Just an Economic question;

[kgibbar91]

can someone explain to me because I am not very sophisticated on economic growth, but what would happen if every individual was to be capped at a solid number of income, and every corporation was the be capped at a solid income based on their spending, which comes out of total revenue, not lended to them, or through investment; and then the rest was put into a savings, and that savings was instead taxed, by more then 50% while everything that was left was divided into people based on hours and productivity? in this way no single individual is sitting on billions of dollars, simply buying random luxuries whenever they see fit, and instead the rich live equally, the poor live much the same, with extension of their productivity; in this way everyone is contributing, the rich will say "well we contributed more", but indeed their contribution was only provided at the hands of those who traded goods for it, all in all, those with good, successful ideas are rewarded equally, those who choose to do little are rewarded equally, and those wish to be big spenders, are using their own company resources to improve personal luxuries, hense owning a limo company, in some ways would allow you to travel more freely in a limo;

personally, I see no reason for any rich guy to say "oh, they take more then 50% from me... what more do you want." 50 cents on the dollar as they say, is in perspective many many times more then a literal 50 cents;

finally, this amount of money spread is indeed equal, as everyone puts in, and fair as those who put in little are simply living a much less luxurious life; simultaneously there should be plenty more money to clean our debt, I see no reason for anyone to stop doing what they do... other then buying that brand new golden private jet.. which honestly, is pointless as shit, you'll be capable of saving your yearly income to buy much more expansive things;

as per the rest of it being spread out based on productivity and hours worked, this is a measure to say that those who benifit the world are rewarded with large annual returns, and those who worked harded to the break of slavery are indeed rewarded for their dedication to ensure the particular job was completed well, as it wouldn't be required if it wasn't in many ways productive to the comforts of our society... finally, those who do both are greatly appreciated and retain more annually; likely to be doctors;

 

[william the wie]

Investment is one of the two big drivers of economic growth the other being (exports - imports). Savings = investment so you are proposing a shrinking economy.

 

[kgibbar91]

hmm, so the money from investors is now translated into a global account which can employ people who're essentially the same as those investing now, and encourage good investments using the 'countries' saving; no?

 

[percysunshine]

There is a lesson in centrally planned economic systems being played out right now. Just log on to Healthcare.gov for a look see.

 

[boedicca]

What would happen: Starnesville.

And in return, riddle me this:

If you think such caps and redistribution are desirable, why don't you just practice them with your on life on a voluntary basis?

 

[Two Thumbs]

can someone explain to me because I am not very sophisticated on economic growth, this is the set up for a person that has planned replies. but what would happen if every individual was to be capped at a solid number of income, no one would work to achieve more, since hard work and education would be meaningless. and every corporation was the be capped at a solid income based on their spending, which comes out of total revenue, not lended to them, or through investment; and then the rest was put into a savings, and that savings was instead taxed, by more then 50% while everything that was left was divided into people based on hours and productivity? people wouldn't want to go into business. business is for competitors. since that would kill competition, business would close. in this way no single individual is sitting on billions of dollars, simply buying random luxuries whenever they see fit, and instead the rich live equally, the poor live much the same, with extension of their productivity; in this way everyone is contributing, the rich will say "well we contributed more", but indeed their contribution was only provided at the hands of those who traded goods for it, all in all, those with good, successful ideas are rewarded equally, those who choose to do little are rewarded equally, and those wish to be big spenders, are using their own company resources to improve personal luxuries, hense owning a limo company, in some ways would allow you to travel more freely in a limo;

personally, I see no reason for any rich guy to say "oh, they take more then 50% from me... what more do you want." 50 cents on the dollar as they say, is in perspective many many times more then a literal 50 cents;

finally, this amount of money spread is indeed equal, as everyone puts in, and fair as those who put in little are simply living a much less luxurious life; simultaneously there should be plenty more money to clean our debt, I see no reason for anyone to stop doing what they do... other then buying that brand new golden private jet.. which honestly, is pointless as shit, you'll be capable of saving your yearly income to buy much more expansive things;

as per the rest of it being spread out based on productivity and hours worked, this is a measure to say that those who benifit the world are rewarded with large annual returns, and those who worked harded to the break of slavery are indeed rewarded for their dedication to ensure the particular job was completed well, as it wouldn't be required if it wasn't in many ways productive to the comforts of our society... finally, those who do both are greatly appreciated and retain more annually; likely to be doctors;



That centrist every one gets equal everything nonsense got painful to read.

