Minimum wage AND maximum wage...it's about time!

[kengineer]

The whole puzzle begins to come together. I believe no person should be allowed to earn more than some reasonable upper limit AND then a flat tax should be implemented. Progressive taxes exist solely to penalize those who are earning TOO MUCH. We should, therefore, have all discussions based on what is a reasonable upper salary for any person in any profession. Just as we have a minimum wage (which should be higher), we should have a maximum wage. For the sake of the rest of this paper let's say the maximum wage, based on a 12% flat tax is $350,000 per year.

But next, fully understand that I don't wish to step on freedoms for any given local community. Let's say that there is a company that wishes to give it's CEO a 1.5 million dollar bonus check at the end of the year just because he's so damn awesome a person. Well who decides that... ALL the employees of the company do. For example it's put to a simple vote and if 80% of the employees feel he should get the bonus (rather than the employees getting it) then he gets some mathmatically adjusted amount accordingly.

Essentially the employees get to vote as to whether THEY will get the bonus or the CEO, board member, etc. will get it.

This coupled with the total freedom of ideas, writings, and information would make such a F*cking beautiful world, my god I dream about it.

A world where everybody gets duly compensated for the work, creative ideas, and effort they put into producing a product of any kind, but also a world that immediately shares that informtion for the betterment of progress in the world.

[jiacinto]

1. I don't support the idea

I support a stronger minimnum wage, but not a maximum wage. That is unfair to those who have built thier own business and worked really hard.

[BeFree]

4. How mistaken can one be, carlos

A business owner does not earn wages....he pays wages, sheesh

The maximum wage is a great idea. It should be tied to a percentage scale. Minimum makes $20, max makes twicwe that.

Whar a wonderful world it would be....

[jiacinto]

5. No it wouldn't

I wouldn't want to live in a world like that. If I owned a comapny and built it from scratch and my profits were 2,000,000 a year, I would not want to have my salary reduced to 350K. Sorry this idea is so unrealistic.

[kengineer]

6. Why are your profits so high?

Clearly you sold your products for too much money... Now if the company holds onto the money for purposes of R&D that is perfectly fine. But you are somehow confused into thinking that you have "earned" that money. You didn't. You hired employees they they "earned" that money for you... therefore you should get your fair shair and so should they. The reasonable maximum wage allows you to get all you could possibly require to be considered rich and wealthy within our society (especially on a 12% flat tax system) That's the complete picture.

[Deja Q]

12. That's how it should work. The question is how.

How to restore the system to the balance it had before 1980.

NAFTA put in a nail or two into the proverbial coffin as well. :mad:

But FTAA is right on the doorstop and it'll add in the remainder of the nails and secure the coffin in an airtight plastic bag for good measure.

If FTAA passes, we're screwed for good. No amount of civility will save the working class.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. LOL

So if my ideas cause the profits, sure somebody else made that money for me. Not likely.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. The market

I let the market decide what the best ideas are. There is, as evidenced by politics, a shortage of brains and education. There is never any shortage of brawn.

Fortunately, our society is not buying into your "cure."

[kengineer]

34. Well, your not buying into it, but at least your thinking about it

Specifically you're not buying it. But that's fine. We are talking about it and that's all that is important right now because the truth, while their are people who will suppress it, will eventually rise to the top.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

44. You are assuming that he does not pay good wages

How do you know he does not pay his workers good wages AND make a good profit from it?

Furthermore, how do you know he does not play an active role in the production of the product?

It sounds like you do not really believe in business at all, if you define hiring workers as "collecting off their backs" and "the essence of selfishness and greed."

[kengineer]

53. I'm assuming?

I didn't assume any of this stuff. Perhaps your getting my posts crossed with someone elses...

[UnapologeticLiberal]

41. I completely object

My parents have a small business and they earn a fair amount of money, but my dad IS the product, along with a few other trainers (they give workshops on how to sell to companies). So he does most of the selling, the traveling, and the training, and my mom does most of the administrative stuff. In many businesses, even bigger ones, the owner does a lot of work...you cannot assume that all business owners sit on their butts and watch their employees do all the work.

[kengineer]

50. I never said that... so why did you respond to me on this...

Of course they work. That other guy said they don't work...

