Government resources will help to address cap excesses on gross income, including interest and capital gains.

If one does not spend all income in the course of a year, extra money as usual can be placed in savings or investments. Owning amounts over the cap is not so problematic, but earning over the cap in the course of the year is.

Though ownership too has its limits. During the transitional phase of capitallism, existing superpowers will possess much wealth in savings and investments from preimplementation days. Also, despite legally earning under the cap, individuals or institutions may through time and generations acquire excesses of wealth. And in a profitable year, there are cases where capital gains, investments, or profit may push aggregate earnings over the cap.

There are different possibilities for managing cap excesses. Excesses of ownership and earnings could be taken away and reallocated toward governmental upkeep (possibly eliminating most or all forms of taxation this way). Alternatively, earnings exceeding the cap could be rolled into a zero interest holding zone, there it may sit until next year when profitability slips under the cap, and then the balance is returned provided that it does not break the current year’s cap. However, if for many consecutive years one continues to exceed the cap, or if one exceeds the cap by extraordinarily large percentages, then the business must restrain or disaggregate into pieces, or the person must restrain and have funds reallocated toward other causes such as societal or government upkeep. In addition, government itself shall disperse remaining wealth to different branches and programs so as not to become a mismanageable center.

Capitallism is implemented incrementally to minimize disruption. Initially the plan would be something to the extent of "no person may gross more than $100 million per year, and no business may gross more than $100 billion." A reasonable goal, allowing a brief period of time for personal income shifts and large companies restraining or breaking into smaller segments. The implementation incrementally progresses toward "no person may gross more than $50 thousand per year, and no company may gross more than $50 million." These caps are estimates. A personal cap of $75 thousand may be a better approximation. Guidelines for the best cap are speculated in advance, though during the course of implementation a certain equilibrium may emerge as to what to most effective number is. Also, the caps are periodically adjusted for inflation, though arguably inflation would be minimized as the CPI becomes more stable.

How far off are these cap estimates? For consideration, following is a table of 2001 US income according to the US Census Bureau:

Click to enlarge

Keep in mind the figures of mean and median. Median income is a measure of centeredness, of middle income; whereas mean income is an average of all incomes. Abnormally high or low incomes will shift the mean away from the median. In the case of all females with income, the median is $16,616 while the mean is $23,602--a difference of about 40%. In the case of all males with income, the median is $29,101 while the mean is $40,858--that too a difference of about 40%. Due to abnormally high levels of income we have shifted off center. This is not even examining the arresting off-centerdness that one finds looking at disproportions of sex and race.

Thus, the majority of people will not expect to see their incomes reduced with the new maximum wage, but will expect to see inequality and exploitation reduced... and to a much greater effect than achieved with the minimum wage implementation.

The Beginning -->