Why SHOULD we have a National Income Cap?

[Occulus]

For discussion of the 'pros' of this concept.

[norml]

1. Red Herring

[izzie]

2. Because a CEO who runs a co. into the ground needs more

Workers can always find another job that is going to be run into the ground. This is just a wild guess on my part as I watch these old Co. fall by the way side under men making millions a year to run them.

[Neil Lisst]

3. I can't imagine how it could be constitutional or enforced

[Solon]

4. It would be Constitutional...

at least, as far as I'm aware of there is no right to a certain income listed in the Bill of Rights or subsequent Amendments, even the Fourth Amendment wouldn't apply because nothing is confiscated. I'm not arguing for a Maximum Income cap, because the beauacracy to enforce such a measure would be astronomical. Granted, there is something seriously wrong with the amount of money many CEOs make, especially compared to 20 to 30 years ago. For some reason I strongly doubt that they are working a 150 times harder than they were back then.

[Neil Lisst]

6. it's not constitutional because it violates the 14th amendment

the equal protection clause

[rman]

5. Because unlimited capitalism is a winner-takes-all-system

The more money and power one has, the easier it becomes to get still more power and money. Money is power, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If income and capital are not limited we'll end up with a few people owning by far most of the wealth while the vast majority lives in poverty.
We have been moving in that direction for the past 30-40 years, and it's only getting worse.

[Occulus]

7. Fewer people seem to think we should

have such a cap, than that we shouldn't.

By the way, I don't advocate either position; I only posted these to discuss why or why not.

Permalink to the 'cons' thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=879279&mesg_id=879279