[BeFree]

8. It is NOT a profit scale

It's a wage scale. Don't you know the difference? sheesh.. How muddled can one be?

[Nederland]

169. You are the one that is muddled

For the owner of a business there is little difference between their wage and the company's profits--its merely an accounting distinction.

[bleedingheart]

10. Are those profits $2 million after you pay all your employees?

are you going to reinvest back into your business?

I hate to say this but most people who own their own businesses don't pay themselves millions in salary unless they own something like Walmart...

Most people reinvest and accumulate their fortunes over time...

not sure how I feel about a max wage but most ceos get their wages in stock and bonus plans...not salary...

[kengineer]

7. No way.. not even close

Your wage scale suggest that people can ONLY be twice as good as the least capable person...

We are way more diverse than that don't you think!!!

I'm for a scale that goes 20 to 30 times the lower level.

[kengineer]

13. Good and reasonably accurate post...

Make no mistake, CEO's certainly work at higher levels. But as I've stated... there needs to be a reasonable maximum wage.

We are not all equal and we aren't all motivated to work hard all the time so the multiple between the minimum and maximum should be 20 to 30 in my opinion...

[BeFree]

14. thrice, maybe

But no...I don't think anybody is worth much more than that.

Unless he runs his own business. Then he gets whatever he deserves. But when one is working for wages, then, no, there is not that big of a difference between humans. Also, consider that if the trash is not removed, all comes to a halt eventually. The top is more dependent on the base in all circumstances.

[kengineer]

23. Unless... you just created a loophole

You said unless he runs his own business... loophole created. Why should they be able to manipulate the system to earn as much as they can?

Perhaps that's not what you are saying... perhaps you are saying that they should simply get the 10 or 20 times more like I was suggesting? yes?

But, at least we are having the essence of the discussion which simply is, what is the real difference between how people can work etc... Also the discussion needs to consider both intellectual and physical work.

Now when I say everybody, I mean everybody. Movie Stars, Athletes, Doctors, EVERYBODY. This is why I believe it is more realistic to have a payscale that multiplies 20 to 30 times the base... but that is the discussion. Maybe 10 times is the actual number that we would eventually agree to after having discussion in the house and senate to pass this bill... :)

Next issue: What to do about those who already have Billions of dollars that they earn "interest" on... can anybody say cancer?

[BeFree]

28. Are we talking wages or profits?

A wage scale is one thing. Profits are a whole 'nother discussion, imo.

Here's where I come from....Let's look at 'Your New House'.

The Masons and Plumbers and Carpenters risk Life and Limb putting together that pile of dissimilar materials. In order to survive, not only is physical labor needed, but intellectual exercises are required.

But who, in the end, makes the most money from your house? The person who holds the mortgage. Now, if the wage scale from the banker to the Mason were much closer, say four to one, not only would the Mason be better able to afford a New House, but the banker would do more loans.

Whose worth more? A plumber or a banker? The guy who makes sure your shit gets far away from you or the guy wgho bleeds you to death by capitalistic means?

[kengineer]

32. There should be no banker

This is the only problem I have with your argument... the banker should not exist.

People should pay cash for houses by saving. The concept of saving then buying is long, long overdo.

The biggest sucking sound in the world is INTEREST on loans. It's a true sickness that drives the policies of this entire world and is the source of a lot of pain in this world

But can you blame those who are at the top of this pyramid? They feel like gods. If you felt like a god and had all those priviledges, would you want to change the system and cut off you "superpowers." superpowers = interest

[BeFree]

36. Now that's Radical

"the banker should not exist". WOW


I'd love to stick around and explore that theory some more, but...

C'ya.

[sable302]

38. do you really think

that people make their various wage levels based upon how 'good' and 'capable' they are? Are you insane?

Please read 'Nickle and Dimed'. It' a real eye-opener about just what working people are capable of.

[kengineer]

49. No, you misunderstood

YOU: Do you think that people make their various wage levels based upon how 'good' and 'capable' they are?

ME: No, but they should.

[sable302]

58. I might agree

But wealth is power, and the people with the power are unlikely to give it up just because somebody else might be more qualified. You seem to be stating that society in some way refuse wealth to some who may currently have it, and bestow it upon others who are likely to provide more of a benefit to us because of their big brains or whatever.

