FDR Caps Income At $25,000

No, there's not. Not for the vast majority. There are those who aren't interested in money, or are only interested in making ends meet. But nowhere near enough to build an economy around. Without greed and blind competition, we'd all be stone age hunter-gatherers. Our desire to have more, so much more than we need and to outdo some other fool no matter what the cost has propelled us to where we are, for better and worse. I'm not saying we're better off because of our greed instinct. Hunter-gatherers bands (in the few places they still exist) seem to be no more miserable than anyone else. But those bands who develop (or acquire) better tools and organization due to greed soon can do whatever they want to those bands who do not.
 
Not that anyone need spend their time convincing me, but I'm still not convinced that the predictions here would come to pass. I don't see anybody fleeing the country over this, and I don't see it bringing down capitalism or the American Way of Life* (either in the 100% tax or with the multiplier caveat.)

Sure, it won't last long- I give it until 1954 at the most, with '46 a more likely reversion date. I don't see violent reaction over this if it really is designed to only hit the very richest people. Comfort tends to make one non-violent.
So the country's not going to swing violently to the right any more than OTL, and the effort to get this thing off the books may even result in a more liberal median voter (file this under my pseudo-scientific co-option of Newton's Third Law.)

But honestly, is all the talk of systems breaking down and the exodus of industry from the native shores just hyperbole, or do people actually have theories to hang that talk on?



*(hey, anybody ever notice if you acronym that you get AWoL?:D)
 
You're either Gene Roddenberry or a New Labour focus group.
No, I'm not - and since when are New "Labour" anti-capitalist?

I, personally, don't give a shit as long as I have enough to live on, and am doing something I like.

True, I might think differently if I actually made a lot of money, but I don't.

No, there's not. Not for the vast majority. There are those who aren't interested in money, or are only interested in making ends meet. But nowhere near enough to build an economy around. Without greed and blind competition, we'd all be stone age hunter-gatherers.
And the proof of this is..?
 
No, I'm not - and since when are New "Labour" anti-capitalist?

I, personally, don't give a shit as long as I have enough to live on, and am doing something I like.

True, I might think differently if I actually made a lot of money, but I don't.


And the proof of this is..?

Alt, money is the driving force of not only competition of others but personal competition. This is the same reason why socialism never worked. Think of it this way: lets say you're a machinist in a factory making 20k a year, that is the maximum and minimum you will ever recieve. Even if you were to get promoted to the supervisor position of all other machinists, you'd still make the same.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't try anymore, I wouldn't care about promotion or pushing myself harder. I would end up just maintaining enough not to get fired.

The proof is what I just explained.
 
Alt, money is the driving force of not only competition of others but personal competition. This is the same reason why socialism never worked. Think of it this way: lets say you're a machinist in a factory making 20k a year, that is the maximum and minimum you will ever recieve. Even if you were to get promoted to the supervisor position of all other machinists, you'd still make the same.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't try anymore, I wouldn't care about promotion or pushing myself harder. I would end up just maintaining enough not to get fired.

The proof is what I just explained.

Your example also missed something important. With such a promotion comes increased responsibilities if an individual is not compensated for the more that is asked for him why seek promotion. Also want about the various jobs that need a higher education. Why seek a higher degree if it doesn't won't get one an advantage somewhere.

I suspect accounting for inflation the maximum wouldn't remain $25,000 dollars. Yet, how will someone safe the money necessary to buy a house, own a car or let alone put gas in it? Are we contemplating price controls also?
 
Your example also missed something important. With such a promotion comes increased responsibilities if an individual is not compensated for the more that is asked for him why seek promotion. Also want about the various jobs that need a higher education. Why seek a higher degree if it doesn't won't get one an advantage somewhere.

I suspect accounting for inflation the maximum wouldn't remain $25,000 dollars. Yet, how will someone safe the money necessary to buy a house, own a car or let alone put gas in it? Are we contemplating price controls also?

Ah! I knew I was forgetting a few things. Been about four years since I was in an economics class, which by the way; we spent more time talking about the failures of socialism than we did studying economic principles.
 
So, the general consensus is if this happened, nobody would bother working and the entire economy would have collapsed?

no, IMO, people wouldn't stop working... but nobody would bother to make more than $25,000 per year. There's no point to it if the government is just going to take it all. People will reduce their salaries and take other perks (more vacation, etc.), basically find ways to make their income stop at $25,000....
 
Duh duh duh

The problem with creating a cap is that you remove rewards for specialized work. Why bother to be the best if those far inferior to you and your work stand to make the same amount of money. This is just a manner to reward mediocrity and hurt excellence. You know, socialist.
 
The problem with creating a cap is that you remove rewards for specialized work. Why bother to be the best if those far inferior to you and your work stand to make the same amount of money. This is just a manner to reward mediocrity and hurt excellence. You know, socialist.

Well if we're worried about rewarding mediocrity, maybe FDR can bargain this away in favor of doing away with the trust fund culture.:p

And anyway, what exactly does the current, spectacularly collapsing system reward if not the mediocre pseudo-science of economics?

(I should just walk away from this thread. the capitalists are just itching to bait someone and now I'm baiting back.)
 
Alt, money is the driving force of not only competition of others but personal competition. This is the same reason why socialism never worked. Think of it this way: lets say you're a machinist in a factory making 20k a year, that is the maximum and minimum you will ever recieve. Even if you were to get promoted to the supervisor position of all other machinists, you'd still make the same.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't try anymore, I wouldn't care about promotion or pushing myself harder. I would end up just maintaining enough not to get fired.

