Maximum Wage

[Elegiac]

I mean, you are of course free to hold that view. However, I still disagree with the state capping wages (contrary to minimum wages, which I am mostly in favour of) - and think that we should leave it to the market and individual companies.

The market can barely manage itself let alone keep up with the social necessities of life.

[Fahrenheit]

No maximum wage per say. But we should add levels to the tax bracket for much higher effective taxes on those making many millions a year.

[Jijek]

No. I don't support a maximum or minimum wage.

[Stormdash]

God awful idea, both banal and petty. People should be able to earn whatever wage a willing buyer will pay for it, in any lawful industry, good or service.

[Dreknar20]

their company their wages

[Stormdash]

The extreme wealth inequality in many western countries is evidence enough that yes, a wage cap is necessary.

Resting on the unargued and unproven premise that wealth inequality is a per se moral wrong or social harm. It isn't, that is just a fault in human character to be bothered by it. If you are dealing fairly with others and they with you, it isn't your business what they have and you don't.

[Glorious Leader]

I mean, you are of course free to hold that view. However, I still disagree with the state capping wages (contrary to minimum wages, which I am mostly in favour of) - and think that we should leave it to the market and individual companies.

The same markets that crash under the weight of greed and corruption? Theyve been deregulating financial markets fot about 30 years in the name of free market ideology and its been 30 years of crash and burn usually with some gross fraud being committed by finance capitalists.

[Elegiac]

Resting on the unargued and unproven premise that wealth inequality is a per se moral wrong or social harm. It isn't, that is just a fault in human character to be bothered by it. If you are dealing fairly with others and they with you, it isn't your business what they have and you don't.

I'm already aware that your philosophical and general humanities education terminates at 1789, thanks.

[Stormdash]

I'm already aware that your philosophical and general humanities education terminates at 1789, thanks.

I got off on the top floor. Most of what has followed the Enlightenment has been regressive, reductive rationalization of larceny and tyranny.

Which, by the way, you excel at. But you have no more established your premise than before. If everyone had phenomenal material wealth and all the creature comfort they could ever ask, but one dude somewhere happened to have 51% of the global total of wealth to himself, you would have wild wealth inequality but nothing to bitch about; ergo it is not a per se harm or injustice.

[Elegiac]

I got off on the top floor.

Some 'top floor' wherein women and, you know, slaves were viewed as disposable property of their owners and husbands.

[downnola]

Restrictions on income is a stupid idea. What the U.S. needs is another tax bracket or two at the top end, and some serious work towards infrastructure, education, and healthcare improvements.

[Toogoodman]

As long as we're clear that it's tied to "total compensation", not just straight salary. Otherwise, they'll pay the executives with things like shares, bonuses, etc, which wouldn't get counted. And normalize it to an hourly rate, assuming a 40-hour workweek.

I've often supported the idea that a top executive's salary should be capped at, say, 20x what the lowest-paid employee is. So a CEO making $500,000 is paying their lowest-rung employees no less than $25,000/year (for full-time work). And if the CEO wants to bump their own salary to $750,000, they're bringing that floor up to $37,500. Still plenty of incentive to the top, plenty of room to grow your salary, but it pushes them to re-invest in their own company and its employees.

I would actually completely support something like this, only issue would be excess earnings by the company, would we to add a bonus system that would be tied to your company income ? $37,000 x 10%, and the CEO gets $750,000 x 10%, or would we want a total excess earnings / # of employees in the company (this would be highly unlikely)

[Elegiac]

Most of what has followed the Enlightenment has been regressive, reductive rationalization of larceny and tyranny.

Nothing but an ignorant opinion based on an obsessive, parochial retrospection. The actual outcome of Enlightenment philosophy was not demonstrated in Philadelphia, it was demonstrated in Paris.

Which, by the way, you excel at. But you have no more established your premise than before. If everyone had phenomenal material wealth and all the creature comfort they could ever ask, but one dude somewhere happened to have 51% of the global total of wealth to himself, you would have wild wealth inequality but nothing to bitch about; ergo it is not a per se harm or injustice.

Which is in essence splitting hairs; when people say 'wealth inequality' in modern political or economic discourse, it takes for granted that it is a problem precisely because there are levels of detriment that are associated with it - i.e. that the people who are the victims of wealth inequality are struggling despite phenomenal advances in technology and material production. Which, especially in the US, they are.

But again, since your knowledge terminates in 1789 I wouldn't expect you to keep up with much less understand what social science is discussing in the present day.

[Akka]

It needs to be refined, but a general idea of having a maximum multiplier between the highest revenue and the lowest in a company would be a pretty good concept.

Of course the 'muricans have been brainwashed into feudal overlord worship so they're going to oppose it, but for the civilized world, it might work.

[Glorious Leader]

The problem is not tax evasion. It's tax avoidance. You cannot punish avoidance, it's not illegal. It is combined with what you also mention, freedom of capital movement. International banking system regulations lag a full decade behind because of the complexity of negotiating them and voting them in dozens if not a hundred different countries.

My opinion is that developed countries need to rethink the way company taxation works and the concept of the legal vs physical entity.

Is it really that hard to throw people who offshore millions even billions of dollars in jail?

[Elegiac]

Is it really that hard to throw people who offshore millions even billio s of dollars in jail?

It is when they've conned millions of deplorables into believing that doing so hurts their chances of acquiring wealth.

[Toogoodman]

You can write the regulation as such that it includes total acquirable assets.

While i would agree with a companies wages, i would not support limiting peoples investment options. If you're making 30-40k a year, you have plenty of options to invest, you shouldn't be hamstrung because you were smart enough to invest your money, instead of blowing it on blackjack and hookers. When i was making 30k when i first started in the work force, I put $300 in an investment account, and 5 years later, i kept increasing contributions, and now that account has over 100k in it. Did i want to go to Cabo 3 times a year? sure, would have been nice, but i want to buy a house before im 30.

[Arewn]

Your argument assumes that simply being the best at what you do should automatically get you the best pay. We both know that's not true in the real world, especially in IT where the ones that really become successful are not just good technically but also good businesspeople.

I'm not assuming that at all.

His argument was that capping pay would chase away talent.

My counter point was that "the talent" isn't in the pay-range that would be affected by such a cap.

[Chasavaqe]

I've always found the idea of having a certain maximum multiplier that a CEO can earn over their lowest-paid full time employees interesting. Say the maximum is 50x.

If you, as the CEO of a small company make 500K a year, the LOWEST any full time employee in your corporation could earn would be 10,000 a year (that's not a lot... Minimum wage could come into play here as well).

However, if your corporation takes off and suddenly you're making 50M a year, you would either need to take less of a salary yourself or start paying your employees 100K a year.

The CEO is not the only person that is responsible for the success of a business. If it starts doing really well, it is only fair to help out those people that made it possible for your company to be in that position in the first place.

[GreenJesus]

Most CEO's only make 500-700k in salary, but make millions in the stock options. That isn't a "wage". How would that work?