Companies do need to invest and build. There would have to be some sort of tax write off for company expenses but I agree with you.

What will count as "expenses"?

This is key, OP has a great idea but it'll never work if the rich can just game the system into showing a "loss" for the year

Regarding your point at large, I think you are better off fixing 'maximum ownership', and then perhaps democracy in general. But to your point, I fully agree with setting a maximum wage, though I feel it's ultimately patch fixing.

In the end, governments support and serve the financial, or currency system. Regardless of 'feelings', those with more currency will ALWAYS have more say in government. Regarding a 'grown persons abilities', it is debatable whether or not their amount of growth should be limited, or though it is widely agreed that the base level humans should not fall below X on a standardized basis.

For example, it is speculated that when humans fall below the amount of money necessary to sustain life, that they will become violent and break the governmental contracts, rather than passively die.

Now here's the Rub, the same Rub Thomas Paine fought for back in 1776, with the Rights of Man. Should any child be BORN with an extreme ownership of society or currency units? In 1776, this was clearly referring to the King, but literally applies to all children.

Today you have situations where some children are BORN into a situation where they possess extreme societal ownership ON BIRTH. Some are born owning more than 10% of future societal output. Is that fair? What would be your rule and regulation for that?

So what I think is a better system is to set a 'maximum societal ownership percentage', and to make the information publicly available. After all, everyone paying taxes and voting within America is ultimately contributing to the American distribution of funds and ownership. Don't you think it would be good to know for whom you serve?

I loosely suggest that no single individual in America should possess more than 1 of 1,000% of societal ownership. This could be interpreted as $16 Billion. In terms of redistribution, I would be even initially content if Bill Gates and Buffet were able to redistribute the money as they please, just so long as, at the end of the year, every year, no individual was allowed to possess greater than 1 of 1,000% of societal ownership.

For example, $100,000 in savings represents about 1 in 160,000% of ownership, and I think the average American has about $25,000 in savings.

Fixing the bottom has more to do with education, motivation, and discipline, but fixing those at the top will always require the application of law and morality.

My father hit the 25mil mark you seem to have put a lot if thought into. My father donates money to charity and has his hobby of breeding thoroughbred race horses. This sounds so much like that secret cabal we all fear huh? Literally what your plan is is hindering someones financial freedom because they may have more drive than the average joe shmoe and if you are the average joe, get better, quit complaining because it looks like someone complaining because they lack what other have worked hard to gain for themselves.

Clearly if he donates so much to charity he would not be affected by this.

Oh wow and look at those numbers... Facebook tens of billions is totally comparable to 25 mil accumulated over a career. Thanks for reminding me of the scope of people I'm arguing with. No wonder 9/11 still isnt taken seriously with logic like this "large corporations with billions are fucking us so that means every wealthy person is fucking us raaaawwwrrr"

While i was no math wizard... 10billion > 25mil.... Like 400 times over no?

If corporations take advantage of people's drive, I see nothing wrong with the people as a democracy taking advantage of the drive of multimillionaires and billionaires. They will still have more than everyone else, they can still feed their pathetic egos.

So your father is in the top 0.1%?

Did you know that the average income for the top 0.1% of American taxpayers is between 5 and 7 million dollars per year?

Did you know that less than 200 Americans earn more then 50 million dollars per year?

If your father is earning 25 million a year, he is one of the wealthiest people in America.

I'm sure there are negatives but Bill Gates seems to be doing good with his money.

I get what you're saying and yes, unused to be one of those embarrassed millionaires who was just working my way up. As I've aged I don't care to sacrifice my time with family and friends to run in the wheel. I make good money but I'm content where I'm at.

If we limit income where does the excess go?

Most income earned by top .1% is not W2 income, it's investment income. Which is taxed 15% flat rate currently (I think)

I've come around to the idea of UBI, population is growing and efficiency is increasing. That is not sustainable. I'd say rather than cap income, retard wealth growth and hoarding. If a billionaire spent most of their money every year it's not a problem. The money is going back into the economy, the problem is it is being pooled and never gets back out.

Other thing we need to be aware of is the very rich are not loyal to the country as much. They can leave if the environment becomes too hostile to them. It's a delicate balance.

If Bill Gates is spending more on philanthropy than he makes, he's fine.

lol Bill Gates believes in population control

Well, after spending a week in a crowded city i hae to agree with him slightly. There are just too many people. But overpop in urban areas is a grave we dug for ourselves.

There is absolutely no reason or any good that can come out of people making over 25 million a year. That's over 2 million dollars a month and plenty for anyone.

I hate this logic so much. Who do you think you are to decide this for everyone?

Limiting the amount you can earn won't increase the distribution of wealth. Instead of earning, say 100million a year, now that CEO and his 3 brothers earn 25 million a year. That's an oversimplification of the many ways in which this won't change anything.

That's ok. Let him get 4 of his siblings to make 25 million a year in various companies. That would still help. The family can make 125 million a year through 5 companies.

Yea bro, rich people just shit out immensely successful businesses like it's nothing. Like why don't the rich people, just create more businesses? Sound like something that liberals like to make fun of republicans for saying?

You don't have the right to take away the wealth earned from another's labor. Our country was founded on that philosophical argument. Read Locke.

You want to limit the amount of money business can take in? You're an idiot. Enjoy watching the last sliver of american manufacturing left wither away. No one would do business here.

Google is great but that doesn't give them the right to harvest all the money out of our economy because it left the rest of us in shambles.

First of all, a company is not an individual. First you want to cap the personal worth of individuals, and now you are claiming you want to cap how much businesses can take in. I think we should have anti-monopoly and collusions laws on the books, but that isn't what you're arguing for, you're arguing for wealth limits.

I really can't express how stupid I think you are without getting banned. Do you want to see all the businesses that made this country into the most economically prosperous nation in the history of humanity disappear? Do you want to become a large scale version of Cuba or Venezuela? What you're advocating for is exactly how you do it which is why the philosophy used to found this nation is the exact opposite of what you're espousing in these comments.

The fountainhead makes that point forcefully.

I speak on behalf of the 90% who are struggling with bills on a daily basis.