You have to be a complete and utter fool to think that would work, since it's failed everywhere it's been tried.

 

[kgibbar91]

The cap is the same for everyone, the only person who would notice a change is that the billionaires are no longer getting 50 million dollar bonus's each month for example, and people would strive in fact to do even more, because as stated; the "income" or yearly return would be based on productivity, and hours worked; saying people will work less is ignorant, I mean Americans work like slaves now and complain, but they keep going because they understand they "need" the income, as little as it is; but regardless of that, their income wouldn't change, and if they decided to become very wealthy that new income would be the only place they might notice the change.. I noticed the only people complaining about how they'd work less hard are the wealthy people who are being effected by this; and honestly, they're kind of being babies, people work far harder then them physically, and some mental stress really isn't that much work, considering you also hire others take take some of that mental stress away from you.

"If you think such caps and redistribution are desirable, why don't you just practice them with your on life on a voluntary basis?" I do this, I make 125k a year, my wife, my daughter(toddler) do not bring in additional income; all of our money goes into savings, and literally I pay all our bills in the first paycheck, while the 350 or reasonable percentage is used each week on food, successfully we're saving very well.. partially due to getting a massive paycheck with no bills to take out of it; but also because of the way I manage it.

finally; everything would work much the same as it does now, and money would come from this global account which is the aggregated remainder of the "cap";

as per companies competing, this aspect does not change, they are capped based on their spending as quoted, and still receive their own "income" based on productivity, and hours, as a company; with that, companies who are doing little will slowly decay resulting in the encouragement of successful companies; for competition, and growth, this will strive with assets; the more they buy, the more expenses, and thus the more they retain, of course this can still wither away with lack of productivity, and competition;

understandably there may be some aspects of the notion which obviously I haven't thought about this was on a whim, but naively I say this practice would result in greater spread of money, those who work hard will be rewarded and thus more entertained to work, those who work less can only blame them self; those with large wealth will now be forced to give their money back to their world; how selfish is it to say "well, I sit on top of a tower, I do some thinking, and tell others to do the rest, if I got less money, I wouldn't do anything"; at which I reply "someone can easily take your place, and you're selfish to delay or prevent the growth of society and human-kind as a greater whole.. screw you"; regardless, just because as I said earlier, you don't have a golden private jet flown by Tom Cruise, doesn't mean you're loosing anything.. quit being a spoiled kid, and enjoy the benefit of still having a mansion, a simple life, great vacations, etc;

but as many say, perhaps the troubles we're experience is not a result of bad economic systems, or corrupt spending; but perhaps instead the train of thought, the morality of people, and the lack of interest in the greater whole;

 

[Two Thumbs]

blah blah blah

Life isn't fair so I demand the government make it fair.


fucking idiots and their idiot ideas are getting a foothold among the leftist of society. This fairness shit has been tried in the ussr, cuba, china, north korea, venzulea. All are horrid shit holes of fairness.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

can someone explain to me because I am not very sophisticated on economic growth, but what would happen if every individual was to be capped at a solid number of income, and every corporation was the be capped at a solid income based on their spending, which comes out of total revenue, not lended to them, or through investment; and then the rest was put into a savings, and that savings was instead taxed, by more then 50% while everything that was left was divided into people based on hours and productivity? in this way no single individual is sitting on billions of dollars, simply buying random luxuries whenever they see fit, and instead the rich live equally, the poor live much the same, with extension of their productivity; in this way everyone is contributing, the rich will say "well we contributed more", but indeed their contribution was only provided at the hands of those who traded goods for it, all in all, those with good, successful ideas are rewarded equally, those who choose to do little are rewarded equally, and those wish to be big spenders, are using their own company resources to improve personal luxuries, hense owning a limo company, in some ways would allow you to travel more freely in a limo;

personally, I see no reason for any rich guy to say "oh, they take more then 50% from me... what more do you want." 50 cents on the dollar as they say, is in perspective many many times more then a literal 50 cents;

