BF2S Forums Cap Maximum Income: 2 Million (USA)

The way i think about it a cap would be a nice idea.

They should never invented money. Trading is better
My english is not good enough to really go into this debate.
Howcome the global amount of money is increasing.
Cant it just be like (for example) water.
Planet earth has an X amount of water and that will never change, it just flows from here to there and back but does not become more unlike money.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

I disagree completely.  It's simply supply and demand.  Soldiering skill sets are far more easier to acquire than say, a NASA scientist or bio-engineer.  Whereas a grunt only requires a high school diploma, most scientists require Doctorate degrees.  Likewise with high school teachers, all that is required is a Bachelor's Degree and teaching credentials. The easier the skillset , the lower pay.  I appreciate their sacrifice, but relatively speaking, there are far more people who can fight than cure a disease.

The demand for teachers is incredibly high, why don't they make more?  Simply, it is more than supply and demand.  There needs to be rewards for people that risk their life so you and I can talk about stuff like this on these forums.  Look at a longshoreman.  How hard is it to do what they do?  Not very hard, and I know, because I have a friend who is one.  No high school diploma required.  They make more than I do, and I attended school to learn what I do.

Ilocano wrote:

These are the typical homes near where I work:
ZESTIMATE™: $1,966,600
http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?c … p=20698639
Everyone deserves whatever they can make, however much they make.

That'a bold statement, and I am sure many people here would disagree that Ken Lay deserves to make $100 million a year at the expense of the many people who invested in his company.

Funny you should mention that.  Check out this recent article:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955153
"This year Boston needed 675 new teachers. They got 2,800 applications — four for every job. In Los Angeles, it was five for every job. In New York, six. Chicago, 12. Kentucky had 11 applications per job, and Missouri, 19."

"It might, but the summer off means when you calculate teachers' hourly wages, you find teachers make more than chemists, physical therapists, psychologists, registered nurses, aircraft mechanics and firefighters. "

Regarding longshoremen, the key answer is: Union.

Regarding the second part, yes, I should have been more clear.  I meant honest earnings...

Erkut.hv wrote:

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

Hell no... Just no.  Communist scum of his caliber deserve not a tropical climate but instead a lifetime of freezing their asses off.

I suggest Northern China.

topal63 wrote:

two different concepts. Need (based upon a value-system) and demand (based upon an economic system). As a value-judgment - it is easy to see the need for teachers. As an economic demand - this is not true. If the demand was that high - then private instruction would cause a crisis in the public system as the "demand" for teachers would force the social-public sytem to re-evaluate it's current pay-schedule.

And so what if an idiot who didn't even graduate from high school makes x10, x20 - what you make. In regards to sales - it is not based upon technical merit - but rather sheer volume..

My point is that it is not simply based on supply and demand.  I'm not trying to argue economics or Value-based vs. Economic systems.  Thank you for proving my point.

All hail the the capitalist system. I'm so glad i don't live in the US

[1stSSF]=Nuka= wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

"The American dream is still only for the immigrants(illegal and legal)"
Edit to correct my qote sorry my spl is bad today.

I'm neither an immigrant OR from a wealthy family. I haven't completed my degree yet because I ran out of money. I also make six figures and my mother is constantly complaining about how I did so well...

I'll tell you how I did it. I learned from my peers. I leveraged my intelligence and work ethic. I found something wherein I had an natural aptitude, even if it I did not have a great deal of passion. I've been educating myself and bettering my skills and knowledge. In other words, I EARNED it. I have never and will never take a handout. I did as a kid...mmmmm, government cheese and canned pork product...

I plan carefully, work hard, and save. My divorce will not cost me a dime in real income (except for child support, which will likely be minimal since my kids are now living with me) because I have enough retirement to pay a lump sum to the mother of my children).

Perhaps I'm the exception...perhaps I simply have more gumption than some...

Good for you.  A similar example regarding some friends of mine.  They were Vietnamese refugees.  Boat people.  They lacked english speaking/reading skills.  They came here as young kids with nothing but what they could carry with them.  Most of them are now successfull professionals/doctors/dentists/optometrists/entrepreneurs.  How was this possible?  Simply put, the American dream.  Their parents sacrificed and they studied hard and worked hard to get to where they are now.  In "third world" countries, this opportunity simply does not exist for the poor.  The poor simply aspire to put food on the table and shelter for the night.  I've been to some of these poor countries, and as such, have seen it myself.

Those who have lived here for generations and continue to be in welfare/low income "for the most part", have themselves/peers to blame. 