Well, the waitress at my local cafe is very good and capable, so I say we give her a couple mil. Oh, and so's the fellow working down at the bookstore, and all the stay at home moms and dads who spend their days caring for and educating the next generation, so they deserve a mil each.

Jeez, janitors are extremely important folks to society, but here in Portland we're fighting to get them paid the minimum wage.

What you are advocating is so contra to the way the world currently works, it's like fairyland.

[kengineer]

78. I agree with you to

Wealth is power and they have no intentions of giving it up.

Those at the top will continue to shift back and forth and do whatever needed to maintain it. It's the nature of things right now.

I strive for the fairy land. As more people do the same, eventually it will become reality.

[WHAT]

101. I'm jumping in...

because I really like your arguments!

But, I really think "power" is an euphemism for status. By having maximum compensation related to minimum wages, superiority/status is insured for those who measure it by comparative wealth...whew, they're happy and the people who don't really care (those satisfied with health, food, shealter, family, community) are happy, too. Those really disgruntled would be those who want to be better in every way than those "inferior" (sic. the insecure) but they would live and could afford psychiatrists or think tanks.

I say...go for it!

:)

[berry]

120. It might not be such a fairyland idea.

There are definitely examples from the real world of countries that managed to redistribute the wealth (it's then a challenge to keep things fair and relatively equal). I'm talking about land redistribution--which in rural societies is the equivalent, I think. The landlord class would correspond to our financial class (and of course we have a landlord class too....).

I know very little about this--I'd have to do some (a lot?) of research. But one opportunity for such restructuring came when colonized countries won independence. I know, many failed to make the experiment work, but they *tried*--so it's not just a fantasy. I wonder what other turning points made such attempts possible historically. A better knowledge of this history would make us less willing to say it's impossible to change the status quo.

This also reminds me of the work of that economist from South America--I can't quite remember his name--who talks about the stake in their nation's wealth that even the poorest should have. I've been meaning to buy his book(s?).

There's also been a lot of work on the idea of democracy in the workplace. We are so accustomed to think ourselves free just because we can vote. But in our working lives most of us are subjects, not citizens. Political democracy alone--delinked from our economic lives--is pretty paltry, and the idea that it's enough is what's gotten us into this mess (along with a blind faith in unfettered capitalism--which is to say freedom for money, but not for people).

[Yupster]

84. I believe that Jason Kidd

should only make twice as much as the guy selling peanuts at the Nets games, because they're both about equally responsible (give or take)for the success the Nets have had the last two years.

Say yes if you agree with me !!!!

[kengineer]

104. Not familiar

I'm not familiar with the Jason kid... out of my range... I'm not near New York.

[MassDem4Life]

149. Ah, yes, usher in the wonderful world of Socialism

as practiced by the Soviet Union.

just one hitch... It didnt work for them, what makes you think it would work here?

[Deja Q]

9. Jingoism?

Those who work hard deserve higher pay, no problem.

So why aren't I getting the wage or promotion I deserve, I run ragged at my job doing all sorts of things, including work going beyond my classification level?

How do CEOs of big companies work when all they do is play golf and go to social functions? (a narrow view but sufficiently accurate to carry my point.) At my previous job, the CEO of an insurance company (Satan's own associates) did nothing but attend social functions and play golf. It was disgusting, the jerk did not work. He had a nice personality though he had a wicked sense of humor and played cruel jokes on me at times...

The CEO of Frito Lay doesn't work hard; his employees do the work to provide us with those unhealthy junk food nibblets that cost gigantic sums of money. ($3 for a pound of potato chips when a big bouncing 8 pound bag costs $1.50, the latter of which can be cooked in far healthier ways?!) Mr. Lay needs to do nothing but sit back and merely masturbate, now that he's made it with his product reaching the far corners of the globe. That is not working.

Okay, maybe CEOs actually do some work. But they get the top pay and I'd damn well argue they don't work as hard as everybody else. Ever see them sweat up their suits?

Republicans love the mantra of "if you work hard you'll earn more". That's pure bullshit. And they know it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Clearly you have no idea what management involves

I would say based on how naive your comments are, THAT is why you are not getting promoted. Although it is a cliche, there is a difference between working hard and working smart.

