind of art you could create, or how fast you could run . . . .

The gov't is certainly welcome to tax income however they want, but in general I am against any gov't limitations on achievement or expression. (except of course for things that hurt other people, of course, one cannot be free to kill for example)

Just my 2 cents.

[ALago1]

20. Good Point

Things also would become more difficult if a person's assets and investment earnings were to be calculated as "income"...

[welshTerrier2]

33. it's not the same thing

your analogies about government interference misses one of the key benefits of income limitation ... excesses of food, house size, art or running speed does not provide a disportional influence in the democratic process ...

but big money equals big and disproportionate power ... we cannot have real democracy, so called one man one vote democracy, when some men can buy themselves a government ...

so, while i appreciate your call for minimalist imposition by government in the areas of personal achievement and expression, i do not extend that laissez faire policy to the wealthiest people who distort our democracy to serve their own greedy interests ...

[Nevernose]

7. I'm leaning more and more to a flat tax

I know this is Steve "Dead Eyes" Forbes talking point. But it would also eliminate a whole hell of a lot of political corruption, ensuring that corporations pay their fair share and don't have any (or much) undue influence with our politicians.

[Pithlet]

53. The problem with that is, of course

The less money you make, the harder a flat tax will hit you. People on a lower income end up paying way more than their fair share, while the rich pay much less.

Back to the OP, I don't think that enacting such a legislation would help all that much, and may even make things worse. You'd have a lot of under the table payola anyway. I think making our taxes more progressive and making the rich and corporations pay their fair share would have a much greater impact. It would lessen the burden for people lower down the economic ladder and help stop and eventually reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots, which is a more realistic goal, IMO.

[Yupster]

62. Forbes Flat Tax Proposal

called for a zero percent rate on the first $ 36,000 a family made. Therefore, the poor wouldn't pay anything.

[rinsd]

97. True....

but didn't the Forbes proposal also call for a higher sales tax (food, clothing exempted)? Now that may impact the poor on non-necessities.

[Yupster]

110. No, if I remember right

Forbes called for a 17 % tax (19% - memory fuzzy) on all income over 36,000. Now whether his numbers were realistic, or more importantly, relevant in 2004 is unknown to me. That's what his proposal was though if I remember right. Now Dick Armey was calling for the elimination of the income tax all together and replacing it with a national sales tax, but that was a competing proposal.

[SharonAnn]

111. That's way too low. It needs to be over 22% to equal today's

tax structure.

And any national sales tax hurts the poor and middle income the worst. For the wealthy, it's no big deal. They'll probably find ways to avoid it anyway.

[MUSTANG_2004]

113. National Sales Tax

The Cato Institute has some interesting write-ups on a national sales tax. To handle the heavier affects on the poor, their suggestion includes a rebate check for every adult to offset the amount paid by the poorest. (i.e. everyone gets a rebate check of $X at the end of the year, where $X is the amount a low-income family was likely to have contributed that year).

Personally, I like the idea of replacing the income tax with a sales tax. As a privacy issue, it would be fantastic to not have to report every nickel of income from every source. As it is, with an income tax, the government tracks every company you work for, every bank account you have, every stock transaction, etc.

[Delano]

10. That would destroy a lot of incentive.

Progressive taxation is much better at helping level the playing field while still allowing people to become rich. Why bust your butt if you can never make the big time?

[ALago1]

21. 10 million a year doesn't whet your appetite for wealth?

That's living the good life, I don't see how people could want more than that per year.

I'm just using arbitrary numbers by the way...

[Yupster]

63. Isn't the real disproportionate problem

in wealth more than income anyway?

If Shaquille O'Neill can make $ 150 million over his career, I have no problem. I'd much rather empty out the Kennedy family trust funds.

Shaq works hard for his money.

[Delano]

66. To be fair to the zillionaires...

Most of them don't just have their millions sitting in the bank or spend it all on mink-lined Escalade SUVs. They either invest it into business ventures (creating jobs) or other investments.

