there are a bunch of different fee structures available, there are:
traditional fees which have integer cost
‘austerian’ taxation/tithing which has a %income cost
tax-bracket tithing which have variable cost depending on income. costing disproportionate more for higher income brackets.
here is a ‘respectful’ analogy:
a hamburger is a dollar,
a hamburger is 0.001% of your income; free for unemployed, $1 for someone making $10K, $10 for someone making $100K
a hamburger is >= 0.001% of your income; free for unemployed, a token $1 for someone making $10K, $15 for someone making $100K.
different people prefer each of the economic styles. the first one is truly fair, everyone pays the same price for the same reward. the costs are known beforehand and as such can be budgeted for, and it creates a circumstance which allows society itself to operantly condition behavior by condoning and disallowing the flow of resources conditionally in tacit manner.
the second one gives proportionate cost spread equally through a system based on costing/accosting a consistent proportionate value making it so the good gained ‘hurts’ as close to the same as logically possible.
the third one improves gross ecconomic health by maximizing the intake of goods allowing bloat social programs to increase the spread of wealth creating a cultural identity which everyone, at least in facsimile, is helping attain. it allows grander projects. it seizes the utility of the money which was spread it out but static, and gets it moving again. this builds on the premise of the previous model of ‘hurting’ people’s wallets, and goes disproportionate to try getting wave forms to fluctuate more. so while the austerian model advocates savings, this model advocates fluctuation of signal. the major problem with this is how it destroys retirement and requires another replacement system to garner the old with that same social security. the fluctuations of signal, generally recursive yet discrete events (tax day), create sudden influx of money and harmonically help empower the continuation of the movement and exchange of goods.
so why do i prefer fees to fractional cost? because it allows people to find their own meaning rather than i having to employ others for no sake other than giving them something to do. also it creates incentive toward excellence.
if you are willing to work beyond the call of duty/contract, should you get:
- larger than reward benifit
- proportionate reward
- diminishing rewards and occasionally detriment; maybe a token reward (of title or minor raise)
i believe people should get the first which is possible only by allowing the conspired desire of wanting to go with the manufacturer who offers the best return on investment, either through cheap product or through high quality. and it ties into the bullshit of ‘sales/discounts’. people are intrinsic motivated to find the optimal efficiency, favoring tool making methods which take three hits of the flint over ones which took days. and trying to disincentivize innovation seems retarded to me. it literally is removing the benefit from working longer, or harder, or smarter. whereas if you allow perception of larger benift for the workers by minimally encouraging them to innovate you create create trickle down ecconomics by developing emerging-markets into viable careers.