Kasz216 on 23 October 2008
| Final-Fan said: First off, I'm not aware that (B) is generally true when you get to the high income brackets. Secondly, I believe that people in highly paid positions are more likely to be able to "game the system" to give them higher salaries. I don't know how else a CEO can make over a hundred million dollars per year. http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/ http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/24/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm People are entitled to the fruits of their labor, true. But how much fruit can a person really eat? I think it's fair to take higher percentages from relatively very high incomes even after compensating for the cost of bare necessities, because of the diminishing returns of practical usefulness of money. But the point is a bit moot since we don't have such a system in place (of compensation). |
Even those who aren't paid hour are paid what they are valued at however.
As for "how much fruit can a person eat."
That seems irrelevant. How much money can a person spend. People have often asked me why i bought a playstation 3 because "How many games systems can i really play?"
Even if can't play them all. (though I can.) Don't I have a right to collect videogames?
Legislating on a "what can they really use?" basis sets a dangerous precedent.
I mean... Evander Hollifield has a 100 room house. He can't possibly use all those rooms. Should the government allow someone to move into a few rooms near the back of his house?
Laws need to be transparent, easy and fair to prevent abuse.