Implementing this rule will do nothing to help these people.

This isn't for me although we would all do better.

Laughably stupid.

If I made 25 million, I would gladly donate all excess to infrastructure work or homeless stuff.

There's no way you know this for sure.

This selfish, nonstop cash aborption by billionaires and trillionaires like BofA doesn't work in the big picture. Simple as that. Its dysfunctional.

I agree. Where I don't agree is that this is the way to stop it.

Also, BofA is a business, not an individual.

Why do you think you need more imaginary numbers in a computer account? You can literally be the most comfortable liver on the planet and have everything your heart desires, and then some. And you want more. That's called greed.

Why do you think you need more imaginary numbers in a computer account? You can literally be the most comfortable liver on the planet and have everything your heart desires, and then some. And you want more. That's called greed.

Because I get to decide how I use my own wealth that I earned with my two hands. You don't have the right to take away something I earned with my labor. One of the most disgraceful aspects of our education system is people nowadays don't know the basic philosophy that founded our nation, read some Locke.

youre assuming these people earned it.. A very childish look at things, grow up kid.

Most bilionaires are self made dude.

http://review.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/summer-2013/billionaires-self-made

Even if someone is an heir to a fortune, the creator of the fortune, who earned that fortune with his two hands, gets to decide what to do with it. Nor the government.

Nothing tells me I'm dealing with a chode on the internet faster than when they have the "K" word at the end of their post

You're not rich. You're down here with us.

You're not the king of the hill, you're the king of the scrap pile. Fighting over scraps dropped from the table of the rich. You're already being robbed. Stop licking boots.

And this is really the most telling aspect of your side of the debate. You can't actually challenge my ideas so you have to appeal to any resentment for the successful that I may have. You and your ilk don't want to help the poor, you just hate the rich. It's what George Orwell figured out when he wrote The Road to Wigan Pier and why he ratted all the commies out during WW2.

My is one of practicality, scarcity, finite economics, and philosophical egalitarianism.

Your entire argument boils down to "because I want it".

You can't make 25 million with "your own" hands. You need to fuck over a ton of people.

This line of thinking is beyond stupid. Of course an individual can add that much value. Wealth isn't zero sum.

Fine, You name one person with that kind of scratch and I'll do the research and tell you who he fucked to get that rich.

I'm interested on what you can come up with for Buffett.

I had a feeling you'd pick him. Give me a day, I'll see what I come up with.

Positive sum games can still have both winners and losers.

Looking at the ultra wealth it is pretty clear to me that they frequently acquire wealth at the expense of others. Just look at the '08 crash. They knew they were selling bogus CDOs but did anyway, thereby accumulating wealth that represented no real value. Then when the crash happened they secured taxpayer bailout money so that they retained their jobs/companies/wealth while old Joe down the street lost his house to a bank.

Underneath all of this there is a healthy economy where people are producing value, so as you say it isn't a zero sum game. We have a lot of people producing new wealth all around the world. But when the ultra wealthy play games by selling bogus CDOs, manipulating stock prices, etc, they are generally taking wealth from someone else. That is why wealth inequality continues to grow at astounding rates.

Positive sum games can still have both winners and losers.

I am aware.

Looking at the ultra wealthy it is pretty clear to me that they frequently acquire wealth at the expense of others. Just look at the '08 crash. They knew they were selling bogus CDOs but did anyway, thereby accumulating wealth that represented no real value. Then when the crash happened they secured taxpayer bailout money so that they retained their jobs/companies/wealth while old Joe down the street lost his house to a bank, all because he took a bogus mortgage from the same people. They won in every way possible.

I agree that this was a problem. I don't agree that a maximum wage is the way to fix it. You said what the problem was, and it wasn't simply that these people made too much money.

Positive sum games can still have both winners and losers.

I am aware.

Looking at the ultra wealthy it is pretty clear to me that they frequently acquire wealth at the expense of others. Just look at the '08 crash. They knew they were selling bogus CDOs but did anyway, thereby accumulating wealth that represented no real value. Then when the crash happened they secured taxpayer bailout money so that they retained their jobs/companies/wealth while old Joe down the street lost his house to a bank, all because he took a bogus mortgage from the same people. They won in every way possible.

I agree that this was a problem. I don't agree that a maximum wage is the way to fix it. You said what the problem was, and it wasn't simply that these people made too much money.

I definitely agree that a maximum wage isn't a great idea. Create a maximum wage and the wealthy will just create companies for themselves instead so that their income is not a wage (they already do this for taxes). And in the meantime you've given the government even more power by giving them greater control of wealth. I don't see how anything good could come out of that.

Why do you think you need more imaginary numbers in a computer account?

A) who said need?

B) who are you to tell other people what they need or should want?

The reason America is successful is that we don't have stupid rules like this. Implementing this rule is bad for people.

How am I supposed to buy a $380m Megayacht on a measly $24m a year

I hate the logic of people who want to protect the rich, so either you're rich or you have Stockholm syndrome.

I'm not protecting anyone, it's protecting the American dream.

Our country is successful because we don't have limits on how successful you're allowed to be. This is a stupid rule.

You still believe in that?

America is the most successful nation in history. The reason this is true is we don't limit how much success someone is allowed to have like this. It's a stupid rule.

The illusion that you can pull yourself up to the same level as the rich, all on your own, is an ILLUSION.

It's a method of preventing insurrection. People won't revolt if they think they're already free. People won't question the economic system if they think it offers them the same opportunities as everyone else (it doesn't).

Stop empathizing with the current rich because you think one day you too could become rich.

The illusion that you can pull yourself up to the same level as the rich, all on your own, is an ILLUSION.

You're wrong. Go move to some socialist country where they already have similar rules and stop trying to poison this country.

Because I'm sure everyone on here complaining is good with money and has an understanding of how the wealthy handles their finances. 😒 you can donate money to causes and still net a profit with other ventures. Go and continue on with your robin hood pipe dream. Its a shitty idea and plenty more will agree. War on the fortunate when 25mil isnt even close to chump change for the people you should be protesting

In my opinion: by law, the highest salary within a company should be max. n% of the lowest salary.

