100% in taxes for people who earn over 40k euro/ month.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

OneCatch :

Bad:

-It reduces the impetus for higher earners to progress further up the scale

It's a terrible way to go about it but this isn't necessarily a bad thing, we have a horrible imbalance of people who are trying to earn more money for the sake of it at the moment. If we could find the right way to have a higher proportion of our corporate overlords be in their position because they want to actually do something.

...I can dream... :\

Esotera:
I don't think 100% is a very good idea, maybe something nearer a 90% for very high incomes would be fair, but you have to strike a balance between having wealth redistribution and courting business.

Half a million euros isn't really that much over a year compared to how much the super-rich can earn.

Why would ANYONE bother working to create a business or be a great performer or doing ANYTHING well if all the money they get for their work is stolen from them?

Edit:
I just checked how much 40k Euro is in my currency (Australian dollars) and that's even more insane! It equates to about 50k AUD, well below the average income in Australia. A decent teacher makes around 60-65k, truck drivers that do long hauls often get over 100k.

So basically their goal is to end all production and have no one bother working more than 25-30 hours a week because if they do they'll get nothing for it.

zarguhl:

I just checked how much 40k Euro is in my currency (Australian dollars) and that's even more insane! It equates to about 50k AUD, well below the average income in Australia. A decent teacher makes around 60-65k, truck drivers that do long hauls often get over 100k.

I really doubt the average Australian makes 60-65k per month.

Why would ANYONE bother working to create a business or be a great performer or doing ANYTHING well if all the money they get for their work is stolen from them?

I don't think you understand how taxes work. 100% over 40k would mean 100% only on all that goes past 40k, so it's effectively an income cap, not taking the whole damn thing.

Also, I dunno, why do people bother doing stuff they don't get paid for?

Vegosiux:
[quote="zarguhl" post="528.378970.14845025"]

I don't think you understand how taxes work. 100% over 40k would mean 100% only on all that goes past 40k, so it's effectively an income cap, not taking the whole damn thing.

Also, I dunno, why do people bother doing stuff they don't get paid for?

Ah, I missed that it was 40k a month rather than a year. So it's not as bad as I thought.

Still stupid, because it basically puts a maximum cap on income and forces people into servitude basically. If you're forced to support others with your work, you're just a glorified servant, however rich you are.

zarguhl:

Still stupid, because it basically puts a maximum cap on income and forces people into servitude basically. If you're forced to support others with your work, you're just a glorified servant, however rich you are.

Ehh, yes, it is stupid, that much I agree on. I'm all for progressive taxation, but that's really stretching it.

However, any work you do, at all, is supporting others in some way. That's the thing with a society, it's greater than just the sum of all the individuals, and if you want a functioning one, you need to keep wealth distribution mechanisms in place.

And, well, nobody works ten thousand times as hard as I do (it wouldn't be physically, mentally or even temporally possible), so I don't see why some people are making ten thousand time as much as I do. That is, if we want to go by the saying that what you make should reflect the amount and quality of your work. I'm not even calling myself "one of the hardest workers ever", but that's still four orders of magnitude, it's just ridiculous.

PS: I'm also not saying we should cap people's income, I'm saying that honest work should earn honest pay. Which is not always the case.

Vegosiux:
[quote="zarguhl" post="528.378970.14845255"]
And, well, nobody works ten thousand times as hard as I do (it wouldn't be physically, mentally or even temporally possible)

While it's probably true that noone works 10,000 times harder than you, it is entirely possible for someone to produce or create value 10,000 times more than you. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates as easy examples.

They work (worked) hard, but their value wasn't in the hours or effort they put in, it was in the value of their creations to society as a whole.

It's like successful musicians, actors, etc, don't work that much harder than the average hard worker. They just do things that very few people can do and thus their activity is more valuable.

Most successful actors for example COULD learn to be a really good hard working plumber. Not many if any plumbers could make a living as a successful actor.

zarguhl:

While it's probably true that noone works 10,000 times harder than you, it is entirely possible for someone to produce or create value 10,000 times more than you. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates as easy examples.

