Economic Ideology: Proportionalism

[Floofybit]

I have attempted to make the perfect economic ideology so please give me your thoughts.

Capitalism and socialism both have their problems, capitalism having extremely rich people who make a disproportionately large amount of money for just being an owner of a successful company and socialism/communism for being too equal and rewarding the people who don't work hard with the same money as those who do. Proportionalism removes these by creating incomes proportional to their jobs. Important jobs make more money than less important jobs, and the pay for each of those jobs are similar depending on where you work and your ethnicity, sex, etc. You can raise and lower your income through a competitive pay with going up to 5-10% off the pay. If you would make more money that your maximum job pay, it is given back to the government, so there are no giant over-the-top companies, nor are there unsuccessful companies. Similarly, a free market isn't good as is proves for little regulation and a closed market leaves for no freedom of what business you work at or create; you can create businesses, but they must be approved by the government, and are supported by the government, so you can have your dream buisness, but you can run it safely and correctly. Finally, there are flat taxes so the tax is a fair percentage for everyone. And now you may be thinking, what about people with disabilities?! Well, as people have proportional incomes, leftover money and taxes are given to help people who are poor and with disabilities, along with the advancement and betterment of companies and life.

Thoughts on PROPORTIONALISM?

[Tinhampton]

The terms of many coronavirus lockdowns were criticised because they designated some businesses as "essential" while forcing others to close. Likewise: who determines what makes any job more or less important than any other job?

[Untecna]

Concur with Tinhampton, and in addition:

and the pay for each of those jobs are similar depending on where you work and your ethnicity, sex, etc.

This quote makes me feel as if the result would end up continuing the disparity between incomes, regardless of what you would end up saying. You don't state how these incomes are regulated in proportions to one another so we must assume that the businesses have control over their pay.

What even designates an "important" job? Work helps society function, therefore it is important. What makes one job more important than another?

[Picairn]

What is this, watered down social democracy? I need you to define "important jobs" and unimportant ones please. "You can create business but they must be approved" already exists, it's called a business license. Flat taxes perpetuate inequality, taxing the poor at the same rates as the rich is very unfair.

Most important question of all, how do you create "proportional incomes" relative to the "importance" of a job, exactly?

[Radiatia]

This basically sounds like economic fascism to me.

I don't mean that in a pejorative sense - I mean, quite literally, this sounds to me like the economic system espoused by the fascist movements of the 1920s in which they tried to create a third position between capitalism and socialism and created a kind of government corporatism that sounds remarkably like your plan.

My primary objection to your suggestion is that I don't trust the state to designate what is and isn't 'important', as history has exemplified that the state's objectives are not always benevolent. I'd prefer to retain the current, if flawed, system of having the market determine what is and isn't 'important' through supply and demand.

This system also wouldn't leave much room for innovation or entrepreneurship and therefore is likely to fall into the same holes that communism fell into - it seems to assume that we have reached the end of progress and history and does not factor in new technology, new modes of production or even the movement from industrial to post-industrial society.

[Wallowis]

Umm..flat tax? I don't think that'd work for what you want it to work for.

[Floofybit]

Umm..flat tax? I don't think that'd work for what you want it to work for.

How come? If there is too much equality in income, the hard workers are not rewards, but people with easy, lazy jobs are. I feel like this could work because as there aren't really stocks as things are very regulated, people make money in proportion to how society needs them

[Page]

If you were really ranking jobs in order of importance, then of everybody who works for McDonald's, the fry cooks would make the most while the CEO would make the least. The further up the chain of command you go, the less necessary you are.

[Wallowis]

Umm..flat tax? I don't think that'd work for what you want it to work for.

How come? If there is too much equality in income, the hard workers are not rewards, but people with easy, lazy jobs are. I feel like this could work because as there aren't really stocks as things are very regulated, people make money in proportion to how society needs them

See, you're trying to make this as a compromise between socialism and capitalism but the problem is you're already biased towards capitalism by using capitalist rhetoric.

[Floofybit]

How come? If there is too much equality in income, the hard workers are not rewards, but people with easy, lazy jobs are. I feel like this could work because as there aren't really stocks as things are very regulated, people make money in proportion to how society needs them

See, you're trying to make this as a compromise between socialism and capitalism but the problem is you're already biased towards capitalism by using capitalist rhetoric.

