I have been thinking on an absolute wealth cap on income and savings. It should be for both individuals and corporations. The corporations can have their cap increased by hiring employees, based on the wage of the employee. Employees themselves have income ranks, so someone like a CEO is capped at $100,000 a year, while a waitress is at $40,000. UBI for someone who doesn’t work is at $10,000 annually. This forces the economy to control inflation and price goods according to what income levels that companies want to reach. UBI can also supply generic items, shelter, and services, so that money is used solely for luxury items or lifestyle upgrades. This gives workers the ability to strike or protest, since society isn’t holding their wellbeing hostage.
Also, companies can sponsor an income lotto to increase their caps, that gives individuals increased income ranks without having to work. This helps address the workers that are replaced by AI. We need that sort of mechanism for an automated society, else many people will suffer terribly.
You’re suffering from what I might call liberal disease or the wonkish fallacy. If you’re going to propose some policy that would radically transform society, you need to KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Forget the Everything Bagel Liberalism. Don’t try to solve every social ill with one policy. Don’t try to make it perfect. Don’t add a bunch of provisos and loopholes, even if those loopholes are made with good intentions. People lose track of your goals, and they become understandably suspect that you’re trying to pull a con on them with all this fine print.
That’s why I propose a 1000x median household income cap. It’s simple, clear, and understandable by anyone. If the basic outline of your policy cannot be understood by someone with an 8th grade education, then you are failing at writing policy.
I disagree. It IS simple, especially compared to what we have now as a society. We are so used to traditional capitalism, steeped in it for decades of our entire lives, that rules that depict a different way are strange and foreign. Also, merely raising 1,000x income by cap alone is bad, because it undoubtedly leaves room for exploitation, nor does it address it the snowball effect of capitalism.
We need a means to dictate the everyday wellbeing of people, ensure that they can obtain prosperity, and never have their wealth become a toxic substance. That means rules and engineering.
Cool. Let me ask you this: what philosophies and rules did the founding fathers set down in the founding documents for America?
Those are WAY wordier than what I put here, and they worked for a couple of centuries. Brainpower isn’t the issue here, it is the ethical intent and devising rules that naturally lend themselves to be self-enforcing, that matters.
I have been thinking on an absolute wealth cap on income and savings. It should be for both individuals and corporations. The corporations can have their cap increased by hiring employees, based on the wage of the employee. Employees themselves have income ranks, so someone like a CEO is capped at $100,000 a year, while a waitress is at $40,000. UBI for someone who doesn’t work is at $10,000 annually. This forces the economy to control inflation and price goods according to what income levels that companies want to reach. UBI can also supply generic items, shelter, and services, so that money is used solely for luxury items or lifestyle upgrades. This gives workers the ability to strike or protest, since society isn’t holding their wellbeing hostage.
Also, companies can sponsor an income lotto to increase their caps, that gives individuals increased income ranks without having to work. This helps address the workers that are replaced by AI. We need that sort of mechanism for an automated society, else many people will suffer terribly.
You’re suffering from what I might call liberal disease or the wonkish fallacy. If you’re going to propose some policy that would radically transform society, you need to KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Forget the Everything Bagel Liberalism. Don’t try to solve every social ill with one policy. Don’t try to make it perfect. Don’t add a bunch of provisos and loopholes, even if those loopholes are made with good intentions. People lose track of your goals, and they become understandably suspect that you’re trying to pull a con on them with all this fine print.
That’s why I propose a 1000x median household income cap. It’s simple, clear, and understandable by anyone. If the basic outline of your policy cannot be understood by someone with an 8th grade education, then you are failing at writing policy.
I disagree. It IS simple, especially compared to what we have now as a society. We are so used to traditional capitalism, steeped in it for decades of our entire lives, that rules that depict a different way are strange and foreign. Also, merely raising 1,000x income by cap alone is bad, because it undoubtedly leaves room for exploitation, nor does it address it the snowball effect of capitalism.
We need a means to dictate the everyday wellbeing of people, ensure that they can obtain prosperity, and never have their wealth become a toxic substance. That means rules and engineering.
Anyhow, some slides of what I have in mind.
UNIVERSAL RANKED INCOME
Me: “if your policy isn’t understandable by someone with an 8th grade education, you’re doing it wrong.”
You: “Here’s my slide deck.”
Cool. Let me ask you this: what philosophies and rules did the founding fathers set down in the founding documents for America?
Those are WAY wordier than what I put here, and they worked for a couple of centuries. Brainpower isn’t the issue here, it is the ethical intent and devising rules that naturally lend themselves to be self-enforcing, that matters.