Well, I'm going to go down the "WTF was that" road, but let's just say that when Louis XIV said "L'etat c'est moi" he was very, very wrong if you ask me. Nobody can create something that big on their own. Some people understand it, some people don't. And I could be very snide here and make a comment about what good was it all for Jobs in the end. Suffice to say, to me, he was just another name in the obituaries.

They work (worked) hard, but their value wasn't in the hours or effort they put in, it was in the value of their creations to society as a whole.

Yes, well, I like to remember the name of that one person who taught me about the workings of Windows 3.11 when I was a kid. He wasn't even a Microsoft employee (and I suspect his copy was pirated, seeing as it came on 11 3.5", 1.44MB diskettes with no distinct labels...). But let's just say that without that one nameless person, Bill Gates maybe wouldn't have sold another copy of it, or I might have been a Linux person today.

It's like successful musicians, actors, etc, don't work that much harder than the average hard worker. They just do things that very few people can do and thus their activity is more valuable.

I'll refrain from commenting on this one, considering just how much I despise modern pop culture.

Most successful actors for example COULD learn to be a really good hard working plumber. Not many if any plumbers could make a living as a successful actor.

There's hardly anything to learn about being a successful actor. An anecdote I once heard was that Mel Gibson was pulled into the showbiz through a bar brawl. He just looked good with a bloodied face; and someone who mattered happened to see that. That's all.

Not sure how true that actually is, but it's food for thought. To say nothing of the fact that "good" doesn't necessarily translate into "successful". And that the latter doesn't imply the former.

zarguhl:

Why would ANYONE bother working to create a business or be a great performer or doing ANYTHING well if all the money they get for their work is stolen from them?

Edit:
I just checked how much 40k Euro is in my currency (Australian dollars) and that's even more insane! It equates to about 50k AUD, well below the average income in Australia. A decent teacher makes around 60-65k, truck drivers that do long hauls often get over 100k.

So basically their goal is to end all production and have no one bother working more than 25-30 hours a week because if they do they'll get nothing for it.

The average income in Australia is over half a million every year? In the UK or the EU that is worth a fair amount of money.

A lot of people aren't in those sort of things for the money. Once you have a sufficient amount to live comfortably on, you don't really need much more after a certain threshold, and it could be better spent helping people who actually need it.

sanquin:
Was this a world-wide thing, then I'd support it. No one NEEDS over 500k a year. Really, you don't. Heck, I'd say you don't even need more half that. So basically not allowing wages over 500k a year is a good idea, in my opinion.

HOWEVER, there's a problem. People that earn more than that will just move to another country. This doesn't fix anything. Actually, it would hurt the German economy as anyone earning too much according to this rule would just take all their money and leave. And then there's also always loopholes.

Like I said, if it was a world-wide thing I'd support it. But it's not, so it sucks.

Well, to be fair. People from poorer countries might thing that earning 1000E/month is the most someone should have.

captcha: marital aid

Blablahb:
But this isn't about what is possible. I've been able to live off € 600 a month. Does that mean I'm entitled to claim you're overspending with € 1100 and would need heavier taxes? No, of course not.

This discussion not about what is necessary, it's about what is nice to have. If you're talking a measure as draconic as an income cap, you need to place that at a point where there pretty much is nothing sensible left to buy. Below that would be just unfair, that would be building a taxation system on jealousy because your experience of the minimum needed, becomes a standard for other people's maximum allowed.

I mean, I can't buy buying a sports car. Strikes me as a waste of money. But that doesn't mean nobody should be able to buy them. Opinions differ. Someone else in turn could probably find things on my budget they don't see a point in.

