Video games, are just that, a game. But they raise an interesting question when characters in game are only allowed to reach a certain level and obtain a maximum amount of income. Even though several players begin playing at the same time, others reach these caps earlier on. Their character has been given more than it needs to survive in the current setting, and these players begin contributing back to the game society by increasing the in game economy with redistribution of wealth. And they do so on their own accord.
How much money does one human being need in order to just survive? They use Mississippi as an example, stating that in the slowest growing economical state in the United States, that an individual needs to make nearly $45,000 a year to squeak by. I don't know anyone who likes to just squeak by on anything, but it is a good example. But when is enough money, enough?
What would happen if we put a cap on how much any human being was allowed to earn? I read a story about a young man who received only 7 million dollars inheritance. They used the words, "ONLY 7 million."
This of course, is only food for thought.
It has been proved through psychological studies that we have a natural tendency to become more selfish and less compassionate the more wealh we have. If you weren't selfish before you got wealthy, chances are you will be once you become wealthy. It has also been proved that the more the gap between rich and poor grows and the more the poorest people suffer. This is fact, not opinion. We all lve in this world for a very short time, huge accumulation makes no sense. Such wealth is generated by the labour of very poorly rewarded folks. Better wealth distribution will lead to more happiness. The greater the wealth divide, the greater the anger and suffering. It could be even dangerous in the long run, how long will the poor accept such injustice before rising up against it? It is nonsense to claim that by capping wealth we'd stop progress, and if progress only benefits very few in a huge way whilst everybody else struggles, what is the point of it? The shakers and movers would still be more powerful, even with their wealth capped. Huge accumulation of wealth is pointless, you'll die very soon and you can't take it with you.
A billionaire is just a person that has an obscene amount of money, and should feel guilty and embarrassed with that status. Nobody should be able to have a billion dollars, let alone 40 or 60 billion. That's so wrong on a fundamental level. Their opinions are irrelevant because they don't represent the vast majority of people who spend their lives struggling to stay afloat. There is only so much money out there, and they have way too much. Nobody should be entitled to have over 100 million dollars. The rest should go back to the 99 percent!
I think its true that if we put a cap on people earning then yes,
it was stop the growth of ambitions and innovation, but this is only if the cap was low say we put the cap at 1 billion, and anything earned over this was given to the government to be used in the budget, as many people here have read or heard about I assume, a huge proportion of the overall wealth is held in the hands of the very few, this money would be distributed, and also where someone would decide not to encourage risking more for more money because it is going to be taxed would open up possibilities for other entrepreneurs to fill those gaps, this would set rise to a more diverse market place rather than the mono markets that are being created today.
No one is denying the right of someone to earn enough money to achieve a happy, healthy and productive life; the fact is, to do this, it doesn't take a billion dollars to do so, or even a hundred million. For those who say putting a cap on would deter productivity, creativeness or great achievements is an argument that doesn't stand up. How many creative people throughout history have been excessively wealthy or started out with the idea of wanting to produce or create something with money as their motivation. Did Newton, Einstein, Picasso, Pasteur, van Gogh, Ford, Edison or even Gates.I don't think so. They committed themselves because of the challenge of the problems at hand and a deep desire to solve them, that was their motivation, not money. The only people it deters are the greedy and the selfish and to have a greedy and selfish society is to condemn that society to suffering for the vast majority and for the greedy, who are deluded into thinking they have it all, to live a life of fear, deception and dishonesty. Do we really want to live in such a world, a world which ultimately ends in wars because people want to dominate one another. That is our past and sadly our present because human cultures have continually had such misguided views on what constitutes a worthwhile and productive existence embedded into their consciousness.
Think about the trillions of dollars that could be potentially be out there for people who really need it? Let's say the cap is set at 100 million...Nobody can earn more than that...The amount of money left over that billionaires have is staggering. That money could be used to help people. There's no way that someone should have 80billion dollars yet the next man only have say 80 cents. It's ridiculous.
I disagree with your idea on a whole because money is rewarding. If you can make something great, people will be willing to give you their money. If there's a limit on how much money someone could have, people wouldn't bother making useful stuff if there is nothing for them in it. It would cause many problems.
Earning depends upon how much the person does hard work. Its his work his business... How about mind your own business ? Huh? Only because some lazy sects of the society want people to be like them or come under to their category they start such movements and bring such ideas. Out of jealousy they try to get the rich people down to their level.
If you are worried about power imbalances between the rich and the poor the answer is to increase taxes. If you think it is silly that so much of societies resources go to a small number of people then just raise the taxes above whatever limit you think there should be a cap above. This will allow people to keep some incentive to work at any level of income. Even if the incentive get's small.Y can then use that money to redistribute money to Also naturally the government will get much more money under this system. The Personally I think taxes should almost never go above the tax optimizing rate whatever that is but, regardless caps are an inefficient idea.
That's how you get companies to stop caring about consumers, why care about consumers if your income has a limit to it, might as well provide mediocre service instead of great service since more customers no longer makes a difference seeing as how income is limited.
Don't like people making tons of money? Though shit, either work harder or deal with it, that's like saying ''well I can't control what I eat thus I become fat so I want to limit how much food EVERYONE can buy/eat'' it's ridiculous.
People talk about guilt, really? They should feel guilt for working hard or being smarter? That makes absolutely no sense, I make barely any money, I can afford a house which is 20 square meters small and then with all bills paid got 10 euro left to spend on w/e I want, doesn't mean I'm going to shame rich people for working harder and/or being smarter.
It should be note that controlling the salary or income of an individual will bring negative impacts on the development of economy and well-being of society. In fact, when reaching a maximum wage, an individual feel that there is no need to do better or improve current circumstances because it won't generate the wealth. Therefore, economic growth will be slow down and creativity will gradually disappear and human life will see a setback. Another point to note is that it is impossible for government to take control of this regulations because some people may find a way to cheat the law. This, however, may create unfair situations. For example, today tax invasion has become more popular among rich people and little measures toward tackling this problem has been effective.
Putting a cap on how much a human being can earn will put a full stop to all big dreams, ambitions and innovations. Huge earnings are incentives for building large corporations which in turn are the driving vehicles of Economy. Putting a cap will halt their growth thus stagnating our economy and plunging our future in mediocrity. Therefore, I disagree with this motion!