econimic ethics: should there be a cap on earningas?

[lancek4]

I propose that there should be a world forum that gets together a decides what is a reasonible amount of profit or earnings an individual or group can make, but so far as not to exclude being wealthy or luxury. Like, is 10 million reasonable? 5? 1 billion? 10 billion? And then whatever earnings is over that amount is 'recycled' into the lowest parts of the economy.


Hypothetical For example: I friend of mine makes approx. 4 million a year. He is a real good guy and actually provides a well needed specialized service for society, and he works hard. But besides his basically total freedom aside from his job, he bets on sports. Its a hobby. Like a 5000 and sometimes much more a single game hobby. Now is this 'reasonable'? That in a year he might lose anywhere between 50-100k a year on sports? And nevermind the the income of the sports players themselves !?!

Does he have more responsibility to the society and system than what he provides in his job and taxes?

It would be similar to 'reasonable doubt' by which we determine guilt in the US.

Therer are of course many issues within this.

[tbieter]

"I propose that there should be a world forum that gets together a decides what is a reasonible amount of profit or earnings an individual or group can make, but so far as not to exclude being wealthy or luxury. Like, is 10 million reasonable? 5? 1 billion? 10 billion? And then whatever earnings is over that amount is 'recycled' into the lowest parts of the economy."

"And then whatever earnings is over that amount is 'recycled' into the lowest parts of the economy."

I suggest that the high income earner will quit his productive activities when he approaches the mandatory income limit.

Your proposal calls for supererogatory economic activity.

Supererogatory ethical actions are extremely rare.


supererogatory
Above and beyond the call of duty. Although agents are not obliged by the dictates of ordinary morality to perform supererogatory acts—extraordinary feats of heroism or extreme deeds of self-sacrifice, for example—they may be commended for doing so. Normative theories that demand the performance of the best possible action in every circumstance render supererogation impossible by identifying the permissible with the obligatory.
Recommended Reading: Gregory Mellema, Beyond the Call of Duty: Supererogation, Obligation, and Offence (SUNY, 1991) {at Amazon.com}.
Also see SEP, Eugene V. Torisky, and IEP.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_controls

[artisticsolution]

I suggest that the high income earner will quit his productive activities when he approaches the mandatory income limit.

Your proposal calls for supererogatory economic activity.

Supererogatory ethical actions are extremely rare.

I believe you are right, Tom. But I don't see a problem there...it might just allow another entrepreneur to pick up the slack in order to cut off his slice of the pie. After all, if there is a fortune to be made is there any reason why only one person should have the monopoly?

[lancek4]

I agree with you both. The US was founded upon a specific context of the free individual that has no bounds placed upon earning potential and such a limit might alter capitolism as we now know it.
And it seems under this rubric, eventually there would be a definate power class instead of the indefinite one we have now.

It seems a shift in morality would be in order, in what responsibility means.

What of the second part: should there be such a responsibility?
Already government enforces particular responsibilities such as car insurance (at least in the States) which supposedly serve the larger social good.

[Wootah]

If I own a shop I'm not letting another entrepreneur use it to sell stuff.

[artisticsolution]

If I own a shop I'm not letting another entrepreneur use it to sell stuff.

Who said anything about another entrepreneur using your shop? They could open their own...where there is money to be made there are people who can and will make it....that is if they have a fair shot at making it.

I am simply talking about not allowing you to corner the market on making money. If you are only allowed to make so much with your business, and there is still demand...then there will be others who get into your line of work. I am talking about true competition. And I don't think we would even have to limit your income potential. All we would have to do was redefine what we mean by having a monopoly. If we said that you could not limit other people from owning a similar business, or limit your ability to gobble up smaller businesses, we could begin to see more stable businesses competing and thus creating a more stable economy.

A winner take all attitude only benefits 1 person but we live in a world where there is more than 1 person. We need to make sure that everyone has a chance at getting a piece of the pie.

[Arising_uk]

I suggest that the high income earner will quit his productive activities when he approaches the mandatory income limit.[/size]

Not that I agree with the original post but funny how this principle is never applied to the bottom-end as a reason to increse their renumeration? Especially since they may be involved in functions upon which our lives, health and society may actually depend.

[lancek4]

I suggest that the high income earner will quit his productive activities when he approaches the mandatory income limit.[/size]

Not that I agree with the original post but funny how this principle is never applied to the bottom-end as a reason to increse their renumeration? Especially since they may be involved in functions upon which our lives, health and society may actually depend.

I'm not sure of your point here. What are 'renumerations'? Are you saying that people who make too little will also decrease their production? Or are you saying that there should be a cap on how little a person is allowed to make, that if they make too little then society is required to do something? And I don't mean welfare; something else.

But which do you mean?

[Wootah]

If I own a shop I'm not letting another entrepreneur use it to sell stuff.

Who said anything about another entrepreneur using your shop? They could open their own...where there is money to be made there are people who can and will make it....that is if they have a fair shot at making it.