Okay, different proposal then. A 'compromise'. Studies have shown that money does increase happiness. But unly up until about 75k a month. After that, happiness starts to decline rapidly. So, we cap the money at 900k a year. (Which is 75k a month)

Vegosiux:

zarguhl:

I just checked how much 40k Euro is in my currency (Australian dollars) and that's even more insane! It equates to about 50k AUD, well below the average income in Australia. A decent teacher makes around 60-65k, truck drivers that do long hauls often get over 100k.

I really doubt the average Australian makes 60-65k per month.

Why would ANYONE bother working to create a business or be a great performer or doing ANYTHING well if all the money they get for their work is stolen from them?

I don't think you understand how taxes work. 100% over 40k would mean 100% only on all that goes past 40k, so it's effectively an income cap, not taking the whole damn thing.

Also, I dunno, why do people bother doing stuff they don't get paid for?

In business? They don't tend to.

sanquin:
Okay, different proposal then. A 'compromise'. Studies have shown that money does increase happiness. But unly up until about 75k a month. After that, happiness starts to decline rapidly. So, we cap the money at 900k a year. (Which is 75k a month)

The problem that you're lowering tax revenue, promoting tax evasion and there's no real reason to take such a measure also applies in that case.

Anything where you leave someone with nothing to gain for himself is inevitably doomed.

Overhead:
This is nowhere near far enough. What's the point in maintaining Capitalism in some neutered state? Just get it over with and abolish private property and capitalism altogether.

Agreed, they will be called communists for this by everyone (except smart people) so they might as well go all the way.

Vegosiux:

Also, I dunno, why do people bother doing stuff they don't get paid for?

There are lots of ways to corral people into doing what they aren't paid for.

I, for instance, am paid on the assumption I do a 37h week. However, my contract also specifies I do hours "commensurate with the job" or whatever the precise wording is. Realistically, I do well over 40h on an normal week, and if stuff really time-consuming has needs to be done, I do over 60h a week. I do not get any form of overtime for these extra hours.

I do this because my ability to progress in this career is f***ed if I don't put the extra hours in. And that's basically it. Many employers rely on the pressure of competition from other workers to drive employees to do lots of work for them gratis. Want to keep your job? Then do more work for nothing. Want a promotion? Then do more work for nothing. Et cetera.

Blablahb:
The problem that you're lowering tax revenue, promoting tax evasion and there's no real reason to take such a measure also applies in that case.

Anything where you leave someone with nothing to gain for himself is inevitably doomed.

Okay, might be me but your words didn't make much sense to me. Can anyone or you yourself elaborate?

Agema:
There are lots of ways to corral people into doing what they aren't paid for.

I, for instance, am paid on the assumption I do a 37h week. However, my contract also specifies I do hours "commensurate with the job" or whatever the precise wording is. Realistically, I do well over 40h on an normal week, and if stuff really time-consuming has needs to be done, I do over 60h a week. I do not get any form of overtime for these extra hours.

I do this because my ability to progress in this career is f***ed if I don't put the extra hours in. And that's basically it. Many employers rely on the pressure of competition from other workers to drive employees to do lots of work for them gratis. Want to keep your job? Then do more work for nothing. Want a promotion? Then do more work for nothing. Et cetera.

I guess that's your choice then. Technically you can sue them over not paying you for over time. Sure, a few hours of overtime aren't something to bitch about. But over 20 hours more on some weeks? It's that fear of losing your job, or not getting that promotion that companies rely on to dodge the law. And you're allowing them to do so. Sure you might not get a promotion, but you'll get paid more anyway for all that over time.

So what if we tie this to job creation and improvement of workers conditions? I mean you have the $40k/month base limit and when a company your in creates jobs over over a certain amount they get a larger limit. If those jobs aren't part time then you get a larger cap. If you increase conditions in your work place by raising the lowest level of pay or giving benefits and once again a larger cap. It would probably need to be a percentage of that company's workforce to be fair to smaller businesses. What do you think?

Not the greatest idea but at least we have their higher earnings directly linked with a positive effect on the economy. It also kill the stunt where ceos are close to get there earning bonus but wont reach it so they fire a bunch of low paid unskilled that they know they can re-fill easily so the books look better and they get their bonuses.

