If a person works very hard and plays by the rules, he/she deserves to earn...

[steve2470]

Poll question: If a person works very hard and plays by the rules, he/she deserves to earn...

how much per year before taxes ? Just curious on what people think.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. without any taxes?

[steve2470]

2. I was just asking on an amount before taxes to keep things simpler

I'm assuming he or she would pay their legal taxes on income.

[gateley]

3. Unlimited - as long as you're playing by the rules -- the GOOD rules, not

the GOP rules, I think you should get as much as you desire.

[HEyHEY]

4. Everyone over $17,000 a year should pay

[SteppingRazor]

5. Other: In the immortal words of William Munny before he blew off Little Bill's head in Unforgiven...

"deserve's got nuthin' to do with it."

No one "deserves" any amount of money. Hard work will certainly get you a lot further than laziness, but nothing guarantees success.

[YOY]

6. ARe you saying a cap on salaries in general?

There are specialists who are damn good at what they do...

[steve2470]

9. Not any kind of government cap, no

I was simply curious about the progressive community's perception of earned income and its "morality", for want of a better descriptive phrase. My entire life I've always heard the unlimited amount of money per year meme. I'm not advocating a certain position, only curious.

[YOY]

12. All depending on just what they do and how valued they are to society I have to go for the Mil.

If not more.

A fantastic author, a brilliant pioneering surgeon, a true fiscal genius, a ground breaking genius, a ultra-talented programmer

If they are hardworking, play-by-the-rules, and INNOVATIVE in their benefit to society yes.

Now if they are hardworking and non-beneficial to anyone? Fuck 'em.

The rest of us, hard-working and play-by-the-rules...'bout 100K more or less.

[Oregone]

7. No one "deserves" anything.

We don't live in a casual meritocracy. Playing by the rules and working hard do not have a strict value that can be associated with the acts, and a janitor to a CEO can meet those conditions.

[Ikonoklast]

33. I agree, there are people that work very hard, and earn very little

And some that hardly do anything of lasting value, yet earn millions.

Neither one 'deserves' what they get.

[redqueen]

8. Ugh... look at those results.

I can't stand greed. :(

[PVnRT]

16. How is it greed if you play by the rules?

What would you cap incomes at, then? That's the other option available.

[redqueen]

18. Greed has nothing to do with breaking rules.

It's wanting more than you need.

[PVnRT]

26. Who defines what people need?

Should we all only make enough to meet our needs as decided upon by a government agency? Is the internet a need? Television? A car?

Beyond that, should a grocery store clerk be paid as much as a neurosurgeon?

These are not meant as snark; there is a legitimate question here of how far a society should go to enforce a moral standard, and whether or not it really is fair.

[redqueen]

28. I didn't say anything about govt enforcement.

Some people like owning a lot of fancy stuff... I don't, and I don't think it's necessary.

I can't relate to materialism / greed. I will never understand it.

[PVnRT]

30. OK...so is it inherently immoral to want things you don't necessarily need?

[redqueen]

31. There's no hard and fast line IMO.

We're all individuals and have to decide for ourselves.

[Greyhound]

21. By ignoring the undeniable fact that it requires the deprivation of many to

support one rich person.

[PVnRT]

27. What about, say, a successful writer

Who has been exploited to fund their success? People aren't forced to buy books; most o f the process of printing and binding is automated, so there is not a lot of backbreaking physical labor.

Squashing people get some people rich, but not all. There are those that become wealthy honestly, even if it's not as many as we would be led to believe.

[Greyhound]

36. Artists of all stripes, while generally not taking directly from others, are made rich through

the industry that pays them which does deprive other artists through their control of the market by denying them exposure. The consumers of literature are also deprived by the publishing houses deciding what they have to choose from.

Writing is an interesting case because it and music, more than most other art forms, are being evolved by the internet.

Sometimes the deprivation is removed through intermediary steps, but it always comes back to many getting less so that a few can have more.

[DangerDave921]

39. WRONG WRONG WRONG

If I pay my workers a good salary AND make a good living for myself, then how am I being supported by depriving others?

[Greyhound]

48. First, making a good living is far different from being rich.

Secondly, who does the work?

I think we're talking about different topics, if I understand your point, you're describing a small business owner type. I'm talking about wealth on a scale that the human mind cannot truly grasp.

[DangerDave921]

37. Define "greed" for me

Everyone speaks ill of greed, but what the hell is greed? Is it greedy for me to want to send my kids to private school? How about spend a week at the beach each year? Is it greedy to save for my retirement instead of giving it all to charity?

Tell me how much I can earn and keep for myself before I lapse into greed.

[dweller]

10. a living wage

start there.

dp

[Wapsie B]

11. Whatever monetary value our society places on that particular job.

I mean, you're not going to be a janitor making 100k, no matter how good you are at your job. Not unless you're connected to the Mob or something.

[magellan]

13. Unlimited

What a person earns can be from 0 to infinity, depending on what their product/service is and its popularity. If they play by the rules and work hard for it, I have no problem with that.

But it's true that money is power and power corrupts, so the chances of continuing to play by the rules generally diminishes as the figures making up one's earnings increase. Therefore, those who earn substantially more than the rest should have their finances subjected to a greater degree of oversight...and since our society bestows on them greater influence in our lives, in many cases both locally and nationally, that should be balanced with higher taxation.

[Two Americas]

14. enough

All deserve enough, even if they have slipped and broken a rule and even if they are unable to work very hard.