I would prefer this system

That actually makes a lot of sense. What would you propose the ratio to be?

10? 100? I don't know, I'm not an economist. I reckon It could vary depending on the size of the company and maybe by type of company.

Same as the French system. It works

this has been shown not to work (see Ben and Jerry's example). I sympathize with the sentiment, but the only way to eliminate the monopolistic and cartelistic aberrations of today's system is to abolish any government-corporate collaboration. the best way to start this is to abolish the federal reserve, believe it or not.

that's because it wasn't established by law; the rich knew they could put pressure on Ben and Jerrys to lax the rules until Ben and Jerrys simply scrapped it.

my interpretation is different. they simply could not attract competent CEOs who would maximize the companies profits. hence, they kept increasing the ratio, until they scrapped it completely. if it was made into law, B&J would simply have gone out of business, or decline as a company.

I really think this sub (and people in general) could use some reading in basic economics. the false song of globalism is paved with socialism (which benefits the rich and powerful) but people don't seem to get this unfortunately.

There's so much I want to say but I don't even have the time and I'm pretty sure it's not worth it

so you're saying, capable people would not want to work because not paid enough?

let me tell you something, capable smart people do things, because they can, not because of the rewards.

that is just naivety. we're not talking about Jesus, we're talking about CEOs.

if you could get a better salary somewhere else, would you stay in your current less rewarding job?

any normal person goes for the highest reward. and sure, there are other factors at play, but obviously ceteris paribus everyone prefers to earn more than to earn less.

first of all, CEOs aren't some super capable smart people, they are flexible, adaptable and can exploit the environment to their needs. this doesn't make them super smart.

what i mean was scientists, pepole who create and invent stuff and drive the progress forward. CEOs don't do that, they're just a leach in a system designed for a few %.

I never said they were. CEOs' job is to make decisions. those decisions will either increase or decrease a company's value. if their decisions decrease the value, then they will be sacked (unless they are in companies protected by government, as happens rampantly today). but making decisions is necessary in any situation, be it a family or a company. they are not leeching if the shareholders decide they are doing a good job and want to pay them to make those decisions.

yes ok i see your point, but if we assume communism in this scenario, the statement, capable people will not work because wages too low is false, because as i said, capable people work and invent because they can.

it's like a, even in capitalism, saying, i have an idea, very good idea for a product that will make me rich, but the taxes are too high, so I won't do it. because, you know, 20% is too much or whatever ... but if it was 10% i would make this and be rich.

nobody ever said that, and taxes do not influence the smart, capable people. they do stuff becaue they can and no amount of wages will change that.

actually, funny that you mention it, I started a company and closed it after a year and half because the reward was just not worth it (too much hassle, not enough payoff). went back to work for a multinational.

there are studies about this as well. high taxes and regulations benefit big companies because they have enough money to pay people to go through the hassle, comply with all the regulations and still make profits. small entrepreneurs have a much harder time and some of them (like me) quit after a while cause it's just not worth it. of course, some people will have a sense of duty to do whatever it is they want to do, but some will simply fall back to a safer and more rewarding 9-6 job, which I did cause I would rather not have the hassle and get more money.

high taxes and regs also promote the black market.

oh, and the incentive problem under communism is well documented in many, many (so many) books. under socialism (democratic or otherwise) is exactly the same, except a little less horrible.

this has been shown not to work (see Ben and Jerry's example).

You mean Unilever.

Ben and Jerry havent been in charge of that company in years.

this wage ratio experiment was before that. they would not have been acquired otherwise, actually.

That's one way to outsource your job.

As far as I know, this is France

This is similar to what Mélenchon (French president candidate is proposing), but much more severe: 100% tax on all personal earnings over €400k.

But I think it has a major flaw: the €400-€1mil/year is for very specialized employees, rare scientists or doctors, extreme high risk oil/fire workers, etc. Second, it cuts into the value of stock options, which start-ups need to convince smart people to not work for big rich tech companies. If you cap those income ranges, you might reduce the number of people who do those jobs.

Above €1mil/year, people can easily redirect income overseas and avoid incurring the tax. You may be able to limit it if you can closely track money made and distributed within the country, but that would be the extent. Not to mention, it encourages companies to move their headquarters out of the country, so they can pay their execs what the execs demand.

Ultimately, it is all a market force. Taxation can work when the market is inelastic, people have to do the business no matter how high the tax is. But if it's easy to leave, an elastic market, then they will leave.

I know its not popular but a progressive tax system would be a better alternative.

Tax everything above 25 million at a higher rate

Much better than OPs suggestion

And yet I can park several million into /r/monero and avoid my taxes for years.

Enforcement is the real issue here -- not money.

You can have a perfect system on paper but as long as humans enforce it, there will be corruption.

If they're just going to use that money for wars, then no, otherwise maybe.

With any system the devil can be in the details.

We already have a progressive tax system, it's just applied only to working income and maxes out at a certain rate. The richest of the rich get their income from capital gains & dividends which is a far lower tax rate.

capital gains & dividends which is a far lower tax rate.

Depending on which state you are in.

They also offshore the majority of their wealth through 'creative accounting' to ensure they're not taxed fairly for their profit from the work of actual taxpayers.

The tax system is bunk. Basically once you hit like $115K or $125 K (forget which) you no longer gettaxed on some things above that point.

So if you make $200k a year, you only pay all the taxes on like 115k of it.. that's wack. Poorer people get taxed on all their earnings. Richer folks don't. And then the whole more you have you can do trading etc to avoid can near all taxation. It is a jacked up system catered to the extremely wealthy.

I don't think this is true at $200k, could you show me a source? Because if so, this would be interesting info.

I actually only found out about this, this year because I actually went in to talk to my tax person on account of some income changes, etc.

"For 2017, the maximum amount of taxable earnings for Social Security and Medicare is $127,500. In other words, an employee must pay 6.2% of any income up to $127,500 for 2017 = $7,905. But any dollar you make above $127,500 is free of the Social Security tax" - See more at: http://www.financialsamurai.com/maximum-taxable-income-amount-for-social-security-fica/"

It changes each year and there are other technical things to look at, but yeah after a certain amount that you make, you no longer pay social security or medicare on the rest of your earnings.