And tell me how a black man, high school star athlete, A-grade college bound student with no gang affililiation is gunned down every year in East LA?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

[My point is that it is not simply based on supply and demand.  I'm not trying to argue economics or Value-based vs. Economic systems.  Thank you for proving my point.

It is supply and demand.  More qualified applicants than positions.  Speaking for myself, with my IT position, I have interviewed a good amount of IT applicants.  To tell you the truth, there are very few that apply that have the specific skillsets that we are looking for.  And as such, when we do find someone that closely fits what we need, we pay at or above the market rate, which is relatively more than what teachers make.  There are far more applicants who can "soldier/teach" than those who can develop Oracle/SQL Server applications.

Last edited by Ilocano (2006-05-16 11:51:28)

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Now if your making 6 figures how come you haven't finished your education yet?

Classic answer for self-starters...I don't have the time...but now that the divorce is almost final, I suspect I will finally have the time I need to finish...it'll be about 3 quarters. MBA comes thereafter, mainly to legitimize the knowledge I already have...

We already have a cap for the children...it's called the inheritance tax and there have been draconian taxation methods to attempt to make that happen for decades...but like most taxes, it actually hasn't been properly updated with any sort of an inflation index, and therefore unfairly targets things like family farms on the outskirts of urban areas...what if you WANT to farm...often you can't anymore because the death taxes will take the farm.

topal63 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

topal63 wrote:

two different concepts. Need (based upon a value-system) and demand (based upon an economic system). As a value-judgment - it is easy to see the need for teachers. As an economic demand - this is not true. If the demand was that high - then private instruction would cause a crisis in the public system as the "demand" for teachers would force the social-public sytem to re-evaluate it's current pay-schedule.

And so what if an idiot who didn't even graduate from high school makes x10, x20 - what you make. In regards to sales - it is not based upon technical merit - but rather sheer volume..

My point is that it is not simply based on supply and demand.  I'm not trying to argue economics or Value-based vs. Economic systems.  Thank you for proving my point.

So your saying - irrespective of any actual contribution to the "economic" value gained by the corporate entity - or other individuals - you deserve "more" (or should be economically compensated to a greater degree) because you deem your status to be of greater value by mere existence of some aquired knowledge that is different than another individuals - regardless whether or not  that merely existing personal knowledge-base has resulted in any actual economic gain for the corporate entity.

You have only proved your point is absurd.

I never said anything about wanting more money.  You are the one that proved my point in your post, so does that mean you proved my point is absurd?  We can debate economics all day, all night, which is fine by me.  My original post on this was that soldiers who fight for our country should be making more.  Ilocano came back with "its simply supply and demand."  I used a piss poor example to prove that is wrong, you gave better reasoning.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Well the problem with that cap going to children is that it only really only effects middle/higher middle class families who don't have the resourches to skirt around it.

Hence my concern about even MORE badly written tax code like the proposed cap...the law of unintended consequences ALWAYS mitigates any good from a given taxation bill.

The more complex the tax code, the more holes and the more some folks figure out ways to skirt it...

whittsend wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Please, tell me what types of rights are referred to in the following passage:

That in no way limits the subversion of income. Although, I shall follow up with your request however useless. There are private, public, and civic rights within that pragraph. Legal rights can't be found within it because that is merely a document in which lawmakers have used to forge their legal rights, so in essence, it is a partial, incomplete portrayal of legal right as well.

"That in no way limits the subversion of income."  I love it!  It will comfort you to know that (as I have been told by your ideological comrades in the past) that you need not worry about this document in any case.  It seems The Declaration of Independence is not legally binding; a source of some comfort to those who place the rights of the state above those of the individual, I'm sure.

I find it very amusing that you feel yourself qualified to critique Thomas Jefferson so callously.  Fortunately, he was one of the architechts of this nation, and not you.

You have a narrow view of what rights are...perhaps as dictated to you in a class?  Of course, one who doesn't respect the rights of the individual can be expected to deny the existence of Natural Rights.  In any case you are clearly not equipped to understand the natural rights of man, much less respect them.  I suggest you do a little research on the Natural Rights you deny the existence of, for those are the rights enumerated by Jefferson ("We hold these truths to be self-evident..."  Legal Rights are those defined by the state, Jefferson refers to rights endowed by the Creator = Natural Rights). 