[rucky]

15. Enough to raise a family, own a home, send the kids to college...

and retire comfortably.

The end.

[OhioChick]

20. Perfect answer. n/t

[DangerDave921]

17. No enough information to answer

Working at what? If I work hard scrubbing toilets, then I'm not going to earn as much as the guy working hard playing third base for the Yankees. I don't think anyone "deserves" a set amount of money. The market and supply/demand has to play some role in the equation.

[Greyhound]

19. I notice the automatic "greed is good" answer is prevalent while far more people are asking

for more information as the poll is not clear.

Bertrand Russel said it, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."

Doing and repeating what you're told is so much easier than thinking.

[aikoaiko]

22. Deserves has nothing to do with it.

You can work hard and play by the rules and still make mistakes or poor choices.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

23. A living wage, opportunity to grow earnings, quality of life.

[JackRiddler]

24. I'll repeat the above: Deserves has nothing to do with it. Otherwise...

Otherwise, firemen, nurses, teachers and garbagemen would deservedly be the millionaires. Bankers and advertisers would make shit. And probably the hardest working people in the world are single-plot farmers in poor villages and I bet they follow the rules.

Your question hides so many false premises, I don't know where to start.

Works hard at WHAT?

Follows WHICH rules?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Unfortunately, those that have the gold make the "rules".

Rule #1. Work hard while I sit on my ass and pay you as little as possible.
Rule #2. Obey rule #1 or I'll fire you and hire someone who will obey rule #1.

[Liberal_in_LA]

29. funny poll

[steve2470]

32. To add a bit more clarification...

I know this poll was deeply flawed. The whole JTP/taxes discussion got me thinking back to what my older brother told me years ago about earned income. He said, in so many words, that people who made "too much" money were depriving others. I never really believed that, but it stuck in my head.

I'm probably incorrect, but my understanding of "pure communism" is you earn what you need. My understanding of "pure capitalism" is you earn what you can get, up to an unlimited amount. Under a "pure socialism" system, I have no idea what the pay scales are like. Yes, I know this poll was not necessary but I've thought about this on and off for years.

[Locrian]

34. depends

In a zero sum game - taking more than you need deprives others.

So you cant really say that infinite is ok if you have finite resources. Its like saying everyone should own a jetliner.

I say you morally should not have more than the least of your brothers... or some such nonsense like that.

[DangerDave921]

40. two schools of thought

1. A successful business gets a few people rich while depriving others.

2. A successful business raises up the people below because the business provides them with jobs, which allows them to buy homes and support families.

I've never understood School No. 1. It's a type of class envy that thinks if Guy A is rich, then he must be taking it away from me. Bill Gates has done more to create wealth for people than the government ever has.

[slackmaster]

35. Nobody needs...

...to put an arbitrary cap on peoples' earnings.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. There Should Never Be A Limit On How Much Any Person Can Earn.

Any other answer is hogwash in my opinion.

[Hangingon]

41. A person deserves to be paid on the value of his work.

[InkAddict]

42. Pay raises up to the top end of the pay range for the job the worker has

agreed to do - along the way, the worker needs access to job-specific training that will qualify them for either a laddered step up the org chart or a lateral w/compensation for knowing, understanding, and participating in additional job duties.

[qwlauren35]

43. As soon as I think of CEOs... in a bad year...

I can't say "unlimited".

I'm okay with stock options, especially if they don't mature for 5 years, and you can't cash them if you leave the company.

But no, I don't think a CEO is entitled to uncapped earnings.

Now, a BUSINESS OWNER, who pays fair salaries, is entitled to a reasonable percentage of his or her revenues in a good year, and if that's a few million, fine.

A mom and pop business is entitled to whatever they d*mned well please as long as they pay their taxes.

I think the reason why I have so little respect for CEOs of major publicly traded corporations is that they ultimately have NOTHING FINANCIAL to lose if only a portion of their wealth is in the company's stock. At that point, it really is a power game, and they are players.

I don't even like to think about it. But then, politics is a different kind of power tripping.

[donco6]

44. I don't care what they earn.

But they are obligated to pay taxes.

[iiibbb]

45. "Deserves" got nothing to do with anything.

$100,000 isn't low enough either.

I lived pretty ok by myself for 20,000... most people should be able to do a family for 40,000 if they make good choices.

[onethatcares]

46. as long as they play by the rules everyone has to play by.

why should I care what someone else makes.

[annabanana]

47. Enough to feed, clothe and shelter themselves...n/t

[slampoet]

49. ALL MONEY IS LIMITED. That is what printing money is about.

Nobody deserves unlimited money. If anyone did then everyone else would have problems, like now.

[lelgt60]

50. I would like to shift the focus from amount earned to amount accumulated

My beliefs:

Until every soul on the planet, including those who don't or won't work, has enough to live comfortably (food, clothing, shelter, health care, educational opportunity):

1. Cap accumulated wealth via luxury based consumption taxes and graduated property taxes. Property means everything, not just real estate. Some way to exclude employment producing investments (versus, say, luxury yachts - yeah, I know, it penalizes the luxury yacht industry - such is humane tax policy).

2. Cap income via high rates of tax (70%-90%) on personal (not small business) yearly income, above $1 million minus charitable contributions.

3. Perhaps some tax on pollution causing activities. If you foul the air with your hobby, you need to pay to clean it up.

As you can see, I'm a big believer in using tax policy to accomplish social policy. I don't want to place a limit on people who thrive on greed and nasty competition - I just want to channel the results to help create a better world.