Liberated citizens should share oil wealth?

Originally posted by sh76
I thought it was a bad idea not because I don't think that it would be nice to have a society where people are relatively equal, but because I don't think you can put a cap on income without irreparably damaging the incentive of people to innovate and produce things that benefit society as a whole. I have no problem with taxing rich people. But a cap? Not a good idea.

Can you back that up, or are you just guessing? If I were to guess, I would say that most of the worlds wealthiest people stopped worrying about how much they earn a long time ago. They continue to work for other reasons - whatever those may be (power, the love of working, ...).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you back that up, or are you just guessing? If I were to guess, I would say that most of the worlds wealthiest people stopped worrying about how much they earn a long time ago. They continue to work for other reasons - whatever those may be (power, the love of working, ...).

Yes -- like prime minister Khalifa of Bahrain, Mr Fifteen Percent -- absolutely rolling in it yet determined not to step aside. Also Mad Bob, prostrate giving out yet won't let go. Pure addiction to power.

Of course wealthy private sector people aren't like that, it's all good honest toil in their case. Although sometimes the lines blur, like when you're doing a bit of consulting for the Gaddafia:

http://feb17.info/news/monitor-group-planned-training-for-khadafy%E2%80%99s-security-apparatus-in-libya/

Originally posted by no1marauder
The implied argument seems to be that people will only innovate and produce things that benefit society as a whole IF they are compensated economically at far, far beyond what they any real use for.

I find such an argument at odds with our nature and unhistorical; I'm certain that the vast majority of innovators would have done their innovating even if they knew they wouldn't be fabulously wealthy.

I do not agree with that inference.

I never meant to imply that ALL innovation comes from the profit motive.

I meant that SOME innovation comes from the profit motive.

Putting a cap on income would stifle enough innovation to make it a bad idea. I never said it would stifle all innovation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you back that up, or are you just guessing? If I were to guess, I would say that most of the worlds wealthiest people stopped worrying about how much they earn a long time ago. They continue to work for other reasons - whatever those may be (power, the love of working, ...).

Why do Apple and Google and similar companies constantly produce things increase the quality of life for people other than for profit? Perhaps you can make a case that Steve Jobs personally is no longer worried about the money. But without all the directors and shareholders that are in it for the money, producing an iphone or an ipad would be impossible.

Originally posted by sh76
I do not agree with that inference.

I never meant to imply that ALL innovation comes from the profit motive.

I meant that SOME innovation comes from the profit motive.

Putting a cap on income would stifle enough innovation to make it a bad idea. I never said it would stifle all innovation.

What I had proposed, though, was not an absolute cap on wealth, but a relative cap on wealth. People could make any amount of money, but the more the upper bracket goes up, the lowest baseline would have to see a corresponding increase, whether its 100 to 1, 25 to 1, or whatever. The total amount of wealth is irrelevant, but the percentage distribution would remain constant. This could be achieved through an extremely progressive tax.

Originally posted by sh76
Why do Apple and Google and similar companies constantly produce things increase the quality of life for people other than for profit?

So now you have changed the question totally and introduced companies not individuals.

Perhaps you can make a case that Steve Jobs personally is no longer worried about the money. But without all the directors and shareholders that are in it for the money, producing an iphone or an ipad would be impossible.
And are all the directors and shareholders super rich? If the share holding was more spread out over a larger base, would Google or Apple be any less successful?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you back that up, or are you just guessing? If I were to guess, I would say that most of the worlds wealthiest people stopped worrying about how much they earn a long time ago. They continue to work for other reasons - whatever those may be (power, the love of working, ...).

Your observation is contradicted by the fact that in an unregulated capitalist system, wealth inevitably tends to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands. Wealth disparities will inevitably increase. Whether the rich admit to working for more money, or whether they're conscious of doing so, that is what they are in fact doing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So now you have changed the question totally and introduced companies not individuals.

[b]Perhaps you can make a case that Steve Jobs personally is no longer worried about the money. But without all the directors and shareholders that are in it for the money, producing an iphone or an ipad would be impossible.
And are all the directors and shareho ...[text shortened]... re holding was more spread out over a larger base, would Google or Apple be any less successful?[/b]

Companies are made of individuals. There is no difference between "companies" and "individuals" (in this context, anyway).

As for your last comment, how, exactly, do you propose to "spread out [the share ownership] over a larger base"?

Originally posted by rwingett
What I had proposed, though, was not an absolute cap on wealth, but a relative cap on wealth. People could make any amount of money, but the more the upper bracket goes up, the lowest baseline would have to see a corresponding increase, whether its 100 to 1, 25 to 1, or whatever. The total amount of wealth is irrelevant, but the percentage distribution would remain constant. This could be achieved through an extremely progressive tax.

Well, then, I need more specifics about your plan before I decide whether I think it's feasible.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your observation is contradicted by the fact that in an unregulated capitalist system, wealth inevitably tends to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands. Wealth disparities will inevitably increase. Whether the rich admit to working for more money, or whether they're conscious of doing so, that is what they are in fact doing.

Nevertheless, I do not believe it is their primary motivation. Besides, most wealth gained beyond a certain amount is not gained through work anyway, it is gained through investment and suchlike.
Although wealthy people may spend a lot of time and effort managing their money so as to make it grow, I wouldn't call that productive work in most cases.

Originally posted by sh76
Companies are made of individuals. There is no difference between "companies" and "individuals" (in this context, anyway).

Of course there is. Nobody is suggesting limiting the monthly salary of companies, or putting a tax on them so that they can never exceed a given multiple of the poorest individuals wealth.

As for your last comment, how, exactly, do you propose to "spread out [the share ownership] over a larger base"?
I don't propose to. I am merely asking you whether the companies in question would be any less profitable if it were the case. In other words, you are arguing that super rich people are necessary for the success of those companies and I am claiming that that is not true.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course there is. Nobody is suggesting limiting the monthly salary of companies, or putting a tax on them so that they can never exceed a given multiple of the poorest individuals wealth.

[b]As for your last comment, how, exactly, do you propose to "spread out [the share ownership] over a larger base"?
I don't propose to. I am merely asking you ...[text shortened]... ple are necessary for the success of those companies and I am claiming that that is not true.[/b]

No; I am claiming that the open market determination of how much each employee gets is a better metric for how much people should be paid than an arbitrary, albeit egalitarian, set of rules.

If the corporate salaries were more spread out, maybe the top talent would go elsewhere. That's what happens in Major League Baseball.

Originally posted by sh76
No; I am claiming that the open market determination of how much each employee gets is a better metric for how much people should be paid than an arbitrary, albeit egalitarian, set of rules.

If the corporate salaries were more spread out, maybe the top talent would go elsewhere. That's what happens in Major League Baseball.

You think we need the filthy rich munchkin heirs in order to prevent brain drain? LOL.

Umm, no.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You think we need the filthy rich munchkin heirs in order to prevent brain drain? LOL.

Umm, no.

Who said anything about heirs?

This is just a continuation with your obsession with the concept of inheritance, I presume.

Originally posted by sh76
Who said anything about heirs?

This is just a continuation with your obsession with the concept of inheritance, I presume.

Yeah, basically.

Where do you think our brains will drain to? We're the place that obtains everyone else's brain drain.