But I will always support progressive taxation, and wouldn't have a problem with a top rate off 50%. The progressive tax system COULD be applied fairly. Don't trash it because it presently ISN'T. Flat tax schemes are DESIGNED to help the rich and hurt working people, and could be finessed to be even more regressive with political pressure.

The day this country changes to a flat tax, I will leave the USA for good.

[Senior citizen]

35. The rich should have the same incentives as the poor

i.e., work or starve. Delano, I agree when you say, "Why bust your butt if you can never make the big time?" but that is the usual excuse for criminals. Why work fast food if you can make more dealing drugs?

It doesn't take away incentive to set a sliding scale cap on income. You just have to give back more to society if you get more from it. IMO the U.S. billionaires who renounced their citizenship to avoid paying taxes should be barred from ever visiting or doing business with any U.S. firm or citizen ever again. Our capitalist system and tax policies made it possible for them to become billionaires, and they showed their gratitude by spitting on us. Should I have any more respect for capitalism or for our current tax system than they do?

[leftyandproud]

11. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TahitiNut]

13. Here's what's been tried, and why we're in an age of "robber barons" ....

I'd be in favor of a top marginal tax rate of 66.7% on everything over the salary of POTUS.

[mzmolly]

15. No.

I would not.

[DaveSZ]

17. No

Certainly not.

I would favor fixing the tax code however to return it to a more progressive tax structure.

ps> Thanks for the graph.

It shows where the Republicans' priorities lie, although Eisenhower was a good man.

[pinto]

19. no

[pinto]

23. I would rather gov't itemize tax expenditures to the tax payer, both in

budget estimate (pre expenditure) and post budget (spent). seems fairly straight forward to me.

[mike1963]

25. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other but the Bible says

Mt 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[Yupster]

64. I'd rather keep the government and religion

separate though.

[AP]

27. No. If the cure for cancer could earn someone 200 mil in one year, I want

that carrot out there at the end of the stick.

But I do believe in marginal rates that get progressively higher throught the full realistic range of income earned in American (ie, they shouldn't be flat about 300K as they are now) and I believe that earned income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned income (dividends, cap gains and interest).

[Brahma Bull]

28. No.

I want to make millions some day.

[BillZBubb]

29. No, an upper limit is not a just policy.

But, I would tax the hell out of any annual income plus capital gains plus perks over 100 times the minimum wage. I would allow income averaging over 5 years for any one time large capital gain. So, if someone sold a business for a $5 million gain, she'd only be taxed on $1 million per year over the next 5 years.

How about:
Tax rate under $50,000: 10-15%
Tax rate $50,001 to $100,000: 25%
Tax rate $100,001 to $500,000: 35%
Tax rate $500,001 to 100xMinimumWage: 45%
Tax rate above 100xMinimumWage: 65%

Maybe then the Repugs would SUPPORT raising the minimum wage!!!!

[ALago1]

31. I like the minimum wage index idea...

n/t

[Th1onein]

30. I would support a limit, yes.

eom

[Burma Jones]

32. Absolutely NOT

You could, however, control the means by which the wealth comes into these people's hands. Same end, but entirely different means.

The problem is that we have a winner take all type of economy, and that can be changed by legislation.

I used to live in Westchester County NY and know first hand the avarice that is bred by amassing fortunes far in excess of what you can spend.

[unkachuck]

34. Yes....

....as a percentage of your previous years gross income with a limit of $10 million.....

How can you denie that money isn't at the root of all our evil....besides, does Billie really need to walk around with 50 billion in his pocket when 43 million people have no healthcare?....

on edit: changed 'untaxed' to 'gross' and I meant to respond to the 'original' message....sorry

[Rabrrrrrr]

37. No, I would never support a limit, except on government officials

[Must_B_Free]

39. Would you support a law limiting an individual's yearly use of water?

Same thing. Noone needs to 25,000,000 gallons of water either.

[Curious Dave]

41. Not sure I see your point

But there are plenty of areas in the country that have water usage restrictions.

[Kimber Scott]

43. No. While it may seem gluttonous to make so much, this is still a free

country.