I am simply talking about not allowing you to corner the market on making money. If you are only allowed to make so much with your business, and there is still demand...then there will be others who get into your line of work. I am talking about true competition. And I don't think we would even have to limit your income potential. All we would have to do was redefine what we mean by having a monopoly. If we said that you could not limit other people from owning a similar business, or limit your ability to gobble up smaller businesses, we could begin to see more stable businesses competing and thus creating a more stable economy.

A winner take all attitude only benefits 1 person but we live in a world where there is more than 1 person. We need to make sure that everyone has a chance at getting a piece of the pie.

How will person B work/ produce enough without the shop or tools? Are you asking me to share those as well? What if they get damaged or not cleaned?

Socialism is stupid.

[Arising_uk]

Socialism is stupid.

I doubt that what is being described is Socialism.

Singapore has socialist aspects and they are far from stupid.

[AustinGJones]

i personally don't even like the concept of a physical currency. As it is right now i think their should be a cap but a system where you can apply to pull in more money if you have a good enough reason to do so. I don't like capitalism, at least what it has become.

[chaz wyman]

I propose that there should be a world forum that gets together a decides what is a reasonible amount of profit or earnings an individual or group can make, but so far as not to exclude being wealthy or luxury. Like, is 10 million reasonable? 5? 1 billion? 10 billion? And then whatever earnings is over that amount is 'recycled' into the lowest parts of the economy.


Hypothetical For example: I friend of mine makes approx. 4 million a year. He is a real good guy and actually provides a well needed specialized service for society, and he works hard. But besides his basically total freedom aside from his job, he bets on sports. Its a hobby. Like a 5000 and sometimes much more a single game hobby. Now is this 'reasonable'? That in a year he might lose anywhere between 50-100k a year on sports? And nevermind the the income of the sports players themselves !?!

Does he have more responsibility to the society and system than what he provides in his job and taxes?

It would be similar to 'reasonable doubt' by which we determine guilt in the US.

Therer are of course many issues within this.

At a time of recession, CEOs across the country awarded themselves 30% pay increases on average. What they are doing is feathering their nests in the fear of their businesses will go down. This is a disgrace when their own workers are being laid off and having their wages cut

I agree entirely with you proposal.
You can give a choice to CEOs, they can either pay 99% tax on their earnings over, say $1,000,000, or simply be able to invest the money back into the company (tax free) either by growth in new investment; increasing workers wages; or reducing their sale prices. In such a way businesses would be come more competitive, and strengthened against the future rather than the CEOs being a continual drain on their profitability.

[ForgedinHell]

A cap on earnings is just another stupid idea from the left. When a person earns money through voluntary trade, the person makes others better off. If you put a cap on earnings, that will cause productive people to stop working, which will reduce the economic well being of everyone overall.

Are you just trying to cause "equality" of outcome? Why? A person making more money than I do doesn't make me any poorer, provided the person earns their money justly. If a person earns money justly, then it is an injustice to steal it from them.

[chaz wyman]

A cap on earnings is just another stupid idea from the left. When a person earns money through voluntary trade, the person makes others better off. If you put a cap on earnings, that will cause productive people to stop working, which will reduce the economic well being of everyone overall.

Are you just trying to cause "equality" of outcome? Why? A person making more money than I do doesn't make me any poorer, provided the person earns their money justly. If a person earns money justly, then it is an injustice to steal it from them.

You are wrong on a number of levels as you allow your ideology to speak for you.

A cap on wages would be an excellent way to enforce re-investment and this will make people better off.
A business can have a choice - invest in the business rather than pay excessive wages. Instead of increasing the polarisation of wealth that is the ruin of society, they can either pay their lower staff more, or spend the cash on re-capitalising the business for which they are supposed to work. Thus the resources that would other wise be squandered outside the business would be used for growth.

[ForgedinHell]

A cap on earnings is just another stupid idea from the left. When a person earns money through voluntary trade, the person makes others better off. If you put a cap on earnings, that will cause productive people to stop working, which will reduce the economic well being of everyone overall.

Are you just trying to cause "equality" of outcome? Why? A person making more money than I do doesn't make me any poorer, provided the person earns their money justly. If a person earns money justly, then it is an injustice to steal it from them.

You are wrong on a number of levels as you allow your ideology to speak for you.

A cap on wages would be an excellent way to enforce re-investment and this will make people better off.
A business can have a choice - invest in the business rather than pay excessive wages. Instead of increasing the polarisation of wealth that is the ruin of society, they can either pay their lower staff more, or spend the cash on re-capitalising the business for which they are supposed to work. Thus the resources that would other wise be squandered outside the business would be used for growth.

You are actually the one who is wrong. For example, your claim that a limit on how much people will earn will mysteriously result in additional investment. A cap will encourage people to stop working after the cap is reached, which reduces income, which will reduce investment. Any work done before the cap, may be unaffected, but since income wil not increase, there will not be an increase in investment.

Your claim that a business will have a choice, "to invest or pay excessive wages," makes no sense. A business already has that choice without a cap. The cap, however, removes the option of a business from paying wages beyond a cap. So, we are to believe that some enlightened politicians can magically tell us what a cap should be to make us all better off? The proposition is laughable on its face.