BF2S Forums Cap Maximum Income: 2 Million (USA)

yeah go to cuba. it didnt work in the souviet union why would it work somewhere else. Especially in the USA; the country build on the values of the free economy. You are seriously stupid.

Erkut.hv wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

...and use all proceeds from the cap for redistribution towards all domestic needs of the government at all levels.

(Come on, does Bill Gates really need his house to be the size of a museum? Okay, so maybe we up the cap to 100 million so that Bill Gates can still support his property value of 113 million.)

How about no. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.... you should move there.

If I make 100 mil a year, I'll be damned if I am supporting a bunch of lazy bastards, junkies, and other types looking for a handout.

The only way you'd be sitting on that much money would be if they weren't, so you couldn't really blame them.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-16 07:59:36)

Xietsu wrote:

This country wasn't built ''on the values of free economy''. You should try rereading your last sentence there, max, and then apply it to yourself. You'll understand (I hope). Honestly, regulating this one - albeit, large - thing, doesn't automatically intend that our government is no longer what it is, but that it is a government with logical priorities. I never knew a man who could truly make use of 2 million. What type of over-indulgence must people need? All "communist" societies have never ever really been truly communist.

(BTW, domestic funding, fractionalized, is so barely composed of "handouts".)

Any taxes I pay to pay for welfare, I consider handout money. Social securit yincluded. I want to invest my own money the way I see fit.

And I don't care if I can use 2 mil a year or not, I earned it. Nobody else did. Don't tell me how to use my money.

I suppose it all boils down to the ethical question (previously stated) of "What type of over-indulgence must people need?"

thats the most insane idea i have ever heard of for a capitalist society...good luck with that one.

in that case, could you GIVE me $300.  I promise I wont pay it back

Well, one of the worst parts of this concept is that it will act as a disincentive to further innovation and growth. Why become an entrepreneur when you know that the government can come in and take what you've worked HARD to achieve?

Moreover, isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to suggest that your ethics and morality should take precedence over the moral compass of others in this country?

Perhaps you should also consider that tax statistics from the GAO clearly demonstrate that the top 1% of wage earners pay a disproportionate amount of tax already. It is a MYTH that the rich aren't paying their fair share, according to the GAO itself. Moreover, AMT will be upon even middle class folks within the decade, clearly eroding the ability of middle-income folks to find equity. AMT has been an intentional curse on upper-income folks for 40 years and was so poorly written that it's about to hurt the middle class as well...

While I appreciate your desire to find solutions and encourage you to consider more things as well, I would also encourage you to consider the consequences, intended or not, of your proposals. There is a reason that so many citizens of the UK fled to NYC and Monaco during the 70s…and it wasn’t the bad food in London…

Tell me, do you make more than two million a year or are you just thinking of ways to spend OTHER peoples money?

Pediblah, the US government doesn't have a system for those in need of tire replacement.

Darth_Fleder, my proposal isn't me thinking of ways to spend other peoples' money, it's me thinking of ways to better allocate their money.

Nuka, the question arose within me whether or not people would be motivated to pursue careers in which the accruing of over 2 million was possible. So, in my P.S. statement, I made an ammendment identifying that upping the cap to 100 million could be a tad more reasonable. Who knows, maybe we should discuss what the cap should be then? 'Cause we all know Oprah and Billy would give us a hoot were such a "meager cap" to be initialized. BTW, entrepreneurship doesn't steer innovation.

(P.S. All those athletes will be so discouraged! Everyone is making such good sneakers because of their excellent work! What would we do if they didnt have that extra 4 million to encourage them to work?! WHAT WOULD WE DO?!?!?! [I realize that athletes are the entrepreneurs you referenec when you say that innovation will be squelched, the precluding comment is just a poke at the majority of big-buck makers.])

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 08:58:26)

sounds like you suffer from a increasingly common disease called affluenza.

for some reason you think that those who innovate or run a succesful business should be punished for doing good.... Sorry Comrade, won't work.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Wow more flaming because of an idea "outside the box". If you don't like it just say so rather than spamming the "move to Cuba" bullshit. It gets old quick.

This idea is not "outside the box", this box has been tried many times before with notable failure. Cuba is one such country where this type of thinking is the 'box'. This type of 'outside the box' thinking is straight from the communist manifesto published in 1848.

Xietsu wrote:

Darth_Fleder, my proposal isn't me thinking of ways to spend other peoples' money, it's me thinking of ways to better allocate their money.

Which is a euphemism for exactly the same thing. How old are you? Are you still in school? Where do you get the idea allocating other's property or wealth is an appropriate enterprise?

LOL, I've made no attempt at enterprising allocation. That is the job of the government. This is merely a query into a more useful method of such. Please, inform us of the exact steps that Cuba has taken, and the exact results of their steps. I find it better that people hear for themselves what "communism is".