[Zorra]

44. No, absolutely not.

Progressive taxation or mega sales tax on higher expenditure items and services (without any loopholes for the wealthy) is a much more equitable way to give back to our society some value for the excessive use of our natural resources by the affluent.

Affluent people, unless they are extremely "conscious", inevitably use up a lot shit, because they can. They should be heavily taxed on the excess they take from the earth, and from us. Perhaps if wealthy people are penalized for excessive use of resources they will stop building or living in humongous houses which require so much material to build, so much energy to heat and cool, so much water to maintain, stop using private jets and gas hog automobiles, stop watering their 40 acre lawns etc. If they have to pay enormously for all of their excesses, maybe they won't use up so much of our shit.

A hog is a hog.

It is long past time we started insuring our children have a future.

[texas is the reason]

48. not limits, but i would support steeply progressive taxation...

i think that everyone has the right to make a few thousand dollars a year fairly unhindered, but there is no fucking reason for someone to be pulling down millions each year. every time i see one of these "good life" specials on E! where somebody brings thier dog to a day spa for $1500 a day for some caviar alpo and a shiatzu it makes me want to punch someone. There should always be incentive to achieve and succeed in what you do, but when you becone FILTHY rich, i think you owe a little bit more to the society that allowed you so much prosperity. There is no reason that some of these people should not be giving up 2/3rds of thier yearly income/assets to the society that they have benefited from so greatly. This must also be apppied to CEO's who take modest paychecks and then sell thier buisnesses or thier stock- it should be based on wealth, not just yearly income.

[troublemaker]

50. A cap would be counter-productive

This is why we have a progressive income tax. (Which ought to be more progressive.)

[durutti]

51. Absolutely.

I think that there should be a 100 percent tax bracket.

[leftofthedial]

52. maximum wage of 100 times the minimum wage

set the amounts wherever you wish.

[stickdog]

65. Tax wealth. Don't limit income.

At least not directly.

However, the idea that no one could earn more than X times the minimum wage works ethically.

(X is some number between 10 and 500.)

[Coventina]

67. Yes, I would fix it at $1,000,000.00

Or as Dr. Evil would say: ONE meeeeEEEElion dollars!!

[Killarney]

68. Absolutely not.

I believe in freedom and people should be free to make as much income as they can.

HOWEVER, I believe that all wealth should be taxed and that the upper 2% should be paying more in income and wealth taxes than they are.

[Caution]

69. Absolutely not. n/t

[amazona]

70. absolutely

There is no excuse for someone like Paris Hilton when people are starving and dying of preventable disease in the world. As the super-rich seem to have no conscience, I see no alternative to a world-wide confiscatory tax on such people after a certain level. People may earn $1 million instead of $50,000 because of "incentives," but most people who earn huge huge amounts of money are doing something wrong -- even one for our side like Bill Gates, let's face it, he did not get the money through entirely honest methods -- he is a proven monopolist. You don't get that kind of money through honest work and it provides an incentive not for creativity but for crime.

Right now, though, I would settle for a fair tax on inheritances and other un-earned income. If un-earned income was taxed fairly, people who actually DO work wouldn't have to pay such ridiculous taxes. Work should be taxed last, not first.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

73. NO, NO, NO!!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Absolutely. But, it'll take a revolution.

Which will come, sooner or later.

[leesa]

75. No. But I support enforcement of existing laws so that the rich

carry their weight in this society instead of having a free ride.

[LuminousX]

76. No.

[Commendatori]

77. Absolutely not

If I thought my earning potential was limited, I'd pack it in and go on the dole.

We have a progressive tax code for a reason.

[RossMcLochNess]

91. Agreed

I won't be too far behind you when you take off.

[redqueen]

78. Most definitely YES!

I really don't know why anyone would have a problem with this.

[Rabrrrrrr]

85. Because it's utterly unimplementable and inherently unjust?

That's why I have a problem with it.

[mmonk]

79. No

I would be for raising the floor for those lacking.

[spanone]

80. What? Are you crazy? Absurd.

[ProfessorGAC]

81. No. However, . . .

. . .i would support limits on the compensation of execs in publicly traded companies based upon the reasons for the improved performance of the company.