finally, this amount of money spread is indeed equal, as everyone puts in, and fair as those who put in little are simply living a much less luxurious life; simultaneously there should be plenty more money to clean our debt, I see no reason for anyone to stop doing what they do... other then buying that brand new golden private jet.. which honestly, is pointless as shit, you'll be capable of saving your yearly income to buy much more expansive things;

as per the rest of it being spread out based on productivity and hours worked, this is a measure to say that those who benifit the world are rewarded with large annual returns, and those who worked harded to the break of slavery are indeed rewarded for their dedication to ensure the particular job was completed well, as it wouldn't be required if it wasn't in many ways productive to the comforts of our society... finally, those who do both are greatly appreciated and retain more annually; likely to be doctors;

Central planning comes with a 100% guaranteed fail.

You can look it up.

100% Guaranteed Fail and it's Failed every time

 

[Two Thumbs]

can someone explain to me because I am not very sophisticated on economic growth, but what would happen if every individual was to be capped at a solid number of income, and every corporation was the be capped at a solid income based on their spending, which comes out of total revenue, not lended to them, or through investment; and then the rest was put into a savings, and that savings was instead taxed, by more then 50% while everything that was left was divided into people based on hours and productivity? in this way no single individual is sitting on billions of dollars, simply buying random luxuries whenever they see fit, and instead the rich live equally, the poor live much the same, with extension of their productivity; in this way everyone is contributing, the rich will say "well we contributed more", but indeed their contribution was only provided at the hands of those who traded goods for it, all in all, those with good, successful ideas are rewarded equally, those who choose to do little are rewarded equally, and those wish to be big spenders, are using their own company resources to improve personal luxuries, hense owning a limo company, in some ways would allow you to travel more freely in a limo;

personally, I see no reason for any rich guy to say "oh, they take more then 50% from me... what more do you want." 50 cents on the dollar as they say, is in perspective many many times more then a literal 50 cents;

finally, this amount of money spread is indeed equal, as everyone puts in, and fair as those who put in little are simply living a much less luxurious life; simultaneously there should be plenty more money to clean our debt, I see no reason for anyone to stop doing what they do... other then buying that brand new golden private jet.. which honestly, is pointless as shit, you'll be capable of saving your yearly income to buy much more expansive things;

as per the rest of it being spread out based on productivity and hours worked, this is a measure to say that those who benifit the world are rewarded with large annual returns, and those who worked harded to the break of slavery are indeed rewarded for their dedication to ensure the particular job was completed well, as it wouldn't be required if it wasn't in many ways productive to the comforts of our society... finally, those who do both are greatly appreciated and retain more annually; likely to be doctors;

Central planning comes with a 100% guaranteed fail.

You can look it up.

100% Guaranteed Fail and it's Failed every time

Yeah, BUTT this time it will be different b/c it's like, uhm , us doing it, so it will work.

 

[kgibbar91]

can someone explain to me because I am not very sophisticated on economic growth, this is the set up for a person that has planned replies. but what would happen if every individual was to be capped at a solid number of income, no one would work to achieve more, since hard work and education would be meaningless. and every corporation was the be capped at a solid income based on their spending, which comes out of total revenue, not lended to them, or through investment; and then the rest was put into a savings, and that savings was instead taxed, by more then 50% while everything that was left was divided into people based on hours and productivity? people wouldn't want to go into business. business is for competitors. since that would kill competition, business would close. in this way no single individual is sitting on billions of dollars, simply buying random luxuries whenever they see fit, and instead the rich live equally, the poor live much the same, with extension of their productivity; in this way everyone is contributing, the rich will say "well we contributed more", but indeed their contribution was only provided at the hands of those who traded goods for it, all in all, those with good, successful ideas are rewarded equally, those who choose to do little are rewarded equally, and those wish to be big spenders, are using their own company resources to improve personal luxuries, hense owning a limo company, in some ways would allow you to travel more freely in a limo;

personally, I see no reason for any rich guy to say "oh, they take more then 50% from me... what more do you want." 50 cents on the dollar as they say, is in perspective many many times more then a literal 50 cents;

finally, this amount of money spread is indeed equal, as everyone puts in, and fair as those who put in little are simply living a much less luxurious life; simultaneously there should be plenty more money to clean our debt, I see no reason for anyone to stop doing what they do... other then buying that brand new golden private jet.. which honestly, is pointless as shit, you'll be capable of saving your yearly income to buy much more expansive things;

as per the rest of it being spread out based on productivity and hours worked, this is a measure to say that those who benifit the world are rewarded with large annual returns, and those who worked harded to the break of slavery are indeed rewarded for their dedication to ensure the particular job was completed well, as it wouldn't be required if it wasn't in many ways productive to the comforts of our society... finally, those who do both are greatly appreciated and retain more annually; likely to be doctors;