You will no longer be troubled by me in this debate.  There's no point, you are too far from understanding what you propose.  Meanwhile, your Reading list should include, among others, the following:

John Locke
John Stuart Mill
Thomas Paine
Thomas Jefferson

I wish you luck and wisdom.

lmao. You honestly believe there to be “Natural Rights”? Hahaha…how hilarious. These are inexistent, and all you have shown me is your fantastical, blissful patronage towards a founding forefather. There are no “Natural Rights” – this is merely a label you have attributed to the comprehension of civically-translated ethics, as seen through the light of an English revolutionary. Ethics change with society, and so too can civics (and, as down the stairs we go, so too can law). So many people support this form of civics because it identifies so closely with the success of the individual on a scale that preserves selfish ends (this logically being the extreme end of the spectrum). Of course, this is seen only as selfish through my “revolutionary” perception of ethics/civics.

In order to understand the deversifiability that such concepts hold, you must keep in mind 2 key ideas. Ethics and civics always hold comely morals as underpinnings, with modern renditions of these concepts stemming largely from poets writing of religion (back in the day, yo’) and the fairly new “modern revolutionaries” to civilization as it were – those of which include many thinkers throughout the 18th century. The only differential in this (my) approach upon these concepts, is that over-indulgence and support for the greater, governmental good is given. Thus, this is why I have repeated over and over the fact that this discussion is more likely the ethical “What over-indulgence must people need?”

If you can settle on the fact that indulgence doesn’t need such extravagance, you may also be able to settle upon the fact that modern ethics, civics, and law ought to establish a more avid footing behind the type of breadth that (effectively) governing such societies requires in today’s world. So, should you make it this far, we can then start discussing to what level such people should be exacted upon (i.e. 2 million? 100 million?). To all onlookers, I’d just like to let you contemplate this one word – adherence.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

You are still dodging my questions.

Your questions are useless - tell me, what will you do once you have found out? If you say "Oh, I couldn't possibly know, I don't have the answer yet," then you have created a sidetrack of irrelevance. If you are going to say "Oh, well that's very intriguing seeing as where you stand amongst your background," then you have still created a sidetrack of irrelevance. The fact is that it matters not through what stance and perspective I have drawn this proposal (requiring debate). You will uncover such aspects - at least, in the most applicable degree - should you read my responses as of yet.

*Please, provide some evidence to the "leftists" supporting such cures to social ills.

First off, let me say that your english teachers must be proud of you. You do write rather well, although I do sense an attempt to obfusticate through your use of the language.

My mother, my wife, my son and myself all have spent considerable time working/attending in the school system at varying levels and I have had ample exposure to the ideas and philosophies of those who attend and work in these insitutions. While I am at work, I do not have the time to throughly present non-anecdotal evidence of my claims, although if you don't believe them you are either in denial or are blind to the truth.

The entire premise to my questions are not so much to derail and sidetrack, but to point out that these ideas are not new. They have been being debated for at least a century and a half and yet the young purport them as being something new. The answer to these questions also would allow me to tailor some examples that you could relate to.


Just a footnote...

Constitution of the United States wrote:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So you’re inferring that you see me as an adolescent because you also somehow view me to be conveying (through some sort of odd connotation) that my proposal of restraining income was new? Seeing as that’s probably not the case, give me an example of “the young” establishing this train of thought as new? As it were, this idea is of particular difference, and relates in only a minor manner to the concepts of communism.

Honestly, who the hell cares if the author of such an idea – exactly similar to this one – claims it as being new? Truly a rousing idea. As if one of us were trying to make solicit some famed stance…in a forum…created largely in part to a video game. But even still, regardless of this, why do your examples even matter? They further the discussion of the topic at hand in no way. At least, from what you’ve described, they certainly sound as though no productive product will have been produced.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 14:58:04)

topal63 wrote:

Not only should education be an attractive choice as career (as a social judment), so in some sense should the military - as well. But the cost is not an issue that can be denied - as this Nations Debt soars to ever new ridiculous levels. So I don't know what is the appropriate thing to do/or should be done, economically speaking, with reference to military service compensation? As in the end a value judgment only goes so far - but prosperity is real (show me the moeny!).

At a certain level/point, teachers/military personnel are reasonably compensated.  When you factor in pensions/benefits, military housing/children allowances, MCRD, and such...  Officers and senior teachers do make "good" money.

As John Stossel noted, the myth that teachers are under-paid, is simply that, a myth.  Sure, those with very little experience/training are low wagers, but over time, pay scale changes significantly.  Like any other field.

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.)

GO TO CHINA COMMUNIST. if you belive thats how things should be move to a communist country. Go somewhere were your ideas are instated. DONT RUIN OUR COUNTRY!