Wow, TIL. Thanks!

All the people defending "hard-working multi-millionaires" need to take a look at the USA's top marginal income tax rates through history.

I always like to point out that George Romney (Mitts Dad) was a very wealthy man who paid more than 2x his sons tax rate.

Mitts rate ~15% his dad, 37%

Right, and this isn't even getting into the tax shenanigans the ultra-wealthy (and especially corporations) pull off.

Double irish with a Dutch sandwich.

How would this help anything? Anyone who would get taxed unreasonably would have the means to disguise their income through various methods.

No, the free market is the best method. And the free market works best when people are informed and consumers are conscious and have principles (i.e. not paying $850 for a new iPhone... or any money at all).

progressive tax system would be a better alternative.

Second that. As a progressive, I don't want to fight another straw man that makes it easier to paint us as if we hate success.

The problem is that the tax system we have now, with all its loopholes is likely not even progressive as a whole, except for the middle class.

Simply eliminating loopholes, and taxing all income as regular income, so that everyone pays taxes on the same progressive scale we already have, and middle class is subject to, would be a huge change.

You can even frame it as lowering the taxes for the middle and lower classes. If you increase tax revenue from taxes collected due to closing of the loopholes, you can lower the taxes for those who did not get the chance to use those loopholes by the equal amount.

you know they'll just get around this with low on paper wages and shitload of stock options..

and most wealthy don't make their money on wages/salary, it's investments

This is one of those /r/politics posts that we can only discuss here without being completely overwhelmed by shills. That said, I have nothing to add.

Truly RICH people don't make the majority of their money as an earned wage. This will only really create a ceiling for working class people.

Capital gains is where rich people actually make money. You need to target the correct problem.

Ding ding ding!

Oh come on. I could deal with the shills on this sub and the increased policing by mods, but if this sub is taken over by people advocating marxism and socialism in a sub related to conspiracies, then that's new levels of astro turfed bullshit. The far left is inherently authoritarian, which is why they politicize every institution they are apart of.

If you're going to go around begging people to believe in you're political philosophy, go do it in a political sub.

You want the state to control how much wealth people can obtain. That is forced equity by the state. On what planet is that not a form of socialism or marxism.

Our current system is based off of the ideas of rich white men from hundreds of years ago. During that period women couldn't vote and one could own slaves; just a few examples of how times have changed since then. Are you against reexamining those ideas?

Our current system is based off of the ideas of rich white men from hundreds of years ago.

Our current (American) system is actually based on the amalgamation of ideas created by western philosophers over thousands of years which were selectively included by the founding fathers in the structure of our government. In those thousands of years the western world, not just the U.S., has flourished and has created the highest levels of quality of life compared to any other region of the world, in the entire history of the world.

Have some gratitude for the profoundness and success of these ideas instead of wanting to rip out the philosophical foundation of the western world because you have a personal problem with the skin color and biological sex of the creators of this foundation.

Nah, not the point I was making at all. People in the U.S. are suffering because of our crony capitilistic system. Obviously it's more complex than just that, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the wealth created is being hoarded by a handful of people. The system is broken and needs to be changed for the betterment of humanity.

People in the U.S. are suffering because of our crony capitilistic system.

Why do you think we're a capitalist nation currently and what problems do we have that are caused by capitalism in your opinion?

but the fact remains that the vast majority of the wealth created is being hoarded by a handful of individuals.

As it always has and always will. The Law of Pareto Distribution dictates that. https://economics.mit.edu/files/10517

It's not capitalism, it's crony capitalism as I had already stated.

And I' asking you why you think we're a capitalist nation and what aspects of capitalism led to this problem. Because if you don't have a good answer to either of those, then even you have to admit capitalism isn't the problem.

I also already stated that it's not the entire problem. Do you have poor reading comprehension? You're right though; those with money and power practice aspects of socialism for themselves. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. This is why we have a crony capitalistic system.

I also already stated that it's not the entire problem.

I never said you said it was. I asked you what you thought was wrong with it and why we're a capitalist nation..

capitalism for the poor.

$100 billion annually is given to the non-working poor through entitlement programs. $900 billion annually is given to working poor through entitlement programs. That doesn't even include medicare or social security. That's not capitalism.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/contrary-to-entitlement-society-rhetoric-over-nine-tenths-of-entitlement-benefits-go-to?fa=view&id=3677

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-%20Welfare%20Spending%20The%20Largest%20Item%20In%20The%20Federal%20Budget.pdf

Yet the gap keeps widening between the upper and lower classes. The U.S. is nowhere near a socialism philosophy. Are you seriously proposing that? You didn't say socialism, but termed it "that's not capitalism".

Yet the gap keeps widening between the upper and lower classes.

As the Pareto Law of Distribution dictates it will.

The U.S. is nowhere near a socialism philosophy

You, one comment ago, calling the U.S. socialist for the government giving money to the rich:

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

and when I point out we give over a trillion to the poor annually?

The U.S. is nowhere near a socialism philosophy.

At least apply some consistency to your argument.

The rich act very different from the vast masses living in the U.S. I mentioned those with money and power practicing aspects of socialism, but the government isn't "giving" it to them. They hoard the wealth all for themselves with the help of our corrupt politicians, which is a significant factor in our crony capitalistic system.

but the government isn't "giving" it to them.

with the help of our corrupt politicians

Which is it dude? You can't have both. It's corruption, we both agree. The two parties benefitting from this corruption are politicians and corporations. A mutually beneficial relationship, one giving favors to the other.

Which is why conservatives and capitalists advocate for smaller government, because government involvement creates incentive for corruption.

People in the U.S. are suffering because of our crony capitilistic system.

So fix the crony part instead of fucking with the economic system that has created the best living conditions and lifted the most people out of poverty in the history of the world.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways are just better than others.

People in the U.S. are suffering because of our crony capitilistic system.

So fix the crony part instead of fucking with the economic system that has created the best living conditions and lifted the most people out of poverty in the history of the world.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways are just better than others.

This country was made for property owners, to protect property rights.

It was one vote per property owner.