I agree high earners should be taxed more (because the money is worth less than it is to the poor person) HOWEVER i think the highest it should go is around 95%

And thats with proper teiring, because having huge teir jumps really hurts people moving up in social class, which makes it something people would try and avoid.

Because frankly nobody NEEDS millions a month (the super high earners i speak of) to survive, but if they can earn it after that level of tax let them go for it.

Equally if such taxes were to be implemented, the government rather than individuals would have to take on the role of investing in new companies.

Which is problematic.

Vegosiux:

And, well, nobody works ten thousand times as hard as I do (it wouldn't be physically, mentally or even temporally possible), so I don't see why some people are making ten thousand time as much as I do. That is, if we want to go by the saying that what you make should reflect the amount and quality of your work. I'm not even calling myself "one of the hardest workers ever", but that's still four orders of magnitude, it's just ridiculous.

That's not how capitalism works. They make more than you because their labor has a higher market value.

peruvianskys:

Vegosiux:

And, well, nobody works ten thousand times as hard as I do (it wouldn't be physically, mentally or even temporally possible), so I don't see why some people are making ten thousand time as much as I do. That is, if we want to go by the saying that what you make should reflect the amount and quality of your work. I'm not even calling myself "one of the hardest workers ever", but that's still four orders of magnitude, it's just ridiculous.

That's not how capitalism works. They make more than you because their labor has a higher market value.

Do people even have a sense of proportion around here? You know what four orders of magnitude means? Sorry, not even "higher market value" is going to explain this one sufficiently.

bahumat42:
I agree high earners should be taxed more (because the money is worth less than it is to the poor person) HOWEVER i think the highest it should go is around 95%

And thats with proper teiring, because having huge teir jumps really hurts people moving up in social class, which makes it something people would try and avoid.

Because frankly nobody NEEDS millions a month (the super high earners i speak of) to survive, but if they can earn it after that level of tax let them go for it.

Equally if such taxes were to be implemented, the government rather than individuals would have to take on the role of investing in new companies.

Which is problematic.

Small business typically gets started by people who make a good business plan and take it to the bank for a loan.
You don't need millions and people who do have that kind of money, or make a couple 100K per year are typically executives already, who do not need to aim so low.
Small business owners don't set their wages to 500,000 Most new entrepreneurs will get out of bed for a honest living. The world isn't totally messed up yet.

The big worry here is big old corporations moving their offices elsewhere. That's where those big figures work.

veloper:

bahumat42:
I agree high earners should be taxed more (because the money is worth less than it is to the poor person) HOWEVER i think the highest it should go is around 95%

And thats with proper teiring, because having huge teir jumps really hurts people moving up in social class, which makes it something people would try and avoid.

Because frankly nobody NEEDS millions a month (the super high earners i speak of) to survive, but if they can earn it after that level of tax let them go for it.

Equally if such taxes were to be implemented, the government rather than individuals would have to take on the role of investing in new companies.

Which is problematic.

Small business typically gets started by people who make a good business plan and take it to the bank for a loan.
You don't need millions and people who do have that kind of money, or make a couple 100K per year are typically executives already, who do not need to aim so low.
Small business owners don't set their wages to 500,000 Most new entrepreneurs will get out of bed for a honest living. The world isn't totally messed up yet.

The big worry here is big old corporations moving their offices elsewhere. That's where those big figures work.

Originally you were right, but recently its been harder for small businesses to get business loans, banks have become much tighter on such things (understandably) but the need for new businesses remains. And i really think its within a countries interests to start new businesses to curb unemployment.

Its a tough situation out there right now.

Vegosiux:
Do people even have a sense of proportion around here? You know what four orders of magnitude means? Sorry, not even "higher market value" is going to explain this one sufficiently.