For instance, if the increase in profitability were 50% (as an example), due to reductions in workforce, bonuses, options, and increases in salary to execs should be regulated. If the company is doing better due to great financial moves, improvements in efficiency, or introdutions of great new products, then no restrictions on compensation are warranted.

Look, my wife and i live beneath our means. Small house. Used cars. No plasma TV, or things like that. (OK, i do have 9 guitars.) But, i don't think restrictions on income are warranted, useful, or workable, except as they relate to the performance of publicly traded companies.
The Professor

[geek tragedy]

83. No, because income is less important than wealth

I'd be willing to entertain proposals regarding maximum wealth provisions.

[TexasSissy]

84. Absolutely not. This is America. A capitalistic society.

If someone can invent something that results in his becoming a billionaire....he's entitled to it.

Having a CEO's millions-dollar salary and bonus package tied to company profits and employee wages, however, is another matter.

[cheezus]

86. YES! But do it via a 95% top tax

on everything after the first 10 million.

[Snow]

87. No - to a degree. You all need a little more data....

this is from a story on alternet a year or so ago:
"Astronomical Incomes
By Stan Cox, AlterNet
July 31, 2003"

-snip-
Household income in the United States has a skewed distribution. The imbalance is big, too – so big that statements like, "The benefits of the Bush tax cuts will go mainly to households in the top 1 percent tax bracket," tend not to tell the whole story.
-snip-

I'm proposing that the Internal Revenue Service, with the help of the National Park Service, construct a scale model of household income in America. Let's imagine that they start by designing a big bronze plaque that reads, "U.S. median income, 2002" and place it near the center of the country – say, in Salina, Kansas, where I live. The median income was about $43,000 last year. Half of American households received less than that amount, and half received more.
-snip-

The plaque showing the federal poverty level for a family of four in 2002 – about $18,000 – would be located about 25 miles west of Salina, at the exit for Ellsworth, Kansas. Eighteen miles beyond, in the town of Wilson, would be the spot for the "zero income" plaque
-snip-

About 150 miles from the zero point, in the western suburbs of Topeka, the capital city of Kansas, would be the spot for a plaque reading, "Income: 95th percentile," because 95 percent of households take in less than $150,000 a year. Ninety-nine percent of households make less than $374,000, so the plaque reading "Income: 99th percentile" would go in Williamsburg, Missouri, about 75 miles west of St. Louis.

That takes care of 99 percent of us. But it's in the top 1 percent of incomes – those east of Missouri – where we see what "a skewed distribution" really means. The plaque for "Average income of the top 1%" ($1,082,000) would lie a few miles southeast of Pittsburgh – a 20-hour drive on I-70 from median-income Salina. But averages don't mean much when it comes to the top 1%.

For example, one household that belongs to the top 1%, the George W. and Laura Bush family, reported a paltry $856,000 in 2002 income, which puts their plaque at an exit ramp a little east of Columbus, Ohio. Meanwhile, the average income of major-corporation CEOs in 2002 was $7.4 million. That's an amount that falls well beyond Baltimore, where Interstate 70 ends. To keep to scale, the IRS would have to put that plaque in ... well ... they'd have to put it in Kabul, Afghanistan. At this point, they might have to bring the Defense Department in on the project.

Not to mention NASA. The individuals at the pinnacle of the income pyramid, those with the top 400 incomes (IRS year-2000 figures), averaged $174 million, which, at $1000 per mile, is almost three-fourths of the distance to the moon. Maybe the top members of that group could use some of their loot to fund a plaque – no, a monument – on the moon, reading, "Beyond this point lie the incomes of dozens of Americans."
-snip-

Sorry for the length of thepost, but I'm not sure the article is still around. Enlightening, eh?

[redqueen]

94. Thanks for posting that - illustrating why averages are misleading

:thumbsup:

[Bill Hodges]

93. Would you support a law ...? No, I certainly would not.

Alago1 proposed these questions, I respond with my sincerity:

Q:"I begin by thinking, who really needs an income of 25 to 100 million dollars a year?"