Well, I don't really know how a varied tax would be better. People who are more get more welfare than the rich, so in a sense, they have a negative sort of tax

[Floofybit]

The terms of many coronavirus lockdowns were criticised because they designated some businesses as "essential" while forcing others to close. Likewise: who determines what makes any job more or less important than any other job?

The people do. The income rolls around through supply and demand, so if people don't want a product, people don't get paid as much. Similarly, life saving operators are essential and get paid more, along with other essentials

Luxury companies aren't as rewarder because they aren't as essential as getting everyone proper clothes

[Picairn]

The people do. The income rolls around through supply and demand, so if people don't want a product, people don't get paid as much. Similarly, life saving operators are essential and get paid more, along with other essentials

Luxury companies aren't as rewarder because they aren't as essential as getting everyone proper clothes

Celebrities and sports players are getting paid in the millions despite them not being as *relatively* essential as workers and farmers, for instance. How do you address that?

[Floofybit]

If you were really ranking jobs in order of importance, then of everybody who works for McDonald's, the fry cooks would make the most while the CEO would make the least. The further up the chain of command you go, the less necessary you are.

Well, I think there would be different positions. Mostly workers and managers. I think managers would likely be paid more because they run the company and report to the government what they need and proposed advancements in the workplace.

[Floofybit]

The people do. The income rolls around through supply and demand, so if people don't want a product, people don't get paid as much. Similarly, life saving operators are essential and get paid more, along with other essentials

Luxury companies aren't as rewarder because they aren't as essential as getting everyone proper clothes

Celebrities and sports players are getting paid in the millions despite them not being as *relatively* essential as workers and farmers, for instance. How do you address that?

Unless celebrities have a real job, they won't make much. Sports and celebrities aren't very important, so they would make significantly less, but as they are popular, that could be a boost to their business if they have a real business

[El Lazaro]

Wait until you find out about this guy called Lenin who came up with the same idea 100 years ago.

[Informed Consent]

I am just going to cut to the chase.

Socioeconomic justice in its simplest form is "I catch the fish, I eat the fish", quickly amended by "What I do with a second fish is my prerogative".
The further away you get from that, the longer you refuse to accept that all of us being born without choice in circumstance is what makes us all equal to start, and the less say you have in determining your own market value, the more dysfunctional things get.

Have crony capitalists and socialist pretenders not made it clear yet?
Well the new century is about to hammer home how squeezing out free association and dynamic organization out of your socioeconomic paradigm, or not putting it there in the first place, will only lead you into tyranny and deprivation, whatever your ideological pretensions.

[Kalivyah]

I have attempted to make the perfect economic ideology so please give me your thoughts.

Capitalism and socialism both have their problems, capitalism having extremely rich people who make a disproportionately large amount of money for just being an owner of a successful company and socialism/communism for being too equal and rewarding the people who don't work hard with the same money as those who do. Proportionalism removes these by creating incomes proportional to their jobs. Important jobs make more money than less important jobs, and the pay for each of those jobs are similar depending on where you work and your ethnicity, sex, etc. You can raise and lower your income through a competitive pay with going up to 5-10% off the pay. If you would make more money that your maximum job pay, it is given back to the government, so there are no giant over-the-top companies, nor are there unsuccessful companies. Similarly, a free market isn't good as is proves for little regulation and a closed market leaves for no freedom of what business you work at or create; you can create businesses, but they must be approved by the government, and are supported by the government, so you can have your dream buisness, but you can run it safely and correctly. Finally, there are flat taxes so the tax is a fair percentage for everyone. And now you may be thinking, what about people with disabilities?! Well, as people have proportional incomes, leftover money and taxes are given to help people who are poor and with disabilities, along with the advancement and betterment of companies and life.

Thoughts on PROPORTIONALISM?

- communism is when everyone makes the same amount of money

Instantaneously rejected.

[Informed Consent]

- communism is when everyone makes the same amount of money
Instantaneously rejected.

For obvious reasons.

[Ethel mermania]

Not interested in some failed sociology major determining how important my job is and what I get paid.

So no thank you.

[El Lazaro]

Not interested in some failed sociology major determining how important my job is and what I get paid.

So no thank you.

If you don’t want to starve, just become a Party bureaucrat. People need to stop having such a victim mentality and proactively screw other people over instead.

[Ethel mermania]

Not interested in some failed sociology major determining how important my job is and what I get paid.

So no thank you.

If you don’t want to starve, just become a Party bureaucrat. People need to stop having such a victim mentality and proactively screw other people over instead.

True, but I like doing productive work.