It was one vote per property owner.

The 3/5ths rule was also introduced early on. It gave slave owners an extra 3/5ths of a vote. So if a property owner also owned slaves, they got more than one vote.

There's probably a reason for that too. Plantations that produce crops or food are more important and more valuable. How do you represent that? Probably the 3/5ths vote per slave would make more important properties have better representation.

Under that system, you wouldn't want someone that lives in the city with a small dwelling and producing nothing to be equal to a plantation that provides food for the city.

IIRC, that was the justification for it. Southerners wanted the numbers of representatives, etc. to reflect the actual population of the South, but people weren't willing to let a slave count as an entire person. The South had to concede that, because they weren't actually letting the slaves vote or anything. It basically just gave Southern states more representatives.

List an actual example of communism (like the Amish), and not a time when a fascist organization used the promise of communism to lure in support, and then pulled a bait 'n' switch on their people.

Everyone always cites authoritarian dictatorships when they want to bring up communism, but they never acknowledge that communism wasn't implemented in those cases.

It's like people trying to equate Democratic Socialism with the Nationalist Socialist party.

There's better arguments to be countered here then the No True Scotsman fallacy. So here's a video I'll leave you with that tears your argument to pieces:

https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/837843492076470272

There is this thing called human nature (actually it's just economics of the resources needed to live driving the primal animal urges of our brains) that basically prevents the idealized version of communism from ever existing. Just like how an idealized version of capitalism can't exist.

The difference between the two is that I can vote with my dollar (aka fuck united airlines and planet fitness), but if the state subsidizes the only airline and the only gym in the country, I can't do much more than bitch about it (and probably get shot for criticizing the fatherland)

I'll stick with my capitalism

All states control the distribution of wealth when it sets up rules. Capitalist states simply prioritize increasing the wealth of those with capital.

There is no such thing as a "free market" where wealth is magically distributed to people based on market forces that sound a lot like the concept of God. All systems involve setting up rules and therefore distributing wealth to winners and losers.

Do you also recognize this is contradictory to the philosophy this country was founded on?

This country was also founded on slavery being a key ingredient in the economy. Not everything the founding fathers did was perfect.

So if I create a new app and make 25 million dollars selling it, am I crushing the little man with my entrepreneurial spirit and incentive prowess?

Am I basking in greed and contributing to the ruination of society?

What if the app costs $1 and 25 million people download it.

Did I just steal food off of the table of 25 million poor desperate citizens?

Or did they steal it from themselves?

You should take care to distinguish between rich people who earned their wealth and those that did not.

Otherwise you stifle innovation because you demonize anybody who works hard and has successful ideas

/>wage cap />wage />marxism

Yes, the state controlling how much wealth you can obtain was a undeniable reality of societies where marxism was implemented. Except of course, you were a part of the communist bourgeoisie.

Marxism is not something to be implemented. If you knew even the first thing about communism you would know there is no money, nor wages in communist society.

Marxism is not something to be implemented.

Marx said numerous times there has to be a world-wide communist revolution implemented relatively simultaneously.

"Empirically communism is only possible as the act of dominant peoples 'all at once' and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism."

"In all revolutions up until now the mod off activity always remained unscathed and it was only a question of a different distribution of this activity, a new distribution of labor to other persons, while the communist revolution is directed against the preceding mode of activity, does away with labour, and abolishes the rule of all classes with the classes themselves, because it is carried through by the class which no longer counts as a class in society, is not recognized as a class, and is in itself the expression of the dissolution of all classes, nationalities, etc within present society."

Both quotes are from Property, Labour, Alienation written by Marx and Engels.

Yeah, your quotes aren't doing you any favors. Where does it say something is to be implemented? Communism is a revolutionary movement, see here:

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Yes, I know what your proposed utopia is supposed to look like.

Doesn't seem like it.

Where does it say something is to be implemented?

Here:

Empirically communism is only possible as the act of dominant peoples 'all at once' and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism."

And here:

while the communist revolution is directed against the preceding mode of activity, does away with labour, and abolishes the rule of all classes with the classes themselves,

And in your quote, here:

We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

Marx, literally saying that the movement must abolish the status quo. So if you were to ask again how is this an implementation, it says right here you have to implement it by destroying the current society.

I think there is a breakdown of language here. When I say not something to be implemented, I mean there is no one platform of communism to be implemented. We dont know the exact form post capitalist society will take, because we don't know the material conditions.

He also calls for an alteration to the nature of man, but does not propose how that is possible, at least from what I've read of Marx.

Citation needed.

I mean there is no one platform of communism to be implemented.

To make all property publicly owned you have to do something. You can't just snap your fingers and make it so. You have to implement a structure for how you want society to work no matter what, or else it's just anarchy.

Citation needed.

"Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary," Marx, Property, Labour, Alienation.

To make all property publicly owned you have to do something. You can't just snap your fingers and make it so. You have to implement a structure and force people to abide by it if you want a society to work no matter what, or else you just have anarchy.

The communist movement will come just like all of the other movements before it, changes in material conditions which lead to changes in the relationship to production. You don't just say, hey all means of production are socially controlled, just like the capitalism didn't emerge from feudal society by simple declarations. The movement is a bottom up movement, not something implemented from the top down(here we are again).

"Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary," Marx, Property, Labour, Alienation.

Yes, our relations with men, production, and society will be much different than it is now. Our material conditions determine man's thought, just as the tendencies we all have today, differ from the tendencies of men before us. This is basic historical materialism, for a better understanding I would recommend chapter 1 of The German Ideology. The citation needed was the eternal human nature you speak of that cannot exist with communism.

Because the poor CEO's will suffer if they only make 50x what their employees make?

No? My argument isn't based on how much CEO's suffer.

So you're fine with all the Hillary Clinton (has been gone for 6 months) "lock her up" posts and the John Podesta pizzagate emails, but talking about a global conspiracy by the wealthy to horde wealth and possible solutions to it is a bridge too far?

Sorry but that's a strawman. If the elite are doing things that are illegal I have no problem with them facing consequences. I want them too. However, if you want to take wealth away from someone strictly because they have more wealth than the arbitrary limit you've set for them, that's what I have a problem with.