That centrist every one gets equal everything nonsense got painful to read.

You have to be a complete and utter fool to think that would work, since it's failed everywhere it's been tried.

Not sure that you have actually read what I said, I didn't mention that everyone is equal in the sense we all make the same money; it is much the same as it is now, and I think I conveyed that many times, just with a cap as in people who are not reaching that cap, simply wont be capped; what I said, is the flow of cash is used equally to for human kind, not for commercial gain, or selfish billionaires with self entitlement problems; I think that perhaps it is an idea which is incompatible with the existing mind-set of our organizations and individuals; selfish, and ignorant of the future, "its not my problem. because I'll be long gone." type deal.

 

[Two Thumbs]

can someone explain to me because I am not very sophisticated on economic growth, this is the set up for a person that has planned replies. but what would happen if every individual was to be capped at a solid number of income, no one would work to achieve more, since hard work and education would be meaningless. and every corporation was the be capped at a solid income based on their spending, which comes out of total revenue, not lended to them, or through investment; and then the rest was put into a savings, and that savings was instead taxed, by more then 50% while everything that was left was divided into people based on hours and productivity? people wouldn't want to go into business. business is for competitors. since that would kill competition, business would close. in this way no single individual is sitting on billions of dollars, simply buying random luxuries whenever they see fit, and instead the rich live equally, the poor live much the same, with extension of their productivity; in this way everyone is contributing, the rich will say "well we contributed more", but indeed their contribution was only provided at the hands of those who traded goods for it, all in all, those with good, successful ideas are rewarded equally, those who choose to do little are rewarded equally, and those wish to be big spenders, are using their own company resources to improve personal luxuries, hense owning a limo company, in some ways would allow you to travel more freely in a limo;

personally, I see no reason for any rich guy to say "oh, they take more then 50% from me... what more do you want." 50 cents on the dollar as they say, is in perspective many many times more then a literal 50 cents;

finally, this amount of money spread is indeed equal, as everyone puts in, and fair as those who put in little are simply living a much less luxurious life; simultaneously there should be plenty more money to clean our debt, I see no reason for anyone to stop doing what they do... other then buying that brand new golden private jet.. which honestly, is pointless as shit, you'll be capable of saving your yearly income to buy much more expansive things;

as per the rest of it being spread out based on productivity and hours worked, this is a measure to say that those who benifit the world are rewarded with large annual returns, and those who worked harded to the break of slavery are indeed rewarded for their dedication to ensure the particular job was completed well, as it wouldn't be required if it wasn't in many ways productive to the comforts of our society... finally, those who do both are greatly appreciated and retain more annually; likely to be doctors;



That centrist every one gets equal everything nonsense got painful to read.

You have to be a complete and utter fool to think that would work, since it's failed everywhere it's been tried.

Not sure that you have actually read what I said, I didn't mention that everyone is equal in the sense we all make the same money; it is much the same as it is now, and I think I conveyed that many times, just with a cap as in people who are not reaching that cap, simply wont be capped; what I said, is the flow of cash is used equally to for human kind, not for commercial gain, or selfish billionaires with self entitlement problems; I think that perhaps it is an idea which is incompatible with the existing mind-set of our organizations and individuals; selfish, and ignorant of the future, "its not my problem. because I'll be long gone." type deal.

ohh IC

it's not about equality, it's about sticking it to the doers and shakers. Punish the hard workers, the over timers, the inspired to greatness.


yea, that's a better idea, if you don't like working, let alone working hard

 

[kgibbar91]

uh; okay then, not sure what language I am typing in, but I was under the impression it was english;

 

[william the wie]

And that is the problem here.