What if we had a salary cap of say $100-$150K a year, which in my opinion would still provide a family with a lifestyle way in excess of what the vast majority of the people on the planet could ever dream of. I believe this would force private companies to divert their funds from overinflated salaries to better benefits for their low wage employees, better wages, better safety, and higher efficiency. Any thoughts?
2007-12-02 00:36:01 · 6 answers · asked by potato 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I believe that the concept of "reasonable" could be made quantifiable, by assessing the number of goods and services that could be obtained with what funds. Not to mention this would put a halt to inflation, making NYC housing rates drop. The difference between my proposal and straight communism is that it wouldnt be under government control. There would still be a free economy, you just couldnt make enough money to own a private jet and three summer homes.
2007-12-02 01:06:38 · update #1
Are you saying that we should curb the amount of greed that is rampant in our government and the corporate environment?? If you do that ,then basically you level the playing field and reduce the amount of power an individual can have upon others.Now is that the American way??
I'm all for new legislation-but it ain't gonna happen.
2007-12-02 00:45:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
You are advocating communism. It is the exact opposite of freedom. The key word is "reasonable." Who would determine what is reasonable?
There would be no way to manage inequities, considering locations.
A man with a wife and two kids, making $150,000 in New York City would have a hard time living on that amount.
A man with a wife and two kids and working in Beckley, West Virginia could support the family and have a big savings every year. How would that be fair?
Fairness is not a free market concept. What we want is equal opportunity.
2007-12-02 00:55:20 · answer #2 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To "Q & a guy": Your argument isn't very valid. while a woman has conceived a toddler, the little one, of path, isn't at present totally grown. It begins off as a fetus devoid of each and each of the actual systems which you may see in a human. additionally, even while the youngster is born, it maintains to strengthen. the youngster even finally ends up with extra bones than it as quickly as had; specific applications of an toddler's suggestions get weaker as they grow old too with the aid of fact they finally end up being out of date. As we strengthen, our cells continuously multiply inflicting us to get extra beneficial in length, so the thought that all of us began from a unmarried celled organism isn't too some distance fetched. to not point out, fairly some microorganisms that reason ailment evolve as our drugs receives extra stepped forward. that is all on the topic of the organism adapting so as that that is earlier than the recreation and insure the continuation of the species. EDIT: yet another element that I forgot to point out is that our "layout" isn't even faultless. we are vulnerable to mutations and illnesses. additionally some aspects of the physique are not particularly needed; there are some issues that our bodies can not needless to say recover from besides. Now to the query: the sole area of the 'God theory' that seems lifestyles like is the "enable there be gentle" element. in line with possibility this replaced into probable the massive bang. in line with possibility this universe replaced into created by twist of destiny with the aid of a few smart beings or some organic happening phenomenon. perchance it's going to take place lower back. the belief of an all-powerful being has basically stepped forward with mankind over the years to describe what could not be defined. Even now as quickly as we will not clarify some thing we affiliate it with issues that we are already attentive to.
2016-12-30 09:22:53 · answer #3 · answered by orenstein 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Competition and opportunity is what makes America work.
You want to kill both.
Move to Europe.
2007-12-02 02:53:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
socialism, Pres. Nixon tried it , it doesn't work in a free America
2007-12-02 01:16:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Screw teh commie ideal crap. If you want that go somewhere else.
2007-12-02 00:56:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