So why don't you argue your points instead of trying to shut the post down? Sidebar- Conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. I'd say there is LITTLE doubt that wealth inequality fits the description of harmful. I don't know that this solution works at all and I'm more of the mind of helping others than I am hindering people. It's a twisted cycle, though and I should know because I've been a part of it: "Go do market research surveys against competitors and don't come back to me until you come back with something that justifies a raise for the CEO to the board." (and hopefully when my review comes around I'll get a nice perk for inflating their wealth further) proceeds to go to companies that pay their CEOs outrageous pay and prints it out

So why don't you argue your points instead of trying to shut the post down?

Because the purpose of this sub isn't to debate marxism.

Well we're talking semantics, now. If the "marxism" idea is related to a conspiracy, then yes it is, even if the idea is bad.

Well we're talking semantics, now.

No, we're talking about the purpose of this subreddit.

If the "marxism" idea is related to a conspiracy, then yes it is, even if the idea is bad.

What conspiracy is being discussed in this post?

Fair enough. I felt the conspiracy of bankers and businesspeople is implied here, but I don't think it's a straw man to say that there are countless other topics on this sub that are nothing but a political circle jerk. At least this one is somewhat productive/interesting.

You can believe in a broken economic system without being a Marxist,

Just like how you can believe in WL and the things they've revealed without being a Russian trumper white boy (tho huffpost will sure push against that reality as hard as they can)

Wikileaks never said anything about Pizzagate. They distributed the emails and that was it (which is what they do though the timing was very suspect). I highly recommend reading the emails directly and without another person interpreting them for you.
Of course this was about the double standard that is being applied in r/conspiracy on the whole and really not so much to do with WL.

A lot of assumptions you made in there.

What a reply for real

Forgot that this sub only allowed conservative narratives and agendas.

The purpose of r/Conspiracy isn't to push political philosophies.

You say that like I'm not aware?

If you don't believe that certain ideas are pushed more then others for an agenda by either or bots or shills then I'm sorry. You could even look to some of the stickies on the sub for another example of said ideas being pushed or helped to be brought forward and put in front of eyea.

If you don't believe that certain ideas are pushed more then others for an agenda by either or bots or shills then I'm sorry.

When did I say I didn't believe that.

You could even look to some of the stickies on the sub for another example of said ideas being pushed or helped to be brought forward and put in front of eyea.

Okay, you mind linking me to these stickied posts that purely advocate for capitalism and conservatism?

Why the brand new account?

Look at my first comment in r/worldnews, I was banned for that. When I get banned from communities that I want to participate in I create a new account.

I love it when people point out that the far left is authoritarian, as if it wasn't inherently obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that going too far in either direction leads to despotism.

But no, I'm sure that the far right have no hands at all in politicizing institutions or being full of shit and hypocrisy.

Why is it that when someone claims something is inherently socialist/Marxist/communist that they have no idea what any of those ideas are?

People love their social security, Medicare, freeways, fire departments, police stations, public schools, water, electricity, and national parks...but god damn it socialism/taxes are evil!

How is a maximum wage marxist exactly?

People don't get equal portions in capitalist society, neither would people under a maximum wage society...

But the numbers would actually make sense for once, and not trillions made regularly in funny money simply because there isn't enough to pay bonuses to bankers and wallstreet cocksuckers.

Go re-learn both history and math.

Everything I don't understand is a cultural marxist conspiracy theory - The highly intellectual alpha males of Reddit

Not sure this would attain what you hope, all that would happen is the maximum wage/income would become the new badge of elitism. The majority would still get to wear a badge of shit.

No, the value of money would change accordingly.

I feel you. But at the end of day we are 7.5 billion bald apes who've learned that inter-troop relationships don't always involve shit flinging.

We need universal basic income

Yeah. A lot needs to change. A new revolution/movement. Capitalism/the system is unsustainable. We wouldn't last another 50 years under it anyway. The elite know that and want to control the destruction to control the result.

There are a lot of things that could destroy the elites power overnight. It's mostly just too much change. I think it's because we are at a slightly, but significantly higher frequency of consciousness. A lot of things have contributed to it, the main one being the Internet imo. We're seeing a level of potential democracy never seen before and there are many factions fighting for what's left of the power.

You mean communism?

I like socialism a lot and agree we need to find a way to spread the wealth in order to better our society and not the lives of 1% of the worlds population.

please read this on why money is not evil, is necessary and society would not exist without it: https://mises.org/library/mises-basics-money or watch this video, if you're not a reader: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMUnOvEmUl4

Guys, most of these rich fucks dont make their money off of wages/salary. Holdings, property, assets, etc.

Here's the problem. Let's say I have a business with a billion dollars income and a 100 million dollar overhead. What about the last 900 million. Oh um uh I'm putting that into research for me wss improvements to the business. So really I have 0 net profit.

Please explain how to "max out" R&D in a business. It's not an RPG with a skill cap.

So basically a business shouldn't innovate if it leads to more than $25 million a year.

This incentivizes the wrong kind of behavior, but this whole rule is devoid of consideration of any incentives whatsoever.

He is completely ignorant when it comes to economics. Best not to waste your time.

This is America.... this goes against our core beliefs, bring this back to China and over to a liberal sub.

This is actually very generous, that leftist in France wants to tax income over 430k 100%. What it comes down to is an ethical battle; is it ethical to "punish" the very successful/"limit" personal liberty vs. Is it ethical to let the very successful dominate the economy and the political scene to their exclusive benefit, socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the 99%. Then you get into private property, assets, stocks, upper distribution of wealth, etc.

Acknowledging reality and the current, pressing needs of the masses to not only survive but have a chance to be self-sufficient in this world should wipe out the "liberty" based concerns (but of course I would say this, I'm a leftist myself. Just as someone on the right would say "this isn't about ideology it's about what's good and real and truly free.") The back and forth lasts forever-- but clearly, here in America, the system maintains and is only getting worse for the vast majority of workers and citizens. Trump is a mascot for this decline.