The proof is what I just explained.

Money is not the only driving factor. I'd say power and prestige are strong motivating factors. Now these are strongly related to income and wealth, but not fully. For instance there would be some who would want the supervisor's job even if it didn't pay anymore (or very little more), they would want the rank rather than the money, ie for reasons of personal esteem, even control freakery.

Likewise consider the vast number of people who are willing to leave high-flying business careers to go into the affluent but far less lucrative world of politics. Obviously they are willing to give up money for power and prestige.

I'm not saying that an income cap is a good idea, it would be a very bad idea IMHO, but I think there are other motivators apart from money.
 
Money is not the only driving factor. I'd say power and prestige are strong motivating factors. Now these are strongly related to income and wealth, but not fully. For instance there would be some who would want the supervisor's job even if it didn't pay anymore (or very little more), they would want the rank rather than the money, ie for reasons of personal esteem, even control freakery.

Likewise consider the vast number of people who are willing to leave high-flying business careers to go into the affluent but far less lucrative world of politics. Obviously they are willing to give up money for power and prestige.

I'm not saying that an income cap is a good idea, it would be a very bad idea IMHO, but I think there are other motivators apart from money.
Thank Christ for that, it's not just me.

BTW, wow, people are really down on socialism.

Because, you know, Sweden's such a horrible place isn't it?
 
not really socialism per se, just an absurdly low income cap. Does the one imply the other?
No, of course they don't. Someone once asked me "you're a socialist? So you want everyone to be poor?"

...

I didn't know where to start on how she was wrong... :rolleyes:

Anyway, why is $300,000 (~£150,000) 'absurdly low'? More than most people see in a year...

I'm just not seeing the problem with an income cap as such here. I feel that, for instance, MDs of large companies are massively overpaid, or rather, 'rewarded' with their bonuses. Whether or not they are good at their job or they run the company into the ground doesn't seem to matter. However, that's an issue for a different debate.

Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on it...
 
not really socialism per se, just an absurdly low income cap. Does the one imply the other?

Also, whilst I think that a 100% tax is unlikely to have ever have been implemented, if we are to assume a tax over 90% (which I believe the USA did have until the 1960's), then it is usually the case that nations with such high tax rates have massive amounts of tax deductions which predominantly benefit the very rich. In other word most don't end up paying any near the amount of tax you would assume that they do. Of course this can have many bad effects by distoring investment decisions, but it is likely to assuage the concern of the very rich.
 
Also, whilst I think that a 100% tax is unlikely to have ever have been implemented, if we are to assume a tax over 90% (which I believe the USA did have until the 1960's), then it is usually the case that nations with such high tax rates have massive amounts of tax deductions which predominantly benefit the very rich. In other word most don't end up paying any near the amount of tax you would assume that they do. Of course this can have many bad effects by distoring investment decisions, but it is likely to assuage the concern of the very rich.

true... but can you blame them? They have the money and influence, why wouldn't they use it to have laws written to allow them to keep the bigger part of their earnings rather than giving it to the government. I personally think it's gone too far and that there are too many tax loopholes for the rich, but I understand just why and how we ended up there....
 
Anyway, why is $300,000 (~£150,000) 'absurdly low'? More than most people see in a year...

because any kind of income cap is a whopping big incentive killer. If someone invents something extraordinary, or is a superb CEO who takes his company into the top ten profit earners, why shouldn't they personally make millions off of it? Even in you tax part of their income at 75%, they at least have some incentive to do well and earn that extra income. This doesn't mean that I approve of all the tax loopholes for the rich or think that mediocre CEOs should make as much as they do, but I highly approve of the "American dream" concept of getting rich by doing something extraordinary in business....
 
because any kind of income cap is a whopping big incentive killer. If someone invents something extraordinary, or is a superb CEO who takes his company into the top ten profit earners, why shouldn't they personally make millions off of it? Even in you tax part of their income at 75%, they at least have some incentive to do well and earn that extra income. This doesn't mean that I approve of all the tax loopholes for the rich or think that mediocre CEOs should make as much as they do, but I highly approve of the "American dream" concept of getting rich by doing something extraordinary in business....
...
I'd be fine with that.
 
I've actually thought that the bracket idea in corporations (eg: top dogs earning 500% more than the lowest etc.) is a good basis for business tax, with brakes for companies that pay more, offer higher bonuses for Joe Bloggs and higher tax for those that don't, as a flag-waver for partial employee ownership in business (a proud Labour/Co-Op Party drone) its always interested me.

Still its got little to do with this POD I'm just rambling :rolleyes:
 
Thank Christ for that, it's not just me.

BTW, wow, people are really down on socialism.

Because, you know, Sweden's such a horrible place isn't it?

But it is. We have over one million unemployed, hiding out in makework schemes and reeducation. The government takes a net 70 % of Joe Average's salary and uses it to pay for multiculture, foreign aid and support to "cultural" activities. You can go to jail if you preach against homosexuality, and the media brands you as a Nazi if you voice the slightest opposition to unlimited immigration. Under the last government, people were forcibly retired if they were on sick leave for more than a month or two. And everything's regulated; we have no freedom. Getting permission to own a gun is next to impossible. The government has a monopoly on all sale of off-the-shelf alcohol (except beer), all gambling, and an oligopoly on electricity, among other things.

And then THINGS ARE STILL MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE TWENTY YEARS AGO!

Sweden might be a dream for liberals, but it's a horror for anyone who values his freedom.
 
Top