Uh why not both? I don't think they're mutual exclusive, rather they actually are mutual inclusive. She won't be a high earner if we don't value her music. After all, "starving artists" is a thing.
"Mismanaged" is a very general thing, and lack of motivation fall under it. My mother was an extremely motivated and talented worker before our country fell to communist. She had dreamed about a comfortable life not just for herself, but her parents, to act as the locomotive and pull all of her brother and sister (which there are about 10) to greatness, and that motivated her to work hard, far harder than most of her peer That's all shattered, under communism she was not allowed to have more than what enough to barely sustain herself regardless of how much she works, so the question is why should she work at her full potential when 1/10 of that already max out the reward? And that lasted until the Soviet collapse and various communist country embraced capitalism again and people are freely compensated for their work. It didn't take her long to stand at the top of the food chain again with the talents she had.I am familiar with a similar reason. But a one that was pointed to me as a more significant reason - is mismanaged production and lack of competition.
It's big enough of a problem that it became some soft of a folklore joke in my country, there was this saying: under communism a farmer working on the field, as he lifted the hoe above his head for another swing he heard the bell chim for the end of shift, he would release the hoe and it fell to the ground instead of actually finish the motion for that last swing. People were just that apathetic and indifferent. Often time people will try to find various reason to blame for a collapse, but ultimately beyond any infrastructure or technology is always the human factor. You can move mountain with barehand if the people motivated enough, and even the best machinery won't dig a tunnel if the operator can't be arsed to do it.
That's not really how it works. Think of your proposal is like strip mining or overhaversting a natural resource. Ideally you want to harvest (tax) just enough not only to sustain your need (social spending) but also preserve the deposit, let it recover ( motivation to keep producing) and ideally, even let it develop (motivation to grow and develope), because as population increase, your need for it will only increase, not decrease. Most of the ideal from socialism I see so far is akin to you look at these rich deposits (people with high earning) and you want to strip mining it. Like I said, you will have a pretty good haul at the beginning, but you will also deplete the deposit with little chance of recover (people stopped working, or move away).fiksal wrote: ↑Wed, 27. Feb 19, 04:12 Her quitting the music scene can play out the same way in just a couple variations of the two concepts discussed so far.
- the paycheck cap is too low for her (lets say the same $500k), she quits.
- she stays, if it's 36million and not taxed.
- the progressive tax is too high for her tax bracket, she quits.
- she stays, if it's not, and also not taxed.
Then I have nothing to add on that, since the point of discussion had shifted. I only original came out to address why a hardcap is an extremely bad idea, so my argument is built around that, if that's no longer the case then my argument is moot.I want to remind you that I've previous amended the plan to a version of progressive tax. I've not looked into numbers, but for the sake of keeping this discussion going, lets say it's higher than the one right now in US.