deal with the fact that we make nothing.

And we have to make MOST of what we buy otherwise there will be no jobs.

But yes, if we are going to allow an out of control version of capitalism to exist, then hell yes, cut it off at the knees by doing this

But then I have been a big fan of FDR forever.

LOL.

what's your point?

If done in Roosevelt's time you'd forever have an old money ruling class of Mellons, Rockefellers, Du Ponts, etc. passing the wealth and power from generation to generation.

I'm missing your point or logic or were you being sardonic?

what's your point?

So go troll that one.


Still you give no reason swhy this is wrong.

How will this make your life better?

How can your life be better because of inequality?

Seems you are make it about the ego.

And just how would this be enforced?

My life would be improved by the 99% lives being improved
by better housing, food, education, infrastructure etc.
Thus living in a safer better world.

Changing tax law so that the super-wealthy pay their "fair share" is one thing.

Capping income at some arbitrary figure is not workable.

What is ''FAIR SHARE''..............?

In other words, "how would greater equality make your life better?"

Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

In absolute dollar terms, the high income earners do pay more in taxes.

you are a billionaire or love them?

give me your thesis!!!!

Human nature is competitive. Destroy competition in economics and you destroy the economy

Nope, you'll never get me on board with that ludicrous idea.

being good for humanity

(better quality goods), or better service.

When you need to buy anything, or have any work done, don't you invariably look for the highest quality good or service at the most affordable price?

the societal needs override that egotistic endeavor vs the humanity clause

Telsa gave you the best mousetrap for nothing................ Edison stole it.

And since very few can, it will work out great for society. That is a nice thought about competition, but it is not true since everyone will strive to reach the maximum wage.

Thanks for that point.

What does one strive for after the maximum wage is reached.

Nope, I would oppose such nonsense with my last breath. It's about the stupidest idea ever floated.

I really could care less what you oppose. You want there to be 10 people with all the wealth in the world, so your ideas are not really viable to the real world.

They could give the rest away to charity, that really bothers you I bet.

so he would be unaffected.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezoss-salary-is-only-14000-more-than-the-average-facebook-interns-2013-4

How much is too much?....... How much is too little?

to even the playing field...... or is everything good right now?

Big salaries are for their most prized hired help.

that the language is blured on salaries vs compensation.

I would say it is an idea long overdue.

artists, musicians, inventors etc..

But with so much billions they may rake in they are still human and at that level it can't be mentally healthy.

Even The Beatles were taxed heavily.

Investment bankers, real estate tycoons, high rolling gamblers willing to gamble our future for instant profit. We've let this unheard of 'global welfare state' grow to cater to political-corporations...yet we cannot feed 30 million children in America that go to bed hungry.

We can waste 620 billion on bombs and bullets, but not a mere 30 billion on butter and milk.

and it is an international wealthy cabal that is making it worse for all of humanity.

Not the other way around...... which they try to tell us
I think my thread started a discussion\


BTW

My X wife is now dealing with Syrian refugees with PTSS in therapy

Syrian scholars have been renowned for centuries including this one.
Yet we destroy what we can't understand.

of just a few rich nations. What gets me, is how little people grasp the danger here. Even with all the evidence that we need a new system, people just cling to their old ways. Even if they know those ways are self-destructive.

And a paradigm broken or breaking is something that happens if we like it or understand it or not, but its still happening.

When I first heard of this term was in the early 90s for one of my degrees.
The example the professor gave was how the Swiss who had the rights to the digital watch gave it to the Japanese cause ......... no one wanted an electronic watch from a nation of watch builders.

I see other coming major paradigms being broken but only when you search for the truth. But the truth now is ridicule as being a truther...... irony.

Anyway there are solutions for our planetary crisis and it an't coming from the status quo or the mega rich.

So, if the other 6 billion people decided they no longer wanted that, how long would it take to be rid of them? We may need more decimal places on our stopwatch.

vs a welfare system of thought.

If there was some way to suppress such knowledge, you can be dam well assured the Koch brothers would be doing it right now instead of trying to buy the WH.

He once brought in armed state troopers to intimidate the Louisiana state legislature into voting his way. He was a dangerous man and his idea of capping salaries would have turned Ayn Rand's books into pure prophesy.

No room for hordes of tax evaders.