Bad CEOs still represent their company at all times. They are the voice, the face and the brain that makes deals, partnerships and creates the future (or not) for the firm.

[Deja Q]

70. Okay, I'll admit I'm naive. No do your part and enlighten me, don't just

sit on your high chair and criticize without being constructive!

Working smart? Gee, why didn't Rush and pals mention that as well?

You haven't seen my reviews for the last 5 years.

Your own use of the comment suggests I am dumb. That's different from being naive. But your sole purpose here is to insult and hurt. So shut up already, you're quite ignorant too.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. Your post

Said the following:

"How do CEOs of big companies work when all they do is play golf and go to social functions? (a narrow view but sufficiently accurate to carry my point.) At my previous job, the CEO of an insurance company (Satan's own associates) did nothing but attend social functions and play golf. It was disgusting, the jerk did not work. He had a nice personality though he had a wicked sense of humor and played cruel jokes on me at times...

The CEO of Frito Lay doesn't work hard; his employees do the work to provide us with those unhealthy junk food nibblets that cost gigantic sums of money. ($3 for a pound of potato chips when a big bouncing 8 pound bag costs $1.50, the latter of which can be cooked in far healthier ways?!) Mr. Lay needs to do nothing but sit back and merely masturbate, now that he's made it with his product reaching the far corners of the globe. That is not working."

CEOs do tons more than this. As I said in MY post, at all times they represent tht company. They are the only ones who know all of the information of different departments, they are the driving force behind the firm. They do a lot more than just play golf.

No I haven't seen your reviews, but hard work doesn't earn a promotion. It keeps you your job in most cases. Smart work, new ideas, leadership, motivation, creativity, etc. are the hallmarks that get promotions.

[Skittles]

21. THANK YOU

MY CEO MADE 52 MILLION AND I DIDN'T GET A F***ING RAISE.

[kengineer]

11. Right.... sarcasm

They worked really hard with their whips on the backs of others...

So $350,000 isn't enough on a 12% flat tax scale? That's just not enough for you?

worked really hard? Are you really of the impression that you can "EARN" that much money. You cannot. No human can outperform another by 50 times!!!

Now some humans can outperform another to the extend of perhaps 20 or 30 times depending. But that is the discussion.

With no maximum wage, it is merely a financial game of how little you can pay your employees, how much you can sell the product for, then how much you can slide into your wallets at the end of the year...

It's a stupid game and completely selfish.

[Yupster]

87. Were I Shaquille O'Neal

and the $ 350,000 system was in place, I would go play overseas and make $ 10 million a year.

I would also if I felt like it tell the Lakers that for $ 350,000 I would play one game per season, and they could pick the game.

If I were a rock star, I would play one concert in America per year and make my $ 350 k. The rest of the year I'd tour overseas. I'd be fine. The ones who would get hurt would be the little guys who worked at the empty stadiums where my extra concerts would have been I'd feel bad for them, but hey, I wasn't the one who passed that stupid law.

[vision]

103. America is where the money is

A rock star would not be a "rock star" if he did not perform in the USA. If the Beetle's had not come to America it is possible that they would never have became the icons that they are. So play in America for "$350 K" and than don't any more any you will become the next "White Lion" instead of the next "Rolling Stones".

[kengineer]

108. In a world like this 350K would be filthy rich

The whole economic picture would shift and change. There would be more people in the elite crowd, sure, but they would still be just as rolling stone, or beattle or superstar...

Also, superstar status has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the media outlets that portray the "stars" and build them up to the world.

If they paid the Beatles 40K per year, they still would have been super stars.

[vision]

121. yeah if they did more than the one show

The Beetles were talented but if they only did one show for the hypothetical 350K they would some fade into obscurity as it takes time to build up an audience.

[kengineer]

105. Obviously this is a world view not just a US view

I think if the US started it you'd see lots of the world following.

[Nederland]

170. Dumb

No human can outperform another by 50 times!!!

They certainly can, you just don't understand how performance is measured.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. No it's not

Part of freedom is the freedom to earn. That's why many people came to this nation.

And your idea of bonuses is wildly misguided. (See my post in the other thread.)

[kengineer]

15. You've made my point for me... thanks

Muddle wrote: Who are you or who is society to tell me the limits on my earning power? Now for your scenario, employees don't run a company. Often, they have no idea what a CEO or manager does. Why should they make any decisions? All you are doing is guaranteeing a round of layoffs prior to the vote. You fire a whole bunch of people and make it clear you will fire the rest if the bonus doesn't get voted to you. As for the rest, dream on.


ME: We are a society of intelligent people that realize you are not earning that money at all... you are manipulating it with a loud sucking sound out of your employees and customers. Give me a break.

On things like bonus checks, they certainly should have some decision power... and if "this company" you are talking about sees it's employees like cattle, as you are suggesting, then I don't want any part of your version of tyranny.

Guaranteeing a round of layoffs... like I said, complete tyranny. You make my point for me so well. I'm beginning to think you are playing devils advocate just to make it clear for everybody else here how complete the corruption is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Care to bet?

That we are a society of intelligent people? We are a society of people. Some are intelligent, some are not.

As for my customers, if I develop a product that they wish to buy at a certain price, that is their business and mine.

I agree such a round of layoffs would be horrible. But it is your system, not mine. Your system is flawed.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

125. No attack

I responded to your post. When you make blanket generalizations like that, you get them pointed out.

You were the one who made the excessively rude comments to people who are managers. That's class warfare son and not something I endorse.

[Muddleoftheroad]

126. How do you know I am "greedy" and "selfish"

These are rude and obnoxious assumptions on your part simply because I think your idea is wrongheaded.

However, I agree you system requires people who don't exist. People are inherently greedy and selfish. Not always, but often enough to make your system unworkable.

Actually, your system requires people like myself, intelligent enough to point out that your idea belongs in fantasyland, where it currently resides.

[G_j]

63. Ironic

that what people like to portray as "freedom" has created a class system that rivals the most skewed and unequal in history.

[kengineer]

109. Very true, class systems

The way I look at it the tyrants are just more friendly now, but very much still have the world right underneath their thumb.

[Deja Q]

3. ???

I dig your ideas, especially the one for bonuses. A pity the that most corporations don't do bonuses for working class folk anymore. A report was done a year or so ago, read it in my local paper. They don't.

But doesn't a "maximum wage" penalize the very same people as high taxes?

Now companies USED to put lots of their profits back into their businesses.

But it ain't the 1950s anymore where Elmer Fudd can teach Sylvester a thing or two about capitalism works. Thanks to Reagan and all his sickening successors for not helping to reverse the disgusting trend (and especially you-know-who for that insipid crime called NAFTA), the mantra has changed; corporations put lots of their profits into their personal pockets and damn everything else when possible.

Do you really think they'll change to something sensible and beneficial-for-all out of their own free will? HELL, NO. They want a bigger billfold, that's all they care for.

Just wait until the FTAA gets passed... Things will become far worse. http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/globaleconomy/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=19170

[kengineer]

29. No, if we don't "steel" the money, why penalize?

YOU: But doesn't a "maximum wage" penalize the very same people as high taxes?


No, it doesn't penalize them unless they've done something wrong. Milking the business system to get millions off the backs of others deserves penalty, while earning a reasonable and cool 300,000 due to exceptional work you do each year that is proven year in and year out is not something that should be penalized.

But the discussion here really isn't whether we should have a maximum wage, but rather what should it be. I'm picking 300,000 out of the air right now.

[pansypoo53219]

20. i prefer

that the CEO or whatver ya call them has to have a percentage above the highest paid like it used to be. and no golden parachutes. what did it use to be? 40 X the average worker. instead of the insane 150 X the average worker.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kengineer]

25. Not a nonsense thread

If you perceive this as a nonsense thread... I wonder where you come from?

Perhaps the land of tyranny.

[Merlin]

31. Ok.

Then where do you come from?

Let's see if I understand this. You want to put an upper limit on incomes in the US. Right?

And you think this is going to fly with the American people, right?

You probably think it's the job of us Democrats to propose and support such an idea. Right?

And you think it will be warmly embraced by the nation. The right wing will refrain from twisting such an idea into a dagger to sink deep into the heart of liberalism, in cooperation with their cronies, the compliant media. Right?

Ok. Maybe it's not a nonsense thread. But it's still nonsense.

If you'd think a bit about it before starting a new discussion, wouldn't you come to the conclusion that the way to accomplish what you want, but to do so in a way that doesn't invite charges of "Communist!!!" is to propose raising taxes on the upper income earners? Why not propose that?

[kengineer]

40. Good post

YOU: Then where do you come from?\\

ME: Mars, but that's another story...



YOU: Let's see if I understand this. You want to put an upper limit on incomes in the US. Right?

ME: YES


YOU: And you think this is going to fly with the American people, right?

ME: NO, they have been conditioned to not embrace such a thing. A lot of discussion needs to be had.


YOU: You probably think it's the job of us Democrats to propose and support such an idea. Right?

ME: Republicans will never do it, I'm pretty sure. So Democrats, libertarians and independents should at least be discussing it. Some Republicans would probably understand the need for this but I've certainly spoken with the ones who adamently oppose it.


YOU: And you think it will be warmly embraced by the nation.

ME: No, as I stated before, lot's of education yet to occur.


YOU: The right wing will refrain from twisting such an idea into a dagger to sink deep into the heart of liberalism, in cooperation with their cronies, the compliant media. Right?

ME: See, you've brought it up, strategy noted so Democrats will now not make that mistake. Re-education is the first step. The media is compliant to the government... matters not who's in charge.


YOU: Ok. Maybe it's not a nonsense thread. But it's still nonsense.

ME: it's not nonsense



YOU: If you'd think a bit about it before starting a new discussion, wouldn't you come to the conclusion that the way to accomplish what you want, but to do so in a way that doesn't invite charges of "Communist!!!" is to propose raising taxes on the upper income earners? Why not propose that?

ME: That's already being actively proposed... The discussion that isn't occurring is the one I proposed. I'm aware of the communist analogy. But that is easily defeated in an argument. Simply say to them: "Under Communism people were starved, or otherwise rounded up and slaughtered if the Communist regime deemed them enemies of Communism, How does putting reasonable democratically arrived at salary caps on earnings do that?" Then let them answer... Any answer they give can easily to logically undone as well. Admittedly sitting on a talkshow the rebuttal may not come to you immediately but in time the truth would prevail!

[JanMichael]

27. Why is the democratization of the economy so awful?

I thought all of us fairness, and equality loving, people believed in that sort of thing.

How do you suppose we can have Political Democracy without Economic Democracy anyway, with magic?

Just curious:-)

[Merlin]

33. Hmmm.

"Economic Democracy"

That's a new term. Would you mind explaining it.

And since when did "fairness and equality" have anything to do with economics?

Just curious :-)

[JanMichael]

68. Mondragon Collectives, that's what "Economic Democracy" means.

I had a much longer post prepared but the friggan' software wiped it out.

I even closed the other windows...Ugh.

Anyway the short response: Mondragon Cooperatives is what I mean by "Economic Democracy".

http://www.mondragon.mcc.es/ingles/mcc.html

Look up "Mondragon Collective" and there are dozens of articles on the net.

IMO this is what large corporations should look like.

""fairness and equality" have anything to do with economics"

The above example shows how it can be done.

[kengineer]

47. As compared to economic or financial tyranny

Which is our currently embraced system. A bunch a little mini dictatorships.

And somehow people just accept this as the way things must be.

Tyranny is most successful when it's hidden and right in front of you.

[camero]

65. Political deomocracy is really not possible without economic democracy.

Because a populace without freedom of movement from job to job is a recipe for enslavement. We are living it right now becuase most can't afford to leave thier jobs.

The populace is merely trying to survive and will do whatever the leaders tell them because it is the only way to eat and live. So they vote the same schmuks in again and again.

[Nederland]

173. Here's Why

Because the term "democratization of the economy" assumes that we all contribute equally. Why should someone that works half as hard as me be entitled to an equal say in company policy?

[AP]

30. That's great if you want the currently rich to rule, and if you want

to have zero progress.

I think people should get rich if they contribute a lot to society. The guy who figures out who to cure cancer better become the richest guy in the world. The woman who writes Harry Potter, which is creating a new British founded on liberalism, should be richer than the Queen.

CEOs which drive their polluting companies into the ground shouldn't be richly rewarded, and you shouldn't be richly rewarded just because you know the Bush family and they're protetecting you and your bull shit company from having to work ward and give society a valuable good or service.

