General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYou Could Cut CEO Pay 75% And They Would Be Just Fine And You Could Hire Enough Workers
to virtually end unemployment for everyone who wants a job. It is bad and will get a lot worse unless we cap their pay.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I would probably have it over a five-year period or so, just for those make their money in bursts, such as one-hit wonders and authors.
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)Would you support a federal mandate?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,365 posts)Thanks for the thread, TheMastersNemesis.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)1. If we cap the pay to hire workers that would mean that employers need the workers but can't hire them because all the money is going to the CEO. Is that what's really happening.
2. What's the cap?
3. What about non public businesses. ie, if you cap a wage for a sole proprietor at say 1 dollar. But the indivual wants to by a gold plated Lamborghini with baby seal interior who's to stop him from having the company buy it. For that matter if its a publicly traded company who is to stop the board from writing a contract to the CEO that allows for elephant tusk toothbrushes?
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Ben and Jerry's, along with plenty of small businesses thrived on that system.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Let everyone make loads of money. That's just fine. Just don't let a few do it at the expense of the many.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)Back when the top rate was 70%, business owners were given major incentives to put money back into their businesses to avoid taxes. They were encouraged to expand their business. They were encouraged to pay their employees more and give them benefits to attract and keep good employees.
If a business owner decided to keep all the profits for himself, he ended up handing over a huge chunk to the government as a personal tax liability. Ergo, most smart business owners paid themselves a decent but not outrageous salary while taking care of employees and expanding businesses, lowering their taxes at the same time.
The lower personal tax rates pushed by Rs for decades have ruined this model. Why not pay yourself a disgustingly high salary if the taxman is going to let you keep it all? There's no incentive to pay your employees a decent wage. There's no incentive to expand your business. There's no incentive to spread the wealth among your employees. All you're encouraged to do is to take profits.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Although a wage gap restriction might not be a bad idea.
moondust
(19,991 posts)What's the point of amassing a superfortune if much/most of it will end up funding the common good rather than being passed along to undeserving children and grandchildren?
Good-bye Waltons and Koch Brothers.
Another option is a top-to-bottom wage ratio similar to the 12-to-1 initiative in Switzerland, either at the organizational level or the state/national level or both (adjusting for cost of living differences).
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,978 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)That way, job stimulus can be done by people who give a shit, instead of the wealthy, who clearly don't give a shit.
Bring back JFK era tax schedules. That'll do the trick.