meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
One of the benefits of this system is that most people will have an incentive to work even for low wages.
Quite so. But the question is, what incentive is there to work for high wages? What incentive is there to be, say, a very high earning doctor and not, say, a low earning bartender? This you have not answered except to essentially say the privilege of working for government.
You say "The system is intended to reduce social instability. On average the amount of wealth will increase as nearly everyone can earn money and pay for an education".
Repeat - The system is intended to reduce social instability
That is the foundation of your proposal. And it is economic. So lets take a brief look.
It does reduce social instability in the sense that the earnings cap forces the high earners towards an established lower common denominator. For example, everyone could potentially own a Volkswagen (middle class) but whom could own a Ferrari? Economically a doctor would be ~on par with the ~bartender. (Personally I'd rather be the bartender. Better hours, less work and I can get the same Volkswagen the doctor gets.)
You wipe out a whole class of people in favor of social economic equality (no matter the concurrent supposed benefit goes to government). You wipe out the risk takers by destroying their ability, and therefore their incentive, to take those risks. What incentive is there in the risk of producing the Ferrari which no one could afford to buy or even maintain due to your earnings cap?
There is only one entity in your system capable of taking those risks, government. What benefit would there be to government assuming the risk of producing the Ferrari? None. All innovation (risk taking) would be government only.
You propose a government centric society to achieve a high social economic stability. Personal achievement (reaching for the Moon) is punished while mediocrity (limited by the ceiling) is lauded. Make everyone the same economically and there is no reason for social instability. That seems to be your idea. Which brings us to -
the amount of wealth will increase as nearly everyone can earn money
Income is not wealth. Your system may be able to allow income and living a middle class 'Volkswagen' standard (which is your desired goal) but it severely punishes wealth creation which is not desirable in your economically equal social environment. It takes high income to purchase the Ferrari, but it takes wealth, or access to it, to even take the risk of producing it. Your system allows neither. Your system is predicated upon a middle class earnings cap (progressive high taxes). Your system is about workers, targeted at the low to middle. You forget about those who take risks and employ them. You wipe them out.
This slope may be adjusted by politicians, resulting in more or in less tax to be paid.
Think about that. The more you lower your tax (in your scenario that would be equivalent to raising the earnings cap; ability to reach for the Moon) the more social economic instability you introduce. Lower it enough and producing the Ferrari, or some new innovation, becomes attainable because there would be those high earners capable of providing the risk capital (wealth) to even risk producing it (job creation). You're back where you started.
Concurrently would be less funding for government (not desirable in your scenario).
Your proposal is an economic one size fits all. If everyone wears the same middle class Nike shoes...
Nearly ALL new technology is invented and discovered through government money. What private enterprise does, is create consumable products. I said consumable products, meaning, not necessarily good products or useful products, just consumable products for a throw away society where products have inbuilt obsolesense. Given that the world is overconsuming its resources and no 7th cavalary technology over the hill to rescue us, the capitalist consumer society is going to have to mutate into something more sustainable or destroy itself. Does it really matter if there aren't any Ferraris around? They are expensive, anti-social, gas guzzeling antiquated technology which belongs on the scrap heap. The fact of the matter is there is no reason why there should be any poverty in western societies, the fact that there is, just shows the system isn't working or at least, it is only working for the rich.
As for well paid doctors, probably the technology that has saved most human life in history are water engineers and water and sewage workers. We shouldn't over estimate the impact on society expensive doctors have, pretty limited at best. Yes, when it is you that is ill, you might be thankful of a doctor but you wouldn't be alive to get ill and see one if it wasn't for a lot of other workers in society.
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|
RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just does... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread