Do you support the concept of maximum wages?

[ZombieHorde]

Such as having a maximum wage based off of the minimum wage.

I used the phrase "the concept of" since supporters of a maximum wage may not agree on how a maximum wage should work.

[armyowalgreens]

1. I support comprehensive caps on pay if we can practice extreme restraint.

[Chulanowa]

2. No, I don't

But then I'm not so much bothered by inequal pay as I am by unfair pay.

[Arctic Dave]

3. I f one of the reasons corporations keep workers wages low is

to maximize profits for the investors, why should the top executives be any different.

[Deja Q]

13. Seems fair.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. Only for government employees. Absolutely not, otherwise.

[rwheeler31]

8. Rabrrrr

What ever you make is the cap. Go for it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. LOL! It would be worth it, just to see the faces of the CEOs. I don't make a whole lot.

"What? I have to take a pay cut down to my secretary's pay?"

[Initech]

80. What level of government though?

I know a bunch of people who work government jobs, and quite a few of them make shit.

[Rabrrrrrr]

136. All levels of government - and not an across-the-board maximum,

but I do support that the government sets wages. Government employees aren't income-generators, so their pay should be limited, at least in the sense of not being available for unlimited increase or profit-sharing, etc., that one can have in the private sector.

[Lasher]

5. Yes I support maximum wage caps.

The foxes have taken over the henhouses and some kind of controls are needed.

[able1]

6. I'd support a cap that is a reasonable multiplier of what

the lowest-paid employee gets. That might give CEOs an incentive to raise the pay for all employees.

[armyowalgreens]

9. Interesting. I've never heard of that. Sounds like a good idea.

[gula]

148. That's what I would propose,

And lets not forget to base bonuses on long-term results. If any, they should not be paid until 10 years after the emloyee left.

[TheFarseer]

7. Do the Japanese still do that thing

where the CEO can only make 10 times as much as the lowest paid employee or whatever it was?

[moondust]

32. I've always liked that idea.

I don't know if they still do it or not.

Done right, something like that would likely temper a lot of the greed and selfishness that have led to things like the current economic meltdown, environmental destruction, management/labor antagonisms, etc.

[Canuckistanian]

10. I think minimum wage should be based on maximum wage

That is, whatever the CEO is paid, the lowest paid worker should be paid a specific fraction of that wage.

What fraction? I'd suggest the figure 1/100, where it was in 1996. NOW, it's less than 1/400 of a CEO's wage.

For decades, it was 1/30 or more.

That's fair, isn't it?

[Mojambo]

11. A cap with an exception.

People are welcome to go over the cap, but when they do they are entered into a lottery. The more they exceed the cap by the more balls they have entered into the lottery. Each month we have a drawing and the name drawn is instantly killed.

[Muttocracy]

14. that did NOT end up where I thought you were headed! :-O

[Mojambo]

16. lol

I'm an unconventional thinker on these issues.

[rug]

12. Yes, but I'm flexible. I'll settle for a 100% income tax above that.

[tritsofme]

17. Why not just collect the tax windfall from whatever ridiculous salary they pay themselves?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. What would the maximum wage be and how would it apply to corporations?

[ZombieHorde]

19. I am not entirely sure, perhaps 100 times the min wage.

Corporations would have extra cash for R&D and new employees.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. So would you set it per hour or per year?

[ZombieHorde]

22. Per hour would be strange for salary types, per month or year would be better. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. The minimum wage is an hourly one, so would you base it on 160 hours x the minimum wage per month?

Then multiply that times 100.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Do you think making over $100,000 per month is a bit much?

How about 30 times the minimum wage as someone mentioned up thread? That comes out to over $30,000 per month.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. So a pro football player could only make 150 k for their 5 months of work? Including endorsments?

[ZombieHorde]

33. "only make 150 k for" playing a game. Seems like more than enough. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. The average NFL career last 3 years or less, so 450 k for a career after which you will be disabled.

At least somewhat.

[ZombieHorde]

48. How much do you think our troops in Iraq and Afganistan should make in three years?

How about fireman and police officers?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. I'm content with my salary. Of course most fireman can make it to 20 or 25 years.

I think our troops should be well compensated at least as well as the contractors.

David

[ZombieHorde]

58. Do you think our active duty troops should make less than football players?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. I didn't have any complaints with the pay when I was in the service. I would have taken more.

[ZombieHorde]

63. Then why the concern for football players?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Just using them as an example of an average 3 year career.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. That definitely applies to actors and musicians.

[bighart]

147. you going to apply that to all entertainers?

Pro sports is entertainment just like movies, tv and music.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. How would you apply it to people with very short career spans pro football players for instance?

[ZombieHorde]

30. Monthly salary. Work for two months, get paid for two months.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. So what about someone who works on commission on very big deals? Can they only make 1 month salary?

or just one days salary? Even if they work on a deal for a year or more.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Work for a year, get paid for a year. Work for 20 years, get paid for 20 years.

Dinner is done, I'll come back latter to answer your replies.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Does the number of dependents you have or where you live matter?

[ZombieHorde]

49. Dependents are a tax issue and location deternimes state min wage.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. Should a family of 7 be limited to the same amount as a family of 2? What about special needs kids?

[ZombieHorde]

59. Those are tax issues.

What about special needs kids?

I personally believe special needs kids should have all medical and care needs taken care of by the state, but that is a different issue.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. What is your tax rate going to be on your max income of whatever you decided on?

[ZombieHorde]

71. Taxes are a complicated issue for most bussiness owners,

so I don't have an answer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Who cares if they own a business everyone is capped so what's the rate on the top income?

[ZombieHorde]

77. What do you think the maximum tax should be?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Now or under your income cap?

[ZombieHorde]

82. Both, and technically I have not decided on whether I support an income cap.

I saw someone else suggest it and decided to debate it in a poll. I just started thinking about it a couple of hours ago.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Well I'd say about 50% now and about 30% if you had a cap.

Which is why it wouldn't work in my opinion? Right now we tax the ultra rich at about %40 which brings in tons of revenue, that's just income tax. They also spend tons of money which funds state and local schools in places with a sales tax. They live in large houses which pay high property tax revenues that fund local schools, police and fire. Despite many peoples disdain for them they also give a tons of money to non-profits. Obviously many are just greedy bastards, but I can assure you that the donations to the dog rescue that my wife and I run would drop significantly. Tax 100 million at 40% and you have a lot of revenue. Caps would greatly reduce revenue unless you somehow got everyone to have an equal pay rate for all jobs and they were all very high. That's just my opinion though.

David

[ZombieHorde]

90. Other people are suggesting the ultra rich do not make their money from income.

Your dog rescue would be safe if that is true (and it sounds true). I may have to dig for gold elsewhere.

Despite many peoples disdain for them

I have no disdain for them. (and I know you did not accuse me of having disdain for them)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. Of course not.

I was referring to the many threads about killing the rich etc. You have said nothing that indicates disdain, besides I'm blunt enough to refer to you instead of saying many here. I was under the impression that you wanted to limit all income including stocks, capital gains, etc.

David

[Rabrrrrrr]

139. All money that one receives is income. That's the definition of income.

Whether it's from pension, annuities, social security, stock dividends, capital gains, or wages, or gifts, it's all income. Income is also the value of all goods received - housing, or the car that someone wins on Price Is Right, or contest winnings such as cruises, quilts, and clothing.

All income.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. So you are also going to limit tuition, food costs, gas costs?

Basically put price controls on everything.

David

[ZombieHorde]

98. Well that is a can of worms.

I guess min wage and max wage could be based off of the "living wage".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. I'm all for basing the min on the living wage and raising the top tax rate.

If you raise it too much though I fear revenues would drop.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. So how would you regulate or measure how much time they put in on a deal?

[ZombieHorde]

50. That is a burocratic issue which would be worked out by those in the field and our government. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. How would you monitor that for the self employed?

