So Verily, you think government is a better judge of the correct price, than those who are willing to use their own money to pay for something, and therefore what - price controls? (Addendum: Oh, I notice now you are against price controls, so now I am totally confused as to what public policy prescription you are suggesting.) If you don't ration by price, then you ration by some other means, and before you know it, beyond the misallocation of resources, you will find that the connected get the goods, as opposed to those with the most money. That leads to a smaller pie, with the connected through lobbying and connections or the like, getting the biggest slices. It kind of reminds me of the Soviet Union, and I don't mean to be tendentious here. In the end there was a small pie, with connected government bureaucrats consuming a huge chunk of it, which in the end created a need to effect an economic autaurky because the goods themselves proved largely worthless on the world market.
No, this was just sort of vaguely supportive of dramatic increases in the marginal taxation rate starting around $500,000/year (eventually to the point of making income above a certain level 100% taxed, or a sort of universal income cap somewhere around maybe a few million dollars a year).
Yes, value also gets distributed inefficiently by government. I hope that some other policies can clear that up substantially; it has to be a combination package to even be worth trying. Although honestly I'm not sure that the current government (and by "current" I mean the US system generally, not any particular administration) would squander the resources more effectively than the "system" does at the moment.
It's certainly not "discredited". Universal allocation in the actual communist style is certainly discredited. I'm not advocating that. But an income cap at an extremely high level affects only a tiny segment of the population directly. It certainly does not have the defining problem of the communist system (the lack of an incentive to work hard), as the overwhelmingly majority of the population that works hard will never even approach an income of $500,000, let alone into the millions.
The purpose of such a cap would be primarily to drive money into investment and income for workers not at the extremely high end. Honestly, I think it would result in a free market boom: Suddenly, corporations are freed up from their obligations to pay enormous salaries and bonuses and will instead invest that money in further growth. (Obviously, this would need to be combined with much more strict enforcement and penalties on offshore operations designed to be tax-evading.) The purpose isn't even to generate government income.
Other than on taxation (and a couple of other economic issues, like health care and education, which I think require heavy support for a society to remain vibrant and productive), I'm pretty fiscally neoliberal. It's a bit idiosyncratic. I think I've tested narrowly into negative territory sometimes.
(Strong support for free trade, opposition to all tariffs, opposition to union protections, generally favor loosening most non-environmental or safety industrial regulations, etc.)
I had never taken the new version before and just came up as +1.94, -7.13.