It does. The work of a CEO, of which there are maybe 100,000 of in America (that's a wild guess) is incredibly important to the functioning of this economy, whereas someone who works at Home Depot or even runs a small business isn't. Thus, they get paid more. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that the market value of a year spent guiding IBM is not going to be close to to someone who runs a bakery.

peruvianskys:
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that the market value of a year spent guiding IBM is not going to be close to to someone who runs a bakery.

And I'm not denying the fact that there indeed is a difference. What I'm saying is that the difference can't realistically be as large as the income on either side would imply. I mean, there's no way a claim that one year of guiding IBM equals running a bakery from the beginning of recorded history until today in terms of the absolute value of service it provided would be feasible.

Because people who "can't" for whatever reason automatically deserve everything they can't get through fair means, right? Sorry, but leftist policies only apply to those who aren't able to. They should not be catered to.

The world isn't about fairness, it's about application. I am glad I live in the States. If I work hard, I reap the benefits of what I have done. I don't have to bow to policies which thieve money from my pocket to give to someone who "needs it" based on a purely opinionated mode of thought.

Whoever said "no one needs a million dollars" misses the point entirely. The other person doesn't "need it" either if that is the case. It's not the responsibility of those who can to give to those who can't.

Arsen:
It's not the responsibility of those who can to give to those who can't.

You sure about that? I mean, okay, let's adopt that mindset. If you can't, fuck you, go die in a gutter, right? Good luck living past the age of three...days. And no don't you pull a "That's different" on me; because considering your statement, no, it's in no way different.

If there's no responsibility to help those who can't take care of themselves, let's just toss people out into the world the moment they're born. I mean, just because they "can't", why would they deserve to be catered to, right?

Okay, let's see how far you manage to shift the goalposts on this one.

Arsen:
I don't have to bow to policies which thieve money from my pocket to give to someone who "needs it" based on a purely opinionated mode of thought.

ZOMG TAXES IS THEFT!!!

Make no mistake, I think everyone should be able to opt out of paying taxes. But not paying taxes means you can't vote. Why? Because taxes pay for elections; why should you have access to something you haven't paid for? Because taxes are what enable states' policies, why should you have any say in something you're not contributing to?

Not paying taxes means that you're not protected by the law enforcement. Why? Because taxes pay for the law enforcement; why should you have access to something you haven't paid for?

But that's typical rightist talk, wanting all the benefits of a stable society with none of the responsibilities that come with it, all about "Me, me, me!".

Arsen:
If I work hard, I reap the benefits of what I have done.

...Benefits such as a $ 7-8 per hour wage, from which you can't live, let alone support a family.

You're paid exactly what your work is worth. Which is why your boss is paid more than you. His work is worth more than yours, even though it looks like he sits around playing minesweeper all day, because he makes sure you have your job.

Istvan:
You're surprised that communists are advocating communist policies?

This, pretty much. I mean, I would never support them but it's understandable that such ideas would come from them, especially since Die Linke has been in a bit of an upheaval lately and its very existence is in question as members are talking about breaking up the group. Some of the more radical elements are bound to speak up when it comes to re-direction.

peruvianskys:

Vegosiux:

And, well, nobody works ten thousand times as hard as I do (it wouldn't be physically, mentally or even temporally possible), so I don't see why some people are making ten thousand time as much as I do. That is, if we want to go by the saying that what you make should reflect the amount and quality of your work. I'm not even calling myself "one of the hardest workers ever", but that's still four orders of magnitude, it's just ridiculous.

That's not how capitalism works. They make more than you because their labor has a higher market value.