[ZombieHorde]

61. For people who own a little business, I would go with salary.

For people who invented some badass thing in their basement over the course of 20 years, and they have no records to show anyone, there may have to be a cap, perhaps 20 years worth of salary.

Fine details would have to worked out by more than just one guy at his computer waiting to watch a James Bond movie.

[ContinentalOp]

66. So corporations would cease to exist?

And all taxes would be based on individual income? :shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

72. No.

[ContinentalOp]

76. So then I'll just incorporate.

Pay myself a salary just under the cap and keep the rest in my "corporate" bank account. :shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

81. Sure, you could be a criminal, just like Bernie Madoff.

I am not claiming to end crime.

[ContinentalOp]

83. How is that illegal?

Unless you outlaw corporations :shrug:

In fact as an independent contractor I could incorporate tomorrow if I wanted to (there's really no benefit in my situation). Nothing illegal about it.

[ZombieHorde]

85. Then why put the word "corporate" in quotes?

I thought you were suggesting using the corporate account as a personal account.

[ContinentalOp]

89. Well they would of course.

It's done every day. Say your cap was $500,000 a year and I make $2 million a year as a baseball player (to continue an example started elsewhere on the thread). I would simply set up a corporation (I guarantee all pro athletes are incorporated already), the team would pay the corporation, I would pay myself a $500k salary, call my wife my manager and pay her a $200k salary, buy the corporation a private jet that I use to fly to games, etc. Then when I retire with tens of millions in the bank I could simply continue to pay myself out a $500k salary each year from the corporate account. This would all be completely legal and it's how many wealthy people operate already.

More to the the point, aren't you essentially punishing small businesses? A foreign-owned corporation would be allowed to make trillions of dollars of profits and send them out of the country but as a self-employed individual my business would be limited in its profit because you would see it as an individual salary? How is that even remotely fair?

[ZombieHorde]

95. Do small bussiness owners make over a million per year?

Say your cap was $500,000 a year and I make $2 million a year as a baseball player

If the cap was $500,000 then I don't think you would be allowed to be paid $2 million, you would only be allowed to be paid $500,000.

call my wife my manager and pay her a $200k salary

She probably deserves it.

buy the corporation a private jet that I use to fly to games, etc.

Sounds good.

Then when I retire with tens of millions in the bank I could simply continue to pay myself out a $500k salary each year from the corporate account.

Personally, I believe corporations should have to provide a good or service, that is a different poll for another day.

Playing baseball and doing commercials is a service, but being retired is not.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. So would they be allowed to draw a pension of the max amount the rest of their life?

[ZombieHorde]

107. Probably.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. Even without providing a service, then corporations would just pay the max for life with huge...

benefits. Corporate house, corporate fleet, corporate jet and max salary all for life. They would just call it a pension.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. So the corporation could buy a jet, 20 cars and a $50 mil mansion? That defeats the purpose.

[ZombieHorde]

119. I want the ultra wealthy to spend all their money. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. If you let the corporation buy everything and give it to the CEO's how is that different?

[ZombieHorde]

133. If the money is spent, as opposed to put in some weird account somewhere,

then the economy benefits.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. Yes but you don't get income tax from the benefits.

[ContinentalOp]

108. You're missing the point.

My corporation would be paid the $2 million by the team. It would go into the corporate bank account that I control. I would pay myself a $500k salary that year, and then I could draw the rest of the money out at a future date. For example by still paying myself a $500k a year salary after I'm no longer playing baseball. The salary would be for "public appearances" or something so I wouldn't be technically retired.

My point is there is absolutely no way to enforce this. You ask "do small business owners make over a million per year" but the question is irrelevant. Anyone who makes over a million a year would simply set themselves up as a corporation if they're not already. To close the loophole you would essentially have to put a cap on corporate profits as well.

I think a better solution would be to raise the capital gains taxes, raise inheritance taxes, and add a couple more top income tax brackets at a higher rate. What you're talking about is essentially a 100% income tax rate at the top bracket. The top bracket was 94% in 1944-45, and around 91% from 1951-1963. Right now it's 35%. There's got to be some good middle ground there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. I think a rate of 50% or 60% might not affect peoples behavior that much.

[ContinentalOp]

114. I agree. And it would be a WAY easier sell.

And we need to push the top bracket up a lot higher so people couldn't complain as much. If there were a top bracket up in the $10 million range you wouldn't get all of this B.S. Joe the Plumber stuff. Too many people dream about a $200k salary being within their reach, and it's not hard to do when middle class people are routinely buying half million dollar houses. Anything under $1 million doesn't seem "rich" to most Americans anymore.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

116. Yes and many people want the best for their kids.

The best schools and colleges, they cost a lot of money.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. So would they have to prove the 20 years of work or would you just give them credit for it?

[ZombieHorde]

84. Tough call, I would lean towards giving them credit, but the government probably wouldn't go for it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. That type of intellectual property is where you have the real trouble.

No one cares about the corporate CEO's. When you start talking about limiting the salaries of musicians, actors, athletes, doctors, small business people then you start pissing people off? Why should Tiger Woods or Lance Armstrong not be able to become wealthy? They are/were the best single person in the world at what they do. I would prefer that they give huge amounts of their money away, I would like to think that I would. I give fairly large amounts of what I make now away, I would hope wealth wouldn't change me.

[ZombieHorde]

97. "Why should Tiger Woods or Lance Armstrong not be able to become wealthy? "

Where I live, a million dollars per year is wealthy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. It is wealthy where anyone lives. Their careers could also be ended instantly.

What if Lance Armstrong broke his neck in his first Tour Win? So now he has to live the rest of his life on whatever he made up till then capped at whatever amount and social security.

[ZombieHorde]

103. Isn't that all of us?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. My brother could probably still write computer code, I could still teach EMT's and Paramedics.

I guess Tiger Woods could go coach out of a wheelchair for $700 a lesson. So would you provide training programs for those who can't do their jobs anymore or would they have to pay for their own retraining?

David

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. What about artists in your idiotic world?

Take a painter like Cy Twombly, who can paint and sell a painting for hundreds of thousands of dollars - is he now suddenly limited to how much he can sell a painting for, and how many paintings he can sell a year?

What does that do to an art market when suddenly there's some jackass idiotic moronic national law that says he can only sell 2/3 of a painting every year.

What about antiquities? Does a guy who sells a Picasso for $20 million only get to keep $150K of it? Or can he keep it with the promise that he'll have absolutely no other income for the next 20,000/1500 = 13.3 years?

What if Joe Blow's mom dies and leaves him $200,000? Does he have to quit his job? Give the money away? What?

JK Rowling spent a few years on welfare, then made a killing with Harry Potter - would she get a sort of "grandfather" clause her first year of income, allowing her to keep, say, 4 years' worth of income (current year plus making up for the three years she had no real income), and then after that she's limited to $150K a year? Assuming she's going to make that much just on royalties every year, what's her incentive to write any more books after the first one? What's her incentive to have a movie made? What's her incentive to have Harry Potter licensed as toys, games, posters, key chains, etc.? That's a lot of people out of work because you think it's so goddamned awful to earn money.

How does your utterly ludicrous and asinine world work?

And if Jane Smith racks up hospital bills for $200,000 and has no insurance - can she raise $200,000 in fundraising, or is she allowed to raise only $150K this year and then another $50K next year, plus whatever she needs to live?





I swear to God that there are too goddamn many people who refuse to use their brains.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Nice to see someone else who actually thought this through.

I guess your artist friend could just claim he had worked on each painting since his childhood and get a lifetimes worth of 150 k credits for each painting.

David

[ZombieHorde]

57. Oh so nasty, oh so angry.

Take a painter like Cy Twombly, who can paint and sell a painting for hundreds of thousands of dollars - is he now suddenly limited to how much he can sell a painting for, and how many paintings he can sell a year?

He would be taxed you big nasty.

What if Joe Blow's mom dies and leaves him $200,000? Does he have to quit his job? Give the money away? What?

That is not income Mr. "there are too goddamn many people who refuse to use their brains". Oh snap!

JK Rowling

She is not a citizen of the U.S., but I will pretend that she is, just for you.

what's her incentive to write any more books after the first one

Good writers write because they love to write. Additionally, she would earn more money from her novels.

after that she's limited to $150K a year

Where did you get that number from?

And if Jane Smith racks up hospital bills for $200,000 and has no insurance - can she raise $200,000 in fundraising, or is she allowed to raise only $150K this year and then another $50K next year, plus whatever she needs to live?

That is not income Mr. "there are too goddamn many people who refuse to use their brains". Oh yea!

I am guessing you voted for Christmas joy.

[Rabrrrrrr]

138. You are short on details, long on attempts to be clever; a cleverness which fails.

You do realize, of course, that my hypothetical offerings are hypotheticals?

No, obviously you didn't.

I chose the $150K figure because that's what you offered above as a sufficient maximum amount to earn.

Does Twombly get a regular tax (some percentage less than 100) on the first 150K, and then it's 100% tax after that? You're the one in favor of caps - saying "he would be taxed" offers me information on how your idiotic world works. How much would he be taxed?

I noticed you refused to answer that question elsewhere in this thread as well.



The guy inheriting money - you can be damned sure that the government considers inheritance money to be income. Right now, there is no tax on it if it's less than (I think) 2 million, though Bush might have made it 10 million. But, in your world, where you say $150K is some arbitrarily perfect limit, do you change the inheritance tax rate, bring it down to $150K as well? That's what I (and others) are asking o you - details, please. Details. Explain to us how your world works.

I used Rowling as an example of someone who earns a shitload of money from a creative endeavor that brings royalities - very clever of you to attempt to dismiss my question by offering that she's not an American. How droll that you utterly missed the point. Assume she were an American, and then answer the questions.

You're right that writers write because they like to write. But now that you have put a maximum (and a pretty low maximum) on all creative/business/entrepreneurial output, you put a choke hold on people's willingness to create, and quite possibly a chokehold on the rate at which they can produce. If ROwling is earning $150K per year in royalties on book one, if she publishes book two, does she have to give it away for free? She can't earn any income on it, so how do they determine the price of the book? How much can the publisher make from it? If the publishers are limited to $150K, you can be damn sure that every publishing house in the world will just say "Fuck it" and close up shop.

Also, you say that "she'll just write more books" - but you missed my point, which is that in years following the first book, she's making more in royalties than are willing to allow her to earn. Your answer is ignorant, unthoughtful, and as I said before, lacking in detail.


The person with the medical needs - if she's forgetful enough to not set up a non-profit fundraising corporation to receive the money, and set up bylaws, and make it all legal, then yes, her fundraising becomes income for her. Our tax system as it is now is pretty specific that almost every bit of money that comes to a person is to be considered income. And I'm sure that in your oh-so-perfect world of income caps, that the legal system is going to be even more convoluted and oppressive, trying to keep people from coming up with creative loopholes around the issues. And if there's a cap of $150K on income, does that mean she has to set up two non-profits to get her $200,000?




So, really, you haven't thought of any this through, have you? I can tell by other posts above that you have no idea how to work this, nor have you put any thought into the greater ramifications of your position, other than that, I can only assume, at some hyper-emotional level this "feels good" to you, and therefore must be true.

:eyes:

Fucking hell.

You're the one with the idea - don't leave it up to us to detail it out for you. That's your job - and that's we're asking for: details. Show us that it can work with more detailed descriptors than "He'll be taxed" or "she'll write more books".

[ZombieHorde]

141. Wow, you so unhappy. Your blood pressure must be very high.

I chose the $150K figure because that's what you offered above as a sufficient maximum amount to earn.

That was per month.

I noticed you refused to answer that question elsewhere in this thread as well.