What it comes down to is an ethical battle; is it ethical to "punish" the very successful/"limit" personal liberty vs. Is it ethical to let the very successful dominate the economy and the political scene to their exclusive benefit, socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the 99%. Then you get into private property, assets, stocks, upper distribution of wealth, etc.

There are other ways to do away with the second that don't necessarily limit the first. This is not one of them.

If there was a real honest society based on sharing and caring about everyone, Earth could have been a paradise. Unfortunately we have been enslaved by Satanists...

this has been shown not to work (see Ben and Jerry's example). I sympathize with the sentiment, but the only way to eliminate the monopolistic and cartelistic aberrations of today's system is to abolish any government-corporate collaboration. the best way to start this is to abolish the federal reserve, believe it or not.

[removed]

please read this on why money is not evil, is necessary and society would not exist without it: https://mises.org/library/mises-basics-money

or watch this video, if you're not a reader: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMUnOvEmUl4

And you don't think his money is going back into the economy throw him purchasing stables feed or anything else for the horse hobby, what about paying the jockeys and trainers? Clear cut case of people who underachieved complaining about those who achieved more. You also fail to look at other things that fuck our economy like government assistance the drug war and the black budget. But nope its definitely those business owners who worked their asses off. Its their fault others are poor 😑

Because bitching an moaning about someone who worked for more is totally doing something. What corporations specifically? I wasn't aware tops ceos of say Microsoft apple or samsung are making 25-30 mil. You keep up that good fight and keep fighting "the man".

The people you should be looking into could wipe their shitty asses with 25mil. Quit building up that strawman

There was a governor who had an idea like this and it was popular. They killed him because of it. Huey Long.

notice how Martin Luther King only died after he turned his attention for racism to classism and started calling himself a democratic socialist.

Go take a reading comprehension class. Over the course of his career accumulated over 25 mil. Average of 5 mil a year yes but all while living on the budget of a 100k household. No lambos. All leases and basic models. Like I said before and say again. Keep on building up and fighting this strawman. Maybe go try and make money instead of worrying about who has more than you and how you can take what they earned?

Also links to your statistics which most of us learn by the end of college are skewed with a biased narrative?

This is all coming from someone too that has bought his own cars and pays for his own shit even though "daddy is rich". Then again I was raised with work ethic mucking stalls at age 10 for video game money. Seems to be a problem with most of the world.

People that make 25 million a year aren't making that from wages.

Rich people don't earn money from wages. Money on that scale comes from investments and other things that can't be limited by a wage law.

People would just hide their wealth further in fake corporations. If anything they might even be taxed less if this were to happen.

Why should we punish the successful by implementing a cap on income or net revenue?

Taxation is Theft anyway. Imagine for a second if you will... If you make $11/hr and work 160hrs/month, you will make $1,760/month. Of that $1,760/month you will pay almost $400 in taxes. Imagine how much better off we'd all be if we weren't paying taxes. I'd be able to afford a BRAND NEW car with that extra $400/month.

Money isn't the problem, taxes are.

No, fuck off to your commie land

I could almost agree with you, except for one thing: human nature.

First it starts off at a high arbitrary level.

Then the government decides to lower that level just a bit, but it's ok.

Then they keep lowering it, and lowering it until instead of 25 million, you have 25,000.

Just like the income tax was only supposed to be for high earners then everyone ended up with it, what would stop the same thing from happening here?

Further, if I am acting in accordance to the law and have made my money legally, who are you to decide to put a cap on it?

Finally, what is to stop a multi-national company from moving their headquarters to country that does not have an income cap? Now you have fucked over the businesses in your own country, and have given incentive for other companies looking to attract CEO/Board talent to take them to the next level to do the same.

Nailed it.

Business would just move to other countries that want their tax dollars. Of course OP will just make it illegal to leave the country and illegal to have foreign business start up in the US and have the money moved overseas.

This would destroy incentive to have a business in the US, destroying the economy and lowering the standard of living.

You're a dumbass

Max wage cap will not do anyting *( except make the rich richer )
Most rich poeple do not work.
This cap would just reduce the amount of money a worker can make.
And make the rich yet richer.
An income cap could be posible ( can not have more as x income a year )
But then who would Start projects like Space x ?
We all croud fund it ?
Or will we be dependent on the government to start expansive projects ?

sounds like a terrible idea. than the billionaires who are billionaires now will always be the elite ruling class of the world unless we just take away their money.

Socialism and collectivism is that way, not here!

I'm a believer in 10 mil max yearly income. Properties, wages, everything together.

Anyone can live large on that and you can even budget for ludicrous luxury items if you wish.

FairTax solves all tax issues.

Flat consumption tax of 20%, and everyone, Bill Gates to the homeless, gets a rebate up to the poverty line. So if the poverty line is $35k, you get a yearly check from the government for $7k(35k*.2).

It's fair to all, provides a form of universal basic income, promotes savings and investment, and you can't skirt it.

Maximum wage is extremely dumb, just make sure great wealth only comes from providing great value.

The rich would still be able to dodge this tax because they don't make their wealth from "wages." The mega rich accrue their fortunes through "Asset Appreciation."

For example look at Bill Gates. He never was paid billions of dollars in wages. He simply owned a large portion of Microsoft which in the beginning was hardly worth anything. Then as Microsoft grew into a multi-billion dollar corporation Bill Gates suddenly found himself a billionaire. It is virtually impossible to prevent this kind of thing from happening without having government take control of corporations.

I remember one year when Kerry Packer (then the richest man in Australia) declared an income of 30 dollars. Perfectly legally. Good luck OP.

no, we don't.

Sorry but no limits on freedom aren't the way to go

Taxes and regulations are the problem my dude. Remove those and small business can thrive again. Government has no place in the private sector (or anywhere else IMO). Historically speaking government intervention in the private sector has failed over and over again. Just take a look at what's happening in Venezuela right now and you can see for yourself.

but they are also monopolizing the industry they are in instead of letting an up and coming businessman to invest into the market and create his own company that competes with the billionaires

Start by dismantling the regulations in place which achieve the same effect of protecting the larger players at the expense of newcomers.

You may not appreciate that this is very much how the government operates, but from their perspective, the established outfit (ie the billionaire) is a major employer.

