Poll: What Salary would you be happy with?

[Radiation]

Back to authoritarianism already?

Why do people always turn to this, i want an improved system and a fairer distribution of wealth, there no harm in saying people can only earn a certain amount or that businesses can only make a certain percentage of profit on top of what they provide, some just don't see the bigger picture, i doubt many here even benefit from the chance they could get rich so why be against it, don't you understand you will benefit as much as the next guy?

 

[elmarko]

Put a wage ceiling at 100k and people won't bother doing these jobs, they will instead do lesser jobs which takes less training, now you have less skilled people in your country so your total earning pot is smaller, you have less money to pay everyone.

Most intelligent & skilled people are not actually motivated only by financial gain.

Also, on that last point - you clearly have absolutely no understanding of how money is created, money is not created based on the requirement for wages.

 

[Firestar_3x]

It's stupid rich is relative, if everyone was on 50k the price of goods would go up accordingly.

So pleae enlighten me, what went down the pan in russia again and how is this system different?

 

[Freefaller]

I don't see these figures as black and white, "I want to earn x". It's more a case of if I was earning x, I'd be able to afford a lifestyle that is attractive to me.

I agree with that really. That's what I cast my vote on... being able to the live the lifestyle I'd like to be able to. Be able to spoil the ones I love, go on the holidays I like, and buy the "toys" I like! However, be able to look after my family too (as and when I get one) without being stressed about being able to afford to go on holiday/school/medical bills/home repairs etc....

 

[randomshenans]

It isn't a number, it's a lifestyle. Hence I'm in the money doesn't matter category

It is but I require enough to sustain my lifestyle... with me and my family. Which will be ever increasing no doubt.

 

[Slumberbox]

Since my work will always be in central London 8 would be required to even dream of buying a shoebox in a dilapidated part of south-east London. Currently 5 and I lived a better life in my uni days, renting privately is nothing short of extortionate!

Renting in London for daft amounts is stupid really unless it's someone elses money your blowing or your some kind of celebrity/promotions person and you need to be in a certain area, why not purchase a place in somewhere like uxbridge and commute in.

 

[Burned_Alive]

I would like to aim for 8/9, because I think this would allow me certain things in life that would be iimpossible in the other brackets. Currently well on the way towards that.

 

[randomshenans]

I agree with that really. That's what I cast my vote on... being able to the live the lifestyle I'd like to be able to. Be able to spoil the ones I love, go on the holidays I like, and buy the "toys" I like! However, be able to look after my family too (as and when I get one) without being stressed about being able to afford to go on holiday/school/medical bills/home repairs etc....

100% with this and the above!

 

[Guerrilla]

I was going to put 5 but who am I kidding i'd be over the moon with 4

 

[Firestar_3x]

Most intelligent & skilled people are not actually motivated only by financial gain.

Also, on that last point - you clearly have absolutely no understanding of how money is created, money is not created based on the requirement for wages.

Erm, i never said that, tax is created on the back of you selling your services to a 3rd party, hence the money in the pot hence having a pot to pay people 'the same'.

 

[King Damager]

Wage ceilings fail because of different people's perceptions.

As clearly pointed out some people would be happy to earn £40k and relax, others would want to earn much more. If wages were capped at £100k say, but more people earned that amount then you'd see an interesting effect.

The issue is everyone has a certain plateau (well most people), and after that amount, people tend to be happy to do less work and earn that amount. So someone who for example has a wage 'maximum of £70k. After earning £70k they reduce their workload and in turn therefore still earn £70k but may only be doing 30 hours a week instead of 40 as they see the Utility they gain from leisure as greater than the utility from the extra income they could earn.

Not to mention the fact that if you saw a general 'averaging' out of the wage rate, so there was more even distribution, you'd be at risk of seeing a lower level of Gross National Happiness. - Increased income doesn't effect your happiness, but income in comparison to your 'comparison group' (friends/neighbours/family/average for country/average for area, etc...) does. By levelling everyone out more you'd probably see a decrease in Happiness surveys.

Let's not add to that the fact that if nobody could earn more than £100k a year, there would be no reason to build elaborate projects that push the boundaries of technology and allow you to gain access to better newer technology, because a) the funding would be difficult, and b) there would be no one to buy the product. Think of the Bugatti Veyron for example. Bugatti made a loss on it even though it cost something like £1m+, and if everyone was earning max of £100k no one could afford it.

kd

 

[Radiation]

Most intelligent & skilled people are not actually motivated only by financial gain.