Actually I did answer it, probably just not to your liking.

you can be damned sure that the government considers inheritance money to be income

I was not considering it income and I stated so.

very clever of you to attempt to dismiss my question

I clearly stated that I would except your example and then I preceded to address your questons. Did you really miss that or you just messing with me?

comes to a person is to be considered income

I stated that it would not be considered income.

So, really, you haven't thought of any this through, have you?

I clearly stated the following-- "I have not decided on whether I support an income cap. I saw someone else suggest it and decided to debate it in a poll. I just started thinking about it a couple of hours ago."

You're the one with the idea - don't leave it up to us to detail it out for you.

Do you challenge everyone who has an opinion on health care to have all the details worked out? I am guessing you don't.

I believe that there is something really wrong in your life and you do not have the ability to recognize it and/or face it. This problem creates great frustration and you choose to take it out on others by insulting them. I was going to write something nasty back, just for some immature fun, but then I realized you are probably in pain and I don't need to add to that. Peace.
:pals:

[Rabrrrrrr]

151. So you don't actually have answers?

Okay. Personal attacks, then. Because they're soooooooo much mo' bettah a debate tactic.

:eyes:

Anyway, have fun with the personal attacks, since that's all you have.

[ZombieHorde]

152. What questions did I fail to answer?

Give me a specific list.

eta: I was asked many questions in a short period of time and I recognize that I may have missed some. I will try to address any questions you have for me, but I ask that you look to see if I already answered the question in my question/answer thread with F_M_D.

etaII: Please answer the question I asked you; Do you expect everyone here who has an opinion concerning health care to have every detail worked out?

[cherokeeprogressive]

125. Would it be applied UNIVERSALLY? Would you cap what a lawyer could bill per hour? n/t

[spanone]

21. how counterproductive is that? who sets the standard? nope

[ZombieHorde]

24. Why would it be counterproductive?

The standard would be set by the same people who set the min wage standard.

[Mike 03]

23. I don't know. I can't vote on this. The important thing is for workers to be able to live a

comfortable existence and support their families, but that companies that support them obviously have to make enough money to survive, or else the entire system will collapse.

[Kablooie]

27. I don't think it should be a hard number value but some kind of criteria to prevent too much excess.

[Warpy]

28. Either a maximum wage or a confiscatory top marginal rate

from a progressive income tax.

[Chemical Bill]

35. Only if tax money is involved.

If they sell to the government, buy from the government, get tax breaks to locate somewhere or money to not go out of business or anything like that.

Bill

[burning rain]

38. No, I don't.

I've seen real socialism (as opposed to what illiterate righties misname "socialism": pretty much anything they don't like) in action, where the government owns the means of production and distribution and sets wages (and therefore there's little need for taxes since the state determines how much you get in the first place), and such a system radically decreases incentive to work hard and be creative and productive. Better in my view to use a progressive income tax and tax the bejesus out of the rich, but leave intact the incentive to create more wealth.

[rrneck]

42. No. But I would consider

a maximum wage differential based on the Gini Coefficient or something like that.

[ZombieHorde]

86. What is the Gini Coefficient?

[rrneck]

92. It ain't perfect, but it's a start.

The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion, commonly used as a measure of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution. It is defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1: A low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution.

I'd rather see lower incomes raised rather than a cap on upper incomes. But I'm no economist, and I have no idea what that would do to inflation and a whole laundry list of other variables beyond my comprehension.

[scrinmaster]

45. No. It's a stupid idea.

[tabbycat31]

46. yes but not as a mandatory number

I know that sounds strange, but it should be relative to the company's lowest paid employee. The highest paid employee must not be paid no more than X times the salary of the lowest paid employee. That way if the CEO wants a raise, he can't take one without giving the worker bees raises.

[Dark]

47. How about tying the maximum wage to a company's median wage?

Since it's not an average, high salaries can't screw it up. Instead, a CEO could only make like 100 times that of the typical worker.

