Stephann
Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006 From: Portland, OR Status: offline
|
There's a flipside to this. If you capped this income at 100k, then the automatic assumption is that everyone makes no more than 100k. First off, you would have rampent flouting of the law. People who work in cash only business (think organized crime) wouldn't bother paying it, and enforcement would be nearly impossible. Second, with this glut of money from the rich people going to the poor, it would mean everyone would 'automatically' have the same amount of money, whether they worked hard or not. There'd be no incentive for the poor to work at all; they'd be just as rich as rich people, without having to leave the comfort of their television sets. Finally, the costs of all goods and services would skyrocket; companies don't charge 'fair prices' for goods and services, they charge what the market would bear. Thinking that you now have 100 grand a year to blow, doesn't mean the cost of that plasma screen TV will stay at $8,000; because there would be an increase in demand for these goods (since everyone can afford $8,000) the prices of plasma screens would skyrocket to about $45,000; simply because enough people would be willing to hand over half of what they earn in a year for the things. Increasing the supply of money doesn't increase their actual wealth; it only increases inflation. And that's what an income 'cap' would create; an inflationary bubble that would eventually burst, with people having worthless hundred dollar bills in their pocket. Stephan
_____________________________
Nosce Te Ipsum "The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer Men: Find a Woman here
|