I’ve heard a lot of talk about the large income gap between your average worker and a company’s top executives. There are many different opinions on the subject, and I’m not going to debate the issue here. I did however read an article that espouses an opinion that I’d never heard before.

In the article, “An Embarrassment of Riches”, Howard Gardener believes that we’ve lost sight of what it means to be rich enough. Unfortunately our society seems to make the assumption that the most accurate measure of success is how much money you have accumulated. It is also sometimes hard to believe that people can be happy without all of the glamour and well to do that we see in the media.

His proposed solution is some form of an income cap. He says that for starters no single person should be allowed to take home annually more than 100 times as much as the average worker. That would put the cap at $4 million if the average wage is $40,000. He also says that no one should be allowed to accumulate an estate worth more than 50 times the allowed annual income. That would put the amount at $200 million.

Now I know there would be many people out there who would think that this is a great idea. They can’t even imagine making that much money, so why should anyone else? People could however make the false connection that limiting someone else’s income would somehow increase their own. Instead of adopting this entitlement attitude believing that something should be taken away from others and given to me, I would rather look to self-sufficiency.

Regardless of your thoughts on the issue, it’s an interesting viewpoint. That being said, let us know what you have to say about it. Would you be in favor of it?

 Subscribe to Fiscal Musings | Digg This! | Stumble it!