A:And then I begin thinking, who are you or anyone else to dictate to an individual how much money they need or should be allowed to earn within a free society?

Q:"Isn't living in such excess on an overpopulated planet whose natural resources are fixed be a little inconsiderate and selfish?"

A:Isn't it fascist to determine how to limit personal rights and freedoms of an individual? Is it not fascism to make yourself so superior that you can judge another person's character as being 'inconsiderate and selfish'simply because they worker harder to earn more than average? Who has earned the right to condemn others based on their success?

Q:"Would it be undemocratic and detrimental to a capitalist economy to regulate personal income, limiting personal income to say a max of 5-10 million a year?"

A:Yes, it would be 'undemocratic and detrimental to a capitalist economy to regulate personal income' because in so doing, you are eliminating the very core ideology of a Democracy based upon Capitalism.

Q:"My ethical philosophy of simple living and helping others help themselves leads me to think that this would be a noble cause to further..."

A:And therefore you feel as though you possess a special superiority over everyone else that should allow you to impose your own personal definition of nobility and righteousness and mandate that all others abide by your rule as you define it?
That is not only arrogant, it is fascism in its purest form. You have no more right to dictate your personal definition of morality upon me any more so than I have the right to mandate you abide by my own personal beliefs of morality.
What you appear to be advocating is a form of ideological enslavement, subordinate to your own perceived ideological superiority.

I respond with respect toward you but at the same time I want you to understand that I, as a proponent of personal rights and freedoms, strongly oppose what you appear to advocate. You seem to want to exercise some form of a dictatorship upon others based on your personal definition of morality and self-righteousness.

Most sincerely,

William (Bill) Douglas Hodges

[FatSlob]

99. HELL NO!

That is communistic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, unadulterated EVIL!

[Make7]

100. ...already won.

If we limit our freedom to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, the terrorists have already won.

:) Make7

[ieoeja]

102. NO!

[zaj]

105. No... but FNC/Rush/Hannity see this thread, they will start ...

... declaring that "some Democrats support a law limiting an individual's yearly personal income".

Based solely on this thread.

You guys watch. This thread will make national news one day.

[ibegurpard]

108. So what?

If we only expressed opinions that those right-wing extremists agreed with then we would be right-wing extremists as well.

[westsidexview]

106. hell no

america is a place where genius is welcomed and rewarded. if someone is limited by how much money he or she makes, the repercussions could be enormous for the rest of us. money makes the world go around and to limit the amount someone can make is ridiculous and counter-intuitive.

[Nikia]

107. No, and it defeats its purpose

Are we putting a cap on all earnings or just salary?
Some people earn a great deal of their money by owning parts of companies. Sometimes one company is involved. Sometimes multiple companies are involved. This is called investment. They put a great deal of money into profitable and sometimes unprofitable ventures. Some of these ventures are useful for greater society.
They expect a certain amount of income for their investment. On a smaller scale, we expect a small return on savings accounts at banks so we put in our money the bank so others can get loans. If a person who makes a great deal of money through investment will not gain any more money from their investments, they will not invest. Investment is useful for both business expansion to create jobs and other community economic benefits as well as ventures that may benefit the community as a whole such as medical technology and alternative energy sources.
One of the groups that benefits most setting a maximum income level is the already super rich. If they hold onto their money, they know that others will not have a chance to be as rich as them. They can pass this money onto their children and we will have even more of an aristocracy than we do now.

[Michael Costello]

112. what is income? wages or profit?

Income can come from wages, profit, rent, interest or other sources.

As far as wages, I think people shoould be able to earn whatever they can earn.

As far as profit, rent, interest and the like, all of that is parasitical and expropriation anyway so tax the hell out of it, abolishing it would be better.

[LTR]

114. No way!

I support incentive. And I don't agree with taxing the ultra-wealthy up the ass either.

They should pay a little more, but not too excessive.

But they sure as hell shouldn't get the sweetheart tax incentives that they get now. Everyone should contribute their share.

For example: No SUV credit!

[hippiegranny]

115. no

but people in this bracket should pay their fair share of taxes.