Consider how many hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) are currently involved in the taxation racket. The government is terrified of simplifying to a flat tax, because it would render almost all of those people unemployed.

We may not be China, but that doesn't mean our government isn't as desperate to create jobs even when the market doesn't support that job creation.

There's more money being hoarded somehow as "buffer", than money in circulation at this point by the ultra wealthy. It's probably been this way for awhile.

Say you went into Subway, but had to walk through mile-long tunnels of bread that could be used to feed others, or open up new Subway franchises. Instead, they just sit there & never goto use.

Remember when Obama wanted to claw back some of the TARP money that had been used for executive bonuses?

Its crazy how rabidly anti CIA this sub is yet pro capitalism at the same time, its like people forget half the conspiracies the CIA was involved in were to propagate capitalism.

I feel like you fail to understand that these people have plenty of money and would flee the US so quickly like roaches when you hit the lights. Also very unAmerican belief, I know I will never be a millionaire hell I will never even own a million dollars. But I know I sure don't have a right to stand in someone else's way.

Just need a sliding tax bracket with a 90% tax rate for anybody earning $1,000,000 / yr or more.

We don't need taxes. We could print a metric shit ton of money and just live off the interest.

Unfortunately both sides of the Isle or not willing to have the country live within it's means.

When i see someone successful and rich i don't think"they have too much" i think"good for them. They earned it"

It would be nice to see more self government of the rich in ways of passing this wealth on but that's up to them. It's their choice to make.

The only way that you are taking money from people is at the end of a gun. I'm not comfortable with that.

You mean for example, this guy? He's a millionaire because someone literally saw him walking around, thought, "people are fucking stupid," and figured this guy would satisfy their needs. He was right. You must be too. He totally earned it.

Lolwut?

A maximum wage INSTEAD OF HIGHER TAXES on the rich is also important, because higher taxes only ever give the illusion of being for the benefit of the people. Too much is going to the federal government and not enough to the states. The feds shortstop the funds and blow it all on defense contracts, subsidies, pork barrel, etc, not to mention massive inefficiency and lack of accountability.

Capping net income on the wealthy keeps them from controlling the government, manipulating the markets and chasing yield in insane schemes that only end up hurting the little guy.

This was the one of the original purposes of the income tax. It used to be very progressive and was a way to limit upper incomes.

It's always statist authoritarians with no ability or desire to create anything that claim money is evil. Demanding that everyone sacrifice themselves to compensate for your inadequacies and having the government enforce your will is the real evil. Not to mention the new culture of exploitation that would be created in your gift economy.

Wage isn't the issue. Wealth is.

No dude, just, no.

I actually​ reached maximum pay as a clerk at a supermarket making $10.60 an hour.

Warren Buffet laughs in your face

10? 100? I don't know, I'm not an economist. I reckon It could vary depending on the size of the company and maybe by type of company.

This is key, OP has a great idea but it'll never work if the rich can just game the system into showing a "loss" for the year

No, the value of money would change accordingly.

/>wage cap />wage />marxism

Because the poor CEO's will suffer if they only make 50x what their employees make?

So you're fine with all the Hillary Clinton (has been gone for 6 months) "lock her up" posts and the John Podesta pizzagate emails, but talking about a global conspiracy by the wealthy to horde wealth and possible solutions to it is a bridge too far?

So why don't you argue your points instead of trying to shut the post down? Sidebar- Conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. I'd say there is LITTLE doubt that wealth inequality fits the description of harmful. I don't know that this solution works at all and I'm more of the mind of helping others than I am hindering people. It's a twisted cycle, though and I should know because I've been a part of it: "Go do market research surveys against competitors and don't come back to me until you come back with something that justifies a raise for the CEO to the board." (and hopefully when my review comes around I'll get a nice perk for inflating their wealth further) proceeds to go to companies that pay their CEOs outrageous pay and prints it out

Forgot that this sub only allowed conservative narratives and agendas.

Marxism is not something to be implemented.

Marx said numerous times there has to be a world-wide communist revolution implemented relatively simultaneously.

"Empirically communism is only possible as the act of dominant peoples 'all at once' and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism."

"In all revolutions up until now the mod off activity always remained unscathed and it was only a question of a different distribution of this activity, a new distribution of labor to other persons, while the communist revolution is directed against the preceding mode of activity, does away with labour, and abolishes the rule of all classes with the classes themselves, because it is carried through by the class which no longer counts as a class in society, is not recognized as a class, and is in itself the expression of the dissolution of all classes, nationalities, etc within present society."

Both quotes are from Property, Labour, Alienation written by Marx and Engels.

Yet the gap keeps widening between the upper and lower classes. The U.S. is nowhere near a socialism philosophy. Are you seriously proposing that? You didn't say socialism, but termed it "that's not capitalism".

The rich act very different from the vast masses living in the U.S. I mentioned those with money and power practicing aspects of socialism, but the government isn't "giving" it to them. They hoard the wealth all for themselves with the help of our corrupt politicians, which is a significant factor in our crony capitalistic system.

I love it when people point out that the far left is authoritarian, as if it wasn't inherently obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that going too far in either direction leads to despotism.

But no, I'm sure that the far right have no hands at all in politicizing institutions or being full of shit and hypocrisy.

Why is it that when someone claims something is inherently socialist/Marxist/communist that they have no idea what any of those ideas are?

People love their social security, Medicare, freeways, fire departments, police stations, public schools, water, electricity, and national parks...but god damn it socialism/taxes are evil!

How is a maximum wage marxist exactly?

People don't get equal portions in capitalist society, neither would people under a maximum wage society...

But the numbers would actually make sense for once, and not trillions made regularly in funny money simply because there isn't enough to pay bonuses to bankers and wallstreet cocksuckers.

Go re-learn both history and math.

that is just naivety. we're not talking about Jesus, we're talking about CEOs.

if you could get a better salary somewhere else, would you stay in your current less rewarding job?

any normal person goes for the highest reward. and sure, there are other factors at play, but obviously ceteris paribus everyone prefers to earn more than to earn less.

Same as the French system. It works