[SmileyRose]

53. The richest will simply figure out a NEW "non-wage" way of doing what they do now.

edit to correct my dropped letters. grrrrrr

[ContinentalOp]

56. Yep. The truly rich don't get their income from wages anyway. -nt-

[ContinentalOp]

55. It's a nice, meaningless, feelgood idea, but the truly wealthy don't make their money from "wages"

It's an absolutely ridiculous idea and if the Democratic party openly advocated this we would guarantee Republican victories for a LONG time. Just raise the top tax rates.

[Umbral]

62. No, and I don't support a maximum tax rate either.

[hyphenate]

67. Perhaps I'm not looking at correctly?

A sole proprietor needs to set up a maximum for his own work and in building his company? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I know some progressives, like Ben and Jerry, who used to make their own pay topped off at ten times the salary of their lowest paid employees. This is a good thing. But it would be difficult to try and see more sole proprietorships follow that conscientious decision, especially those greedy bastards in banking, insurance and a dozen other places where we have seen extravagant and unbridled greed and spending.

I remember when I was working at a studio, some of the salaries of upper and middle management were pretty high--$500,000 and $250,000, for example. It boggled the mind, considering that some of us on the administrative level were getting $24,000 a year.

I can't say I would envision our company executive being being happy limited in the amount they got in pay. Unless, of course, they were the US pwned assholes we're bailing out right now.

[ContinentalOp]

70. I wouldn't worry about those people with the $500k salary.

They would simply fire themselves, incorporate, and have the company hire them as a contractor, checks payable to their personal corporation. Then they could pay themselves and all of their family members a salary from the corporation and keep any extra in the corporate bank account, or use it to buy "corporate" assets like a fancy company car, "corporate" jet, etc.

[Initech]

73. CEOs? Absolutely. Workers? No.

[Waiting For Everyman]

75. Yes.

We're way past any logical end to what a few people are paid. It simply can't be justified in any way except that the system as it is now allows it.

[ContinentalOp]

79. I don't believe there actually is a problem with out of control pay at the top end.

It only seems that way because wages for the rest of us have fallen so low and the disparity has been partially covered up with phony inflation numbers.

[tammywammy]

88. No n/t

[leftofthedial]

94. yes

and it should be indexed to the minimum wage.

[1]

96. no. not a fan of "disincentives." you get to make what you make.

and bully for you...

[ZombieHorde]

100. "and bully for you..."

Is this an English phrase? What does it mean?

[1]

111. well, yes... i do speak the english... and it means what it means.

if you attain a particular compensation for your efforts, then bully for you! (i think this phrase goes back to the days of theodore roosevelt.)

why do we work? why do any of us toil for our efforts?

compensation might be one of these considerations. i think a large part of these efforts.

do you disagree?

[ZombieHorde]

118. "do you disagree?" I don't think I disagree.

why do any of us toil for our efforts?

Trying to be a better sales person is different than trying to be a better lover.

[1]

127. huh? what?

[ZombieHorde]

132. Not all jobs are for money. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. Now that's a good job.

[ShortnFiery]

102. Too funny. Because at a certain point there's NO American Dream because it's

been stolen by the psychopaths on Wall Street. You know, the one's who know how to find the loopholes, pay for the lobbyists on K street.

Sure, they continue to get FAT and BLOATED while the poor eat from hand to mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe71zCA5xFQ

I drive by the homeless sleeping on a cold dark street
Like bodies in an open grave
Underneath the broken old neon sign
That used to read jesus saves

A mile away live the rich folks
And I see how theyre living it up
While the poor they eat from hand to mouth
The rich is drinkin from a golden cup

And it just makes me wonder
Why so many lose, so few win

[1]

115. i don't understand what you are saying...

i am living my life. i am not "fat and bloated."

i earn what i earn. i deserve every penny they pay me. probably more.

what is your problem?

[ShortnFiery]

121. Are you part of "a community" or "an island all to yourself?'

All around me I see people suffering from this recession. While TRILLIONS go to banks and insurance companies.

When "the corporations" run everything, if you are not now part of the investor class, prepare to be a part of the working poor.

Predatory Capitalism does not allow for "The American Dream."

Think something like "Caste System" in India.

BTW you forgot "lifting MYSELF up by my bootstraps?"

