Praxidice – What you are basically saying there are too many non-productive parasites. If this is the case I agree whole heartedly. The flaw in your approach is I believe although very relevant that you are too specific. My approach is to attempt to drill down to the core issue.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. - Confucius

The core issue is too many non-productive parasites being rewarded with a disproportionate and undeserved amount of our productive wealth!

The solution (very condensed version) – Personal income per annum (from all sources including gambling and fringe benefits) should be limited to a range from not only a minimum, but also to maximum linked to sustainable GDP. Income goes up goes up and down with productivity. We share the pain and the wealth. I call it Productionism.

To tease out the question on how the countries productive wealth should be shared should be kept simple as well.

Those who produce should be the ones that should receive a higher share than all others. If it was not for them there would not be any production and therefore nothing to share. Only producers would be able to achieve the higher range of the scale.

Parasite professions should only be able to achieve the maximum of a median range. If they are unhappy with their share they would have to become producers to earn more and in the process contribute to national productivity and wealth.

Everyone irrespective of what they do is entitled to the minimum but must contribute in a meaningful way to their immediate community for a specific amount of time. This activity should be controlled by community not central government.

This has nothing to do with wealth, only the annual income from wealth. I believe would control greed and manipulation by the wealthy and powerful parasite.

The reality of such a concept would be akin to pissing into the wind while watching pigs fly past.

I'm not good at articulating my thoughts in writing, being more a producer(sic) than an academic but I'll give it a go :~)

I think you two are failing to see the value of what you consider to be non productive services. For example you claim:

"""
A complex society requires some essential none productive services (e.g. Health, Education, Security, Justice (not law)) to function
"""

How can something be essential and non productive at the same time?

It's like you think the oil that maintains the plows health is non essential and productive because it's not actually tilling the soil. When in actual fact, without the oil the plow would seize and production of crops would cease! Isn't a doctor or health service the same as the oil?

Education is needed to engineer, build, maintain, use the plow and know what to plant in the tilled soil.

Security being necessary to protect the plow, crop, harvest from theft/destruction.

Justice being necessary to apprehend, recoup loss, prevent further theft/destruction.

To me, all these services are equally as important as the plow, as without them the plow is useless is it not?

You can claim that these services are overdone in relation to the plow ie, not enough plows and too many of the other. But who is to decide who owns the plow and who provides the essential services in order for the plow to remain productive? One would think with no intervention from parasitic government; the free market and capitalism would ensure an even balance?

If you begin down the road of forced production by any means and who gets what, who does what, would it not be worse than the system we have now? I think it would be considered communism not Productionism and has failed miserably in all places it's been tried.

Killing off incentive is the fastest way down the drain and that's a big problem right now! Aim your problems at the real parasites. Take away the forced distribution of wealth we have now and those parasites will be forced automatically into your world view.

Draconian responses? Won't that just create more paper-pushers?

The problem isn't necessarily the industries/occupations, but their misuse (frivolous lawsuits, excessive legislation).

One reason for high salaries is the progressive income tax. The more you earn, the more you lose in tax.
A flat tax would remove at least that incentive.

Also, removing tax deductions for such salaries. Companies will think twice if they know they can't claim deductions for those high salaries and other perks.

Creating maximum income limits would be unfair for those with uncertain future income like artistic occupations.
They make a million one year and nothing for the next five.

RawMustard – Clearly you have thought and are prepared to challenge the concept. I take my hat off.

To be a producer one must produce something as a means to survive or that can be traded for those things you don’t produce.
A parasite produces nothing. If you had a world full of only doctors, teachers, policemen and lawyers, they would not survive.

I classify the above group of parasites as essential to a COMPLEX society. You could have a society of producers that is simple, sick and dumb, without tools and no rule of law with none of the above group. Not desirable but possible, whereas the other scenario is impossible.

You say - all these services are equally as important as the plow, as without them the plow is useless is it not?

The plough is not essential. Hunter gathers society did not have ploughs.

An academic could invent a plough, but unless one is produced it is nothing, does nothing. Production trumps academia.

The producer of the plough would own the plough; however the inventor would trade his idea for produced goods. The plough would enable the producer to produce more for the same effort, enabling the producer to support himself, the inventor and others. This is represented by our free market system and patent law.

Cont.

Cont.

Now this is important and key to the concept. The flaw in the current system is that NON-ESSENTIAL PARRASITES are receiving a DISPROPORTIONATE share of productive wealth. These include advertisers, professional sports persons, celebrities’ etc. etc.

Productionism does not force an individual to become a producer, it simply recognises the producer as the key to wealth and rewards him the most, but this has limits as well. More production means everybody (parasites as well) do proportionally better. Less production everybody gets proportionally less.

Communism - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

What I have suggested recognises we are not equal and have different aspirations, wants and needs and is not controlled by the state. It simply rewards the makers more than the takers and limits total reward to total production.

Shockadelic – Look at the big picture, specifics distort.

I don't have an issue with rewarding enterprise, the human animal won't achieve anything without it. Obviously a brain surgeon who has spent twenty years getting educated to a point where he or she can mess with peoples grey matter is worthy of a tad more than a council street sweeper. What I think we all have a problem with is legal leeches, public company CEOs, entertainers & footbrawlers who produce diddley squat, getting more than someone who has devoted their whole life to actually IMPROVING the country. It may be that the likes of the red-headed witch & the RAbbott are low on the pay scale compared with the aforementioned, however given the precious little they do & the fact that most is actively vindictive, the clowns would be grossly overpaid at $2pa

Formalizing a control mechanism, is, as has been noted, near impossible. The untold arrogance & avarice of the culprits renders creation of an control a herculean task. What I believe will happen is that the long awaited financial crash will eventuate & there won't be money to pay these parasites. Said parasites will then need to produce or perish (no dole with no gubmunt income). Exactly what parasites CAN produce is another question, sees there will be a steep learning curve for some