Also, on that last point - you clearly have absolutely no understanding of how money is created, money is not created based on the requirement for wages.

Exactly people are motivated by all sorts of things and they will still be rewarded just not to excessive levels at the expense of others, this is one of the two common arguments you see time and again, there's no evidence either way, also doing this does not mean a government will turn into a dictatorship, nor will it mean people give up and stop working or trying to better themselves.

It's stupid rich is relative, if everyone was on 50k the price of goods would go up accordingly.

No because everyone will have more to spend and more businesses will stay around, the business is just as limited in how much profits it can make so everyone has more and prices stay reasonable.

 

[King Damager]

I agree with that really. That's what I cast my vote on... being able to the live the lifestyle I'd like to be able to. Be able to spoil the ones I love, go on the holidays I like, and buy the "toys" I like! However, be able to look after my family too (as and when I get one) without being stressed about being able to afford to go on holiday/school/medical bills/home repairs etc....

You shouldn't call those lovely Thai Ladyboys toys! That's offensive!

But no my estimate again was basically based on what you've said.

I figure £100k covers the lifestyle I'd like to live.

kd

 

[elmarko]

It's stupid rich is relative, if everyone was on 50k the price of goods would go up accordingly.

So pleae enlighten me, what went down the pan in russia again and how is this system different?

Good don't just get more expensive when the gap between the rich & poor get's smaller.

Nobody's asking for everybody to be rich, I just wish for a system that allows the majority of the population to live an enjoyable life without worrying about bills/rent/energy bills.

I don't have to worry about money & would prefer the rest of the population to also not have to.

Russia was a faux-communist experiment which never came to fruition (it became state-authoritarianism), reducing the poverty gap is not synonymous to communism.

If you can't tell the difference then cool, just say so - then the adults can talk without being interrupted by people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[toshj]

Total comp has me at 9, but that's predominantly made up of commission (against a much lower basic). Would very happily settle for less total comp but a higher base salary!

 

[Firestar_3x]

No because everyone will have more to spend and more businesses will stay around, the business is just as limited in how much profits it can make so everyone has more and prices stay reasonable.

Good don't just get more expensive when the gap between the rich & poor get's smaller.

Nobody's asking for everybody to be rich, I just wish for a system that allows the majority of the population to live an enjoyable life without worrying about bills/rent/energy bills.

I don't have to worry about money & would prefer the rest of the population to also not have to.

Russia was a faux-communist experiment which never came to fruition (it became state-authoritarianism), reducing the poverty gap is not synonymous to communism.

If you can't tell the difference then cool, just say so - then the adults can talk without being interrupted by people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

So which successful country’s currently employ your wealth distribution scheme then?

 

[elmarko]

So which successful country’s currently employ your wealth distribution scheme then?

I never said any do currently employ this method, but national minimum wage is one method of doing this (nobody is earning £10 a week in the UK for real work).

The reason why it currently isn't being done is because those in power reply on donations for electoral campaigns - the largest of these coming from business & wealthy investors.

Neither of which have a vested interest in improving the economic situation of the less fortunate in society.

Just look at the impact the media has on the opinions of the nation (either pro-Labour or pro-Tory) - the year Murdoch sided with Blair was the first landslide.

Considering the owners are billionaires/millionaires does it surprise you public opinion is on the side of the wealthy.

I fail to see why even right wing people would be against a high basic wage for all of those in work, as it greatly rewards working & contribution.

I'd also wager it would strongly motivate the lazy in the UK to get into work.

 

[King Damager]

I'd also wager it would strongly motivate the lazy in the UK to get into work.

Decreasing benefits would do a good enough job of that.

kd

 

[krooton]

Increase in wages = increase in costs = increase of required turnover = increase of prices for service and goods.

It's the circle of (capitalist) life.

 

[Radiation]

Increase in wages = increase in costs = increase of required turnover = increase of prices for service and goods.

It's the circle of (capitalist) life.

Yep and an unsustainable one, there will come a time when people learn you can't have infinite growth with finite resources and space, capitalists and economists don't like to accept that truth though.