TED Conversations

David Mansueto

Industrial Designer, Marc Newson Ltd.

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Some countries have a low "safety net". Do you think a "ceiling height" should also be established?

Many countries have established a safety net in which to prevent a certain population of people within a society to fall below a certain poverty line. Things like cash transfers, subsidies and public services are set up to support these people.

With the increased divide between low, middle and high income people, in real terms perhaps this safety net has not been lifted high enough to keep up. Often in tougher economic times certain programs and schemes that make up this safety net are reduced or given up completely in response to budgetary measures and debt.

There are many measures to try and maintain a certain equality amongst income distribution in a society such as a progressive tax system, however perhaps more is needed?

Perhaps a higher limit should also be established to try and close that gap in an aim to try to distribute money more evenly and direct excess money (if any) to re-invest in businesses and the economy.

In some sports a salary cap has been implemented for the aim to try and create a more even playing field amongst teams so that a single wealthy club cannot entrench dominance over players.

Could a similar idea be used to control income distribution within an economy? Opinions, ideas, suggestions and alternative examples of this idea would be very interesting to hear.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 9 2014: Creating a cap in civilian life would be meaningless: those with the money and power would just find ways around it or ignore it all together. History has proven this with the communist and socialist experiments. Just look at Russia and Italy.

    The better approach is to raise the lowest common denominator rather than lowering the numerators, to use a mathematical metaphor badly.
    • Jan 9 2014: (when positives are involved) Add fractions less than 1, multiply fractions greater than 1
      when negatives are involved, do the absolute inverse- take the absolute value and if greater than 1 add it, else multiply it -

      When one multiplies fractions less than 1, one gets at best the highest one, though when one adds them one can get more than the highest one...

      BTW if one raises anyones level by x amount the overall level is shifted upwards ... evidently for the lowest ones a given level increase of x could seem to be quite significant where as to the higher levels it would seem to be quite insignificant. the argument to shift from the high to the low becomes mute for redistribution of wealth doesn't increase wealth it merely redistributes it. the better approach to raise wealth levels requires that we actually raise the wealth levels! Who do you think is better at making and managing wealth increases the wealthy or the un-wealthy? An argument at the individual level to increase one while decreasing another breaks down at the group level where every increase increases wealth and every decrease decreases it. Get the wealthy incentives to get the un-wealthy into the wealthy levels!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.