What do you consider too much

[VanB]

I had an interesting argument with a friend yesterday about what he considers too much for one person to earn in a year. He didn't think there was any difference between someone employed by a corporate and someone who has built there own business (I do).

So tell me what you think is too much for one person and why.

 

[RawHumor]

Why should we care what someone else makes? It's not like the economy is a fixed pie so that if someone gets a bigger piece, you're losing out on some.

 

[Dragon Dreamer]

You forgot an option, "I don't care." I really have no problem with someone making as much as they can, even if it's in the billions of dollars, especially if it is someone who built up their own business.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Kind of a bizare question Van. Obviously, it depends on the lifestyle one wants to live. For me, I think anything over about $200,000 would be extreme. I don't have much desire for material accoutrements, so anything beyond what I need to feed my kids, provide shelter, and have some acreage and some horses is a tax nightmare.

And, considering that right now, $50K a year sounds like a hell of a lot of money, 200K is beyond comprehension.

 

[VanB]

I agree with that sentiment but there are an awful lot of people who don't - espacially with left-wing leanings (not that anyone who has a limit has to have left wing leanings)

Personally i think fair play to to someone like Bill Gates even though he'll never spend what he makes unless he buys a couple of countries

 

[thumbs2_ca]

well

Sky is the limit if I was making it however I do get bummed out when you hear a hockey player getting 45,000,000 over 5 seasons. I guess if they are willing to pay it why not though.
I have no problem with someone that starts a business and works his butt off to get well paid although I work my butt off and get screwed over... lol

 

[lisalove]

It's not so much what someone earns it's why is there such a high value on certain occupations. Top entertainers (movies, sports etc) often make millions per year, yet doctors & teachers make a paltry amount in comparison. As well, a stripper could easily take home $1000 per night, while a stay-at-home mom gets fuck all (other than the joy of her kids...cash would be nice too).

Why does society reward (monetarily) those things which do not necessarily contribute to the well-being of humanity?

 

[RawHumor]

It's not so much what someone earns it's why is there such a high value on certain occupations. Top entertainers (movies, sports etc) often make millions per year, yet doctors & teachers make a paltry amount in comparison. As well, a stripper could easily take home $1000 per night, while a stay-at-home mom gets fuck all (other than the joy of her kids...cash would be nice too).

Why does society reward (monetarily) those things which do not necessarily contribute to the well-being of humanity?

It's called capitalism, my dear. In theory, as a housewife, you earn half of whatever your husband earns.

A stripper earns as much as she can get by entertaining her clients. She's doing something that most of us would not, or could not, do.

An actor or a sports star earns as much as he/she can get for that particular position. People pay a lot of money to go to a sporting event or to a movie. The players and actors play a big part in that and are paid accordingly. They have skills that most of us do not possess.

 

[plasticman33]

If someone has had the incentive and motivation to become successful, more power to them!

What does irritate me sometimes are professional sports stars, who have basically become good at a kids sport, signing multi-million dollar contracts. Then seeing them get arrested for drugs and/or weapons violations or listening to them being interviewed and finding out they can barely speak english even after they've graduated from leading colleges. What kind of screwed up image does that project!

 

[JazzManJim]

Why does society reward (monetarily) those things which do not necessarily contribute to the well-being of humanity?

Supply and Demand.

The more uncommon the skill, the harder it is to find. This makes it more valuable in the same way that a diamond is more valuable than a quartz.

There are also jobs which are hard to fill because they're either dangerous or just dirty jobs and there just aren't many folks interested in doing the work. The tougher a job is to fill, the bigger the salary will be.

That, of course gets circumvented when the jobs are government jobs. the government isn't much affected my free market forces and that's why teachers and police officers and firemen are so horribly underpaid in comparison to their counterparts in private enterprise.

Entertainers and sports figures, and even strippers, operate under a slightly modified version of this rule. Not only are their skills uncommon, but they directly provide money to their employuers, thus their employers have a vested interest in getting the best they can get with those skills. They pay premium to attract them.

 

[Dougy]

Why should we care what someone else makes? It's not like the economy is a fixed pie so that if someone gets a bigger piece, you're losing out on some.

Mmmm...fixed pie...

 

[exvitermini]

There is no such thing as someone who makes "too much money". With few exceptions, if you took all the wealth in the world and re-distributed it so that everyone made the same amount of money, the same people that were wealthy before will become wealthy again. And the same that were poor before bill be broke ass again.

With few exceptions, as I said.