Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you end up with a system that is pretty much the exact same as the one we have currently in existence. Maybe you're just in love with the idea of getting paid 6 figures to chase your pipe dream as a wannabe independent blogger, but as flawed and ill-hatched as this idea is, that's all it'll ever be, a pipe dream.
I responded to both those posts which you can find in a comment above this one.
What I advocate is not the same as our current system.
I advocate that 100% of the income get paid to workers. Currently, only half is getting paid to workers. The other half is getting paid as unearned income to people who do not work for that income.
I also advocate that we then allocate that income based on how hard you work which means differences in income will be based only on what is necessary to get workers to do mentally or physically difficult work and to get them to give their maximum effort in performance based jobs. We currently allocate income based on how much exploitation you can get away with which allows a tiny minority to take most of the income the bottom 97% produces.
I responded to both those posts which you can find in a comment above this one.
What I advocate is not the same as our current system.
I advocate that 100% of the income get paid to workers. Currently, only half is getting paid to workers. The other half is getting paid as unearned income to people who do not work for that income.
I also advocate that we then allocate that income based on how hard you work which means differences in income will be based only on what is necessary to get workers to do mentally or physically difficult work and to get them to give their maximum effort in performance based jobs. We currently allocate income based on how much exploitation you can get away with which allows a tiny minority to take most of the income the bottom 97% produces.
Once you account for the capital investment necessary to start up a business and keep it running, and establish tiered pay scales for people "based on how hard they work" (really? how are you going to quantify that?), you end up with a broader compensation range that starts off a LOT lower than $115k per employee.
The trouble is a certain percentage of the 115K crowd are going to blow through their money, probably even to the extent they'll be unfit for work while many others will put away some of the pay for a rainy day and then we're right back to where we started again...unequal wealth.
I'm interested in a system that pays workers fairly, not equal wealth.
Once you account for the capital investment necessary to start up a business and keep it running, and establish tiered pay scales for people "based on how hard they work" (really? how are you going to quantify that?), you end up with a broader compensation range that starts off a LOT lower than $115k per employee.
When a business spends money on capital goods, they are paying workers to produce a capital good. So that income is included in the total income we pay out. The $14.5 trillion that we have available to pay out to workers that I cite is the amount of income we paid to workers to produce investment goods, consumption goods and government goods. So the income ranges I cite account for income spent on capital goods.
Perhaps what you were referring to is how much of our income is spent on consumption and how much on investment.
In 2010 we spent 10% of our income on investment because people saved 10% of their income.
Not everyone spends 100% of the income they are paid every year. This money that does not get spent, that is sitting idle, will be given by the central bank to the investment banks for them to make investments with.
As explained in this post, how you quantify hard work is by paying workers what is necessary to get them to do mentally or physically difficult work and to get them to give their maximum effort in performance based jobs.
Not everyone spends 100% of the income they are paid every year. This money that does not get spent, that is sitting idle, will be given by the central bank to the investment banks for them to make investments with.
How is this better than people being able to invest their personal money into a venture?
How is this better than people being able to invest their personal money into a venture?
We no longer have to pay unearned income like interest and profit. All that income can now be paid to workers which will enable us to raise the minimum income of workers to $115k.
We are also able to fully employ everyone which a market economy has never been able to do.
Surely the OP's system could only work in a fully communist society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
