(Original post by jismith1989)
Well, I think that being in the top 1% should be disincentivised. No one needs that amount of money; it is completely superfluous and it could be put to good use.
Well that's a bit silly. What do you think people do with their money? put it under the matress? It's almost always invested, largely into american or to multinational corporates, creating jobs in america and throughout the developping world.
Also, the higher incomed donate a larger proportion of their money to charities for obvious reasons, and if there was no higher incomed then people would be donating very little to nothing, which would be detrimental to so many organisations throughout the world.
Think about what your saying - if you're disincentivising being in the top 1%, then no-ones going to want to do it, meaning that people will keep undercutting eachother, trying to earn less. How far do you want that to go?
Lastly much of the world's economy relies on american consumer spending, and I think its common sense that the top 1% spends the most on consumer goods.
Saying that no-one needs to be in the top 1% doesn't mean that no-one should be in the top 1%. No-one needs 5 a day, but its still good for you!
It's one thing to be a bit of a lefty and hate republicans and all that, but its just a bit backwards to have something against capitalism, the only reason why we're not still in the dark ages.