Valuable labour as in owning shares? Anyone can own shares. Absolutely anyone can own them. There's no marketable skills involved in buying shares. There's no marketable skills in lending money. That's how people who make 10,000 times the average wage get money. That's how the top 0.1% of earners create their wealth. Investment of Capital. Which doesn't require to be in the top 0.1% of the population in terms of creativity or intelligence. Actually many of these people pay investment bankers, accountants, and stock brokers to invest the money for them. So the current 'market' doesn't reward valuable labour nearly as much already owning lots money. Ergo inequality. Ergo loads of social and economic issues.

theonewhois3:

peruvianskys:

Vegosiux:

And, well, nobody works ten thousand times as hard as I do (it wouldn't be physically, mentally or even temporally possible), so I don't see why some people are making ten thousand time as much as I do. That is, if we want to go by the saying that what you make should reflect the amount and quality of your work. I'm not even calling myself "one of the hardest workers ever", but that's still four orders of magnitude, it's just ridiculous.

That's not how capitalism works. They make more than you because their labor has a higher market value.

Valuable labour as in owning shares? Anyone can own shares. Absolutely anyone can own them. There's no marketable skills involved in buying shares. There's no marketable skills in lending money. That's how people who make 10,000 times the average wage get money. That's how the top 0.1% of earners create their wealth. Investment of Capital. Which doesn't require to be in the top 0.1% of the population in terms of creativity or intelligence. Actually many of these people pay investment bankers, accountants, and stock brokers to invest the money for them. So the current 'market' doesn't reward valuable labour nearly as much already owning lots money. Ergo inequality. Ergo loads of social and economic issues.

Well it IS called -CAPITALISM-, not labourism. :P

adamtm:

theonewhois3:

peruvianskys:

That's not how capitalism works. They make more than you because their labor has a higher market value.

Valuable labour as in owning shares? Anyone can own shares. Absolutely anyone can own them. There's no marketable skills involved in buying shares. There's no marketable skills in lending money. That's how people who make 10,000 times the average wage get money. That's how the top 0.1% of earners create their wealth. Investment of Capital. Which doesn't require to be in the top 0.1% of the population in terms of creativity or intelligence. Actually many of these people pay investment bankers, accountants, and stock brokers to invest the money for them. So the current 'market' doesn't reward valuable labour nearly as much already owning lots money. Ergo inequality. Ergo loads of social and economic issues.

Well it IS called -CAPITALISM-, not labourism. :P

If this new economic system doesn't involve monocles and top hats I don't want to hear about it.

Vegosiux:

ZOMG TAXES IS THEFT!!!

Make no mistake, I think everyone should be able to opt out of paying taxes. But not paying taxes means you can't vote. Why? Because taxes pay for elections; why should you have access to something you haven't paid for? Because taxes are what enable states' policies, why should you have any say in something you're not contributing to?

Not paying taxes means that you're not protected by the law enforcement. Why? Because taxes pay for the law enforcement; why should you have access to something you haven't paid for?

But that's typical rightist talk, wanting all the benefits of a stable society with none of the responsibilities that come with it, all about "Me, me, me!".

The problem with this argument is that you are thinking in some black and white terms where the only options are not paying any taxes at all or paying massive taxes.

No, taxes are not theft. But massive unfair bullshit taxes are. There is never a justified reason to take away 75%+ of someone's income via taxing.

peruvianskys:

Vegosiux:
Do people even have a sense of proportion around here? You know what four orders of magnitude means? Sorry, not even "higher market value" is going to explain this one sufficiently.

It does. The work of a CEO, of which there are maybe 100,000 of in America (that's a wild guess) is incredibly important to the functioning of this economy, whereas someone who works at Home Depot or even runs a small business isn't. Thus, they get paid more. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that the market value of a year spent guiding IBM is not going to be close to to someone who runs a bakery.

In simpler terms, what he's saying is that the CEO of IBM may be 1,000,000 times more important than a baker, but that doesn't mean that the CEO of IBM deserves to get 1,000,000 times the bakers salary.

ShadowKatt:

In simpler terms, what he's saying is that the CEO of IBM may be 1,000,000 times more important than a baker, but that doesn't mean that the CEO of IBM deserves to get 1,000,000 times the bakers salary.

I'm not saying anything about what someone deserves or doesn't deserve; I'm simply correcting a general assumption that somehow how "hard" you work has anything to do with the value of that labor.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked