Should There Be A Cap On How Much A Person Or Company Makes?

Question

I say yes. I'm all for capitalism but should it be limited? The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger every quarter of every year. The money made by corporate giants just keeps going back into the corporate vaccum and becomes a vicous cycle thats good for corporate interests but bad for the majority of working Americans. Ridiculous corporate salaries and bonuses both in the private and public sectors have so angered Americans its coming to the point where something needs to be done or else. What other solution is there to keep this country from a future civil class war? Do you even care that one person makes $10,000 a day and another $30? Are u elite, rich, middleclass, poor, or indigent? Give me your perspective of this issue. If something is not done soon to change this unfair greed driven system will it survive much longer? Is there any hope to avoid the future chaos capitalism has created? I will never understand greed. When is enough enough?

Answer 1

Are you proposing communism? In theory it's good but in reality, it doesn't work.

The fact is, someone is always going to be poor while someone else is rich. If we were to take all of the money and property in the world away from everyone - and start everyone off at $0; someone will work his tail off and get plenty of money while someone else will refuse to work at all and still expect to be "equal" and yet, have nothing.

While this does indeed create class distinctions, it also creates an environment where you too are eligible to apply for one of those jobs with a "ridiculous" corporate salary. You too can create a corporate giant. Each of us makes choices, and those choices place us in our "class".

For the most part, over 90% of Americans earned their position. It's only about 10% that had it handed to them (ie: family wealth). That means that the door is open - you can indeed go from poor to rich and back again in this country.

Not too many years ago, I was the director of a social services agency. I was young and naive. One day, I met Tony. Tony was a homeless young man. In my desire to "save the world" I undertook "helping" Tony. I arranged for him a place to live and found him a job. Within 30 days, Tony was living under the bridge again and stopped going to work. In my effort to understand, I went and talked with Tony. I learned that he liked that lifestyle, that's what he wanted. He didn't want to be like you and I. Some people (not all) have chosen their life and will remain there. For that reason, we will always have 'homeless' people.

Some don't want to be where they are. Being that this is America, it's easy to find out what needs to be done in order to enter any level you want to enter. The problem is, you have to do it and far too many don't want to do what's required to get where they think they want to be.

So, I'd argue that the "greed driven system" as it is to be far more "fair" than one that limits what you may earn or one that takes from those who are willing to put forth an effort and gives to those who prefer to not contribute to society but instead drain it.

We can only accept that people are each motivated differently. And due to that personal motivation, some people will be poor. Others will be sick (due lifestyle choices like smoking and drinking). Some will collect things (materialists) while others will spend their life giving to others and never have anything of their own.

I sometimes argue that those who look at the rich and then contend that "it's not fair" are even more greedy than those who are rich but earned that wealth. The latter earned their position, the former often wants it just given.

As for my position on the continuum - I live in poverty by choice. Not abject poverty mind you but well below the national scale for what is "poverty". When I do have an excess, I give it away. But that's my choice, based upon a religious directive that I follow. My wife and I live on $920 per month but we do not begrudge anyone else their "wealth" if they elect to follow that path; nor do we pity those who have elected to follow a path that leads to poverty.

~ For those not aware - if you are single and your income is below $10,210 per year, you're NOT middle class - that's the poverty level. For a couple, it's $13,690. $13,690 on a 40 hour week is $6.58 per hour. Federal minimum wage is $5.85 ~ In very many cases, living in poverty is a choice.

Answer 2

I think a cap on income is the wrong way to solve the problem.
I agree that too much of a disparity between the rich and poor is a bad thing, but do you think capping income will solve it? How would you cap it? 100% tax on income over $1 million per year? What would happen in practice? Doctors would see fewer patients, just enough to meet thier cap, then spend the next six months in Bermuda? How does that really help anyone?

Here's a better idea. How about we (US) remove the $100k cap on the SSI tax, and begin taxing the rich to offer a more secure world for the poor? How about we stop spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and begin offering incentives for those from less well off families to get a college education? How about we tax capital gains at the same (or higher) rates as income and offer a little assitance to the homeless, disabled.
Maybe the income gap can be reduced significantly w/o reducing productivity and incomes.

Answer 3

Think about it from a business owners perspective.

If you started out as a small supermarket and then after 10 years you expanded to 10 stores. Then in another 10 years you were able to expand to 30 stores. Do you think it would be fair for someone to come to you and say, "Your business is very prosperous and you are doing very well for yourself. You have to stop expanding because John Doe makes minimum wage."

Does that make sense? Why should smart successful people be punished beacause there are people that are less intelligent? Is it the rich man's fault that the poor man is poor? Absolutly not!! Typically the poor man is poor because he does not have the same skills as a successful man. Should a doctor make the same as a fast food clerk? NO! Did the fast food clerk put himself through medical school? NO!

I am middle class and I live in a small mountain community. No I don't care that one person makes $1000/day and one makes $30/day. Those people obviously have different skills, therefor they are not going to be able to do the same job.

Answer 4

Enough was enough a long time ago. I don't normally believe in caps in the corporate world but what I would like to see are employees who work in that environment, or any for that matter, receive a fair percentage of what their CEO or president makes from the bottom to the top. I'd bet that would cap their salaries in a heartbeat! Of course there would be many loop-holes to defeat that but hey, aren't there always?

Our legislators are, and always have been, remiss in giving their constituents a fair minimum wage and it's something that should be addressed yearly. No one can live on the money they mete out and is allowable in the marketplace. It's a disgrace! The capitalistic society we once envisioned bears little resemblance to what goes on today. In this country there should be no working poor, no one that suffers from hunger or lack of needed medicine or treatment. It's truly shameful.

Answer 5

Equitable Distribution of Income is essential for sustainable growth.
A large disparity in Income distribution suggest a society that is divided into 'haves' and 'have-nits', which raises both economic and social concerns.
Economic growth is hindered when purchasing power and profit-motivated incentives are not broadly based.
this problem is not confined only to US but is a Global issue.
India s PM made a remark on this very issue sometime back.he had condemned the corporate lot for its unashamed show of wealth. in India there is a proposed Authority to monitor the wages n incentives paid to corporates. there has been a huge cry by the corporates on this.

Answer 6

I know that some of the company heads should not be allowed to give themselfs raises,but only can get a precentage of the profits and not more than the blue collar workers, that is doing the back breaking work to make the money. The old saying is true"the rich get rich and the poor get poorer". There really isn't much the little guy can do because they don't have what it takes to get the big guys out of power.

Answer 7

I am very poor. But I don't believe in income caps. If someone else is wealthy, then I don't get infuriated because I'm poor and they are rich. As long as the wealthy people aren't wealthy just because they have an actual monopoly in a specific field (which is definitely unfair)...thereby crushing smaller businesses and making it harder to compete in that field. If a rich person is rich because they have a monopoly, then I do want something to be done about that. Otherwise, I don't want to basically punish people for making more than I do. And I do think that capping their income is punishing them unnecessarily.

Answer 8

thats just the beuaty of capitalisme
ppl that can do something earn money
ppl that are clumzy dont earn a thing

there should not be a cap
if you want to earn more
go to college
get a degree
you can earn more if you really want it

btw im a student (first year for industrial engeneer)
my mom and dad are just working
nothing special: teacher and kichen installer
so we aren't rich
but still i think there shouldn't be a cap

Answer 9

Short answer: no. There are too many unintended consequences. The market would end up working to counteract the limitations.

I would contend that greed isn't as bad as people make it out to be. After all, in many cases, it's not like people don't have a choice about what to spend their hard earned money on. If some greedy business wants your money, they have to figure out what they can do to get it and usually it's by providing you something that you want at a price that you're willing to pay and that is a better deal than that other greedy business that sells a similar product or service. In addition to that, in order to keep people from getting irritated and taking their money elsewhere, in their greed they must make concessions in order to keep their business growing. Doing right by the customer... all in the name of greed.

Greed drives business to grow, and in growing provided jobs to meet the needs of the business. Those people have a need for money... a greed of sorts - they want to get paid more... how do you get paid more? You make yourself indispensable. You make yourself valuable enough to the company that they can't afford to lose you.

Don't want to earn money for someone else? Why? Because you're greedy? Why not start your own business? Figure out something that someone needs and would be willing to pay for and do it. Convince people that they're better off giving their money to you for that product or service and you'll be satisfying your own greed.

Put artificial limits on things and suddenly the unintended consequence will cause problems. Why bother trying to make yourself indispensable when it's not like you'll be able to make more? Why bother starting a business when you'll be limited in what you can keep? Can’t spend that extra money that you couldn't earn. The business you would have bought from can't sell as much product because people can't buy it because they don't have as much money and because they can't earn as much anyway... so they have to lay off workers that they can't afford to keep because there's just not that much work to do...

Class war, huh? What do you envision a class war would be like? It's not like poor people have it all that bad in the United States. Anyone who can't or won't do things on their own can get help from somewhere - the state or local governments or various charities, churches, etc. As it turns out, a lot of large corporations actually do donate to or operate their own charities. Sure, they're looking out for number one there too... after all, they'd rather give money away than to pay taxes they might otherwise have to pay... at least then they have a choice about where the money goes. Put in restrictions on income and they may as well just keep their money and pay the taxes. Money for charities may dry up, and who knows? People who would benefit from those programs may just be left out in the cold.

As for the majority of working Americans... who do you think they work for? Big corporations don't just run themselves. You can't very easily have a store without someone working there. If the masses don't like the way things are going, strikes occur. The market (in this case, the market for labor) speaks, and adjusts accordingly. It’s not really in the best interest of anyone for a strike to last too long anyway. If the business fails, you're out of a perfectly good job because you didn't like how they were treating you. If you can't strike (not enough support from your coworkers) then you can still go find work where you're better appreciated. But if you put limits on earnings, well... it suddenly limits your job prospects because it's not like you'll be making more somewhere else.

This is getting longer than it really needs to be, but the point is that anytime you put artificial restrictions on the open market in either direction, it has unintended consequences and no matter how well intentioned the restrictions are, the unknowns will end up hurting the very people you're trying to help. Leave the open market open and the people will find their own way.

Answer 10

I think that not only should there be a cap on that but also sports players who make millions in one football game for entince. I do belive that they should not make so much money because it could go to good use...but I also belive that it is impossible to do this..I am I would say super low middle class because I am going to college and am paying it off as I go so have little to my name but am better off then the poor. I do think however that some people if they just tried would be able to succed.