I have been thinking along similar lines, especially with respect to compensation rates. But I feel like hard caps run into a lot of issues especially over time. They entrench class divides unnecessarily. They should be adjusted to address local cost of living, inflation and probably some other things.
What if instead taxes on income (and assets) are based on a s-curve formula that keeps everyone’s hourly rate (or total wealth) within 3x or 5x of everyone else? You work more hours, you still get more money.
The asset limits are so low that no can own a house. Asset limit should be at least 7x the top wage earners annual salary.
All of this assumes that no one needs to privately save for retirement, because food, shelter, housing, healthcare are already guaranteed. But there should also probably be a social security equivalent based on number of hours worked over your lifetime, regardless of compensation rate. Just make sure its funded as an investment, rather than immediately paying out from what’s paid in.
One thing to note before proceeding, is that I assume the traditional American dollar would be dead, along with its inflation, if people are willing to allow these kinds of reforms to happen. As such, we wouldn’t see the same currency values for things.
However, on top of that, is that money is an optimization device. It is a fictional construct that we use to simplify our lives, so we aren’t trying to constantly figure out whether a giant chicken is worth four piglets at checkout. The values are based on what society can agree stuff is approximately worth…
…so I figure, assuming everyone within the nation operated within fixed wealth caps, the pricing of goods will adjust to what money people have. So things like houses will be priced to assume no individual has more than $100,000 to spare for a house, and the pricing will be lowered so that migrants can afford a home within their own $50k cap.
What I am asserting, is that wealth caps adjust inflation. Whether they do so in a helpful way is unknown, since we haven’t tried them.
000000
Anyhow, I have more writings on various things within the Universal Living ecosystem that I have been cobbling together. When it comes to retirement, I figure it goes like this:
Every day worked, you get 1 day’s worth of benefits. Employers pay the benefits, unless shuttered, in which case the government takes over. Benefits are accrued over a person’s career, and when given out, replace a person’ Universal Income when they are jobless.
Say that someone has $2,000,000 in retirement…
They receive $100,000 annually. In effect, the retirement is structured like job income.
By doing it this way, people can have plenty of money to work with, and strange distortions like millionares can’t exist.
000000
Accountability, to prevent corporate malfeasance such as killing a company to remove liabilities like retiree benefits, is the biggest issue. I figure that people who hold or held leadership roles should suffer a personal penalty when a company goes under while it still has obligations.
This can potentially work, because under Universal Services, no one can die of starvation, a lack of shelter, and so on. So we can totally penalize abusers by removing all of their luxury money. So an executive who earned a $200,000 penalty, will have all of their job and Universal Income totally consumed by it, working towards paying it all off.
Not kind, but as proven by the executives of our day, we shouldn’t hold back.
0000
While I do have writing on taxes, I am out of energy for much explanation at this moment. I will be very brief: The taxation of individuals isn’t about paying the government, but rather to encourage individuals to participate in society. The taxes are earmarked by a person to go towards things they value - for example, fixing potholes along a street they use regularly. It is basically crowdfunding, designed to engage people into thinking about their community and cultural interests. That is more important than the money itself.
Corporate taxation is where government gets the bulk of their money. By incentivizing government, we can make them heavily observe corporations for corruption, and using assorted measures to ensure government gets its due. The federal and state governments can assign a rotation of book-keepers for companies, so that the government can track the holdings of a company and ensure that taxes are reliably collected.
I have been thinking along similar lines, especially with respect to compensation rates. But I feel like hard caps run into a lot of issues especially over time. They entrench class divides unnecessarily. They should be adjusted to address local cost of living, inflation and probably some other things.
What if instead taxes on income (and assets) are based on a s-curve formula that keeps everyone’s hourly rate (or total wealth) within 3x or 5x of everyone else? You work more hours, you still get more money.
The asset limits are so low that no can own a house. Asset limit should be at least 7x the top wage earners annual salary.
All of this assumes that no one needs to privately save for retirement, because food, shelter, housing, healthcare are already guaranteed. But there should also probably be a social security equivalent based on number of hours worked over your lifetime, regardless of compensation rate. Just make sure its funded as an investment, rather than immediately paying out from what’s paid in.
One thing to note before proceeding, is that I assume the traditional American dollar would be dead, along with its inflation, if people are willing to allow these kinds of reforms to happen. As such, we wouldn’t see the same currency values for things.
However, on top of that, is that money is an optimization device. It is a fictional construct that we use to simplify our lives, so we aren’t trying to constantly figure out whether a giant chicken is worth four piglets at checkout. The values are based on what society can agree stuff is approximately worth…
…so I figure, assuming everyone within the nation operated within fixed wealth caps, the pricing of goods will adjust to what money people have. So things like houses will be priced to assume no individual has more than $100,000 to spare for a house, and the pricing will be lowered so that migrants can afford a home within their own $50k cap.
What I am asserting, is that wealth caps adjust inflation. Whether they do so in a helpful way is unknown, since we haven’t tried them.
000000
Anyhow, I have more writings on various things within the Universal Living ecosystem that I have been cobbling together. When it comes to retirement, I figure it goes like this:
Every day worked, you get 1 day’s worth of benefits. Employers pay the benefits, unless shuttered, in which case the government takes over. Benefits are accrued over a person’s career, and when given out, replace a person’ Universal Income when they are jobless.
Say that someone has $2,000,000 in retirement…
They receive $100,000 annually. In effect, the retirement is structured like job income.
By doing it this way, people can have plenty of money to work with, and strange distortions like millionares can’t exist.
000000
Accountability, to prevent corporate malfeasance such as killing a company to remove liabilities like retiree benefits, is the biggest issue. I figure that people who hold or held leadership roles should suffer a personal penalty when a company goes under while it still has obligations.
This can potentially work, because under Universal Services, no one can die of starvation, a lack of shelter, and so on. So we can totally penalize abusers by removing all of their luxury money. So an executive who earned a $200,000 penalty, will have all of their job and Universal Income totally consumed by it, working towards paying it all off.
Not kind, but as proven by the executives of our day, we shouldn’t hold back.
0000
While I do have writing on taxes, I am out of energy for much explanation at this moment. I will be very brief: The taxation of individuals isn’t about paying the government, but rather to encourage individuals to participate in society. The taxes are earmarked by a person to go towards things they value - for example, fixing potholes along a street they use regularly. It is basically crowdfunding, designed to engage people into thinking about their community and cultural interests. That is more important than the money itself.
Corporate taxation is where government gets the bulk of their money. By incentivizing government, we can make them heavily observe corporations for corruption, and using assorted measures to ensure government gets its due. The federal and state governments can assign a rotation of book-keepers for companies, so that the government can track the holdings of a company and ensure that taxes are reliably collected.
…That is it for now. I got some Palworld to play.