The Military gave me a step-up to earn my masters degree with those SOCIALIST education benefits subsequent to active duty service.

My Problem? = My point: NOBODY makes it on their own.

[1]

123. wow. sorry bud that you could make it on you own., and fuck me that i did...

fuck me then...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. I've never heard the GI Bill referred to as socialist. Interesting.

[Thothmes]

135. Did you earn your military pay check?

Would you have received those educational benefits if you did not serve in the armed forces. It is not a Socialist program if you have to work for it.
A better example of a SOCIALIST program is the public educational system. Open to all, no direct cost to the individual for the service, fully paid for by taxes collected from everyone able to pay them in the State providing the service. To earn the education benefit you received, you had to be a member of the military. Don't see it as a socialist program.

[OmahaBlueDog]

99. No, but I do support developing a tax code that discourages Executive Pay being more than 10 times..

...what an average worker in the company makes. How to do it ...I don't know.

[ContinentalOp]

112. It seems easier to just raise the minimum wage. -nt-

[Recursion]

117. I support bans on externalization of costs

Any wage, and any corporate profit, is acceptable to me as long as the company in question can demonstrate that the costs are not being externalized to workers, consumers, or employees, but are being borne by the company.

[Marr]

120. I believe we used to have a maximum wage.

But it only applied to the labor class. Guys working in mines or picking fruit-- that kind of thing. It was a way to pay working people less than their labor was actually worth. Pretty sickening.

However, I'd support it completely if applied in the way you're suggesting. If CEO's could only get x amount more than their lowest paid employee-- I'd back that 100%.

[ContinentalOp]

122. Well, any maximum "wage" really only applies to the labor class anyway...

since most wealthy people make their income from capital gains or business profits. If the cap doesn't also apply to corporate profit and capital gains I don't see how it could possibly function as designed.

[Marr]

131. Very true. That's where the real wealth is made.

[cherokeeprogressive]

124. Are you saying that when I release my notes on Perpetual Motion and make energy FREE FOR THE MASSES

I should be limited in what I'm compensated for it?

[MrSlayer]

130. No. But there should be an appropriate tax.

If you personally make a billion dollars a year gross, there is no reason why you shouldn't be happy with five hundred million net. Seriously. And if you make seventeen thousand a year gross you should be able to get sixteen thousand net. Everyone contributes what they can as they can.

[Vidar]

134. Hell yes!

[Bluerthanblue]

137. Yes- too much of anything is bad.

And we humans have deeply ingrained greedy streaks.

[LSdemocrat]

142. No, but I would support a 50-60% tax rate on income over $2 million per year or so

[noamnety]

143. I support it

The only argument I've ever heard against it is that it might give the extremely wealthy a disincentive to earn more.

In considering that viewpoint, I don't see that as a huge risk for our economy or an insurmountable problem for them personally.

[Touchdown]

144. Depends on which maximum wage you mean.

A century ago, the trusted industrialists tried to pass a maximum wage law that would cap factory workers' pay to not much more than subsistence levels, as a way to stabilize the cost of labor across the manufacturing sector, so no company had to compete for labor.

If you are talking about that, then no.

If you are talking about $140M in compensation for a CEO whose best skill is making a martini, then absolutely.

[rucky]

145. ...To receive public assistance? HELL YES!

[Lorien]

146. It would make a lot of sense for larger corporations

I think they have rules about this in Japan; that a CEO can only make 40x the salary of the average company worker ( in America CEO salaries are 400-600x that of the average worker), and that CEO pay must be cut if the company hits hard times. Such caps seem necessary for the survival of the corporation. Weren't some to the banks paying out more in CEO and exec pay and bonuses than they were pulling in in profit? That SHOULD be illegal!

[mmonk]

149. I support the idea of wages in America. That alone is a revolutionary idea.

[handmade34]

150. no maximum wage if...

tax rates for high wage earners is 90% - that would encourage reinvestment and income generation...

yes if tax rates stay low and yes 39% on high wage earners is low...