Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
@llamasoft_ox@toot.walesPerhaps there ought to be something like a maximum delta of inequality, whereby nobody is allowed to become richer than a hard-coded number of times the earnings of the lowest-paid workers. Then if the fatcats wanted more the only way they could get it would be by improving the lot of the people "beneath" them.
@llamasoft_ox I saw a suggestion that if you got to $999,999,999 you got a little plaque saying "you win Capitalism!" and then you have to give the rest away - the number doesn't go higher than that.
@TomF yeah, bring on maxint! Even have it so it wraps round to a negative value if you continue to increment 
@llamasoft_ox @TomF Spoken like a true arcade aficionado :)
$100 million is more than anyone sane needs to live the rest of their life in comfort. If I had that much money, I could safely give away a little.
@llamasoft_ox I endorse this notion.
@llamasoft_ox Or, if they gain wealth beyond the threshold, we eat them, and redistribute the wealth.
@llamasoft_ox Nah, the fatcats then just change the method of counting so their wealth doesn't appear to be that much larger.
@llamasoft_ox my personal preference is for income tax trip be set at a multiple of mean wages. As 7* was the difference between bottom and top decile in the 1970s I'm inclined to suggest the rate is set so that once your income is over 7* mean wages your pay rises result in a drop in take-home pay. Conversely if you have below mean wages, as most do, them your pay is topped up by a similar calculation.