Getting "duly compensated for your work" is not really compatible with capping the value of valuable work.

I'm not even going to get into flat taxes, but if you're advocating flat taxes, you don't understand taxes.

[kengineer]

37. Spoken like a true manipulator

YOU: I think people should get rich if they contribute a lot to society. The guy who figures out who to cure cancer better become the richest guy in the world. The woman who writes Harry Potter, which is creating a new British founded on liberalism, should be richer than the Queen.

ME: I stated that any community that so desires to uplift a person to a level of extreme wealth should certainly have that right. But the problem comes here: When people have wealthy, they then have power, they then are able to manipulate the laws to maintain their wealthy. Thus the people are no longer part of the equation.


YOU: CEOs which drive their polluting companies into the ground shouldn't be richly rewarded, and you shouldn't be richly rewarded just because you know the Bush family and they're protetecting you and your bull shit company from having to work ward and give society a valuable good or service.

ME: CEOs can be uplifted as much as the harry potter girl if the people so choose it.


YOU: Getting "duly compensated for your work" is not really compatible with capping the value of valuable work.

ME: It's all the same -- the way I'm talking about it.



YOU: I'm not even going to get into flat taxes, but if you're advocating flat taxes, you don't understand taxes.

ME: the manipulator reveals itself... only YOU can understand... As I clearly stated, flat taxes work beautifully if earnings need not be penalized. Other adjustments to taxes can easily be made using deductions.

[AP]

43. Man alive! (and a little note on the evilness of flat taxes)

(1) To offset power that comes from wealth: progressive taxation, limits on political donations, no more PACs, etc.

(2) Companies which take a chance on Harry Potter should also be rewarded. That's a good company, engaging in good commerce. Good.

(3) Flat tax do not reflect the fact that people have decreasing marginal valuations of additional wealth. By taxing a person with low valuation of an additional dollar the same rate as person with a high valuation of an additional dollar, you are burdening the poor/high valuation person WAY MORE than you're burdening the rich person. And flat tax that generate enough revenue would be at a rate unfairly high for the poor preson and unfairly low for the rich person. That's why rich people like the flat tax.

[kengineer]

52. OK

Items one and two, agree, agree... no real logical problems there.

YOU: (3) Flat tax do not reflect the fact that people have decreasing marginal valuations of additional wealth. By taxing a person with low valuation of an additional dollar the same rate as person with a high valuation of an additional dollar, you are burdening the poor/high valuation person WAY MORE than you're burdening the rich person. And flat tax that generate enough revenue would be at a rate unfairly high for the poor preson and unfairly low for the rich person. That's why rich people like the flat tax.

ME: I never said that something didn't need to be done about those who already have huge amounts of money... i agree with you on that. Believe me, the whole system is corrupt and the changes cover all aspects not just taxes. Also, provide a simple, specific example of low high valuaion in the real world.

[AP]

81. A person who makes 25K per year

would probably need to take a second 40 hour per week job to make another 25,000 bucks. A CEO who makes 1 mil per year, to make another 25K per year either needs to buy a muicipal bond or needs to go play golf with his buddies at the country club. Either way, it's ridiculous that the person who has to bust his ass to make more money should pay the same marginal rate as someone who doesn't have to work at all to make more money. To charge those people the same amount of money on their money is to dicscourage one form of wealth accumulation and to encourage the other form of wealth accumulation.

Since labour (and not financing tricks, or insider trading, or guaranteed wealth for the wealthy) is the foundation of a strong, fair, competitive, wealth-recreating economy, you don't want to burden labour more than you burden the other forms of wealth accumulation. The harder people have to work to make more money, the LOWER you want their tax burdens to be so that you encouarge people to do those kinds of activities.

[kengineer]

86. Ok, now that that's clarified...

YOU: would probably need to take a second 40 hour per week job to make another 25,000 bucks. A CEO who makes 1 mil per year, to make another 25K per year either needs to buy a muicipal bond or needs to go play golf with his buddies at the country club. Either way, it's ridiculous that the person who has to bust his ass to make more money should pay the same marginal rate as someone who doesn't have to work at all to make more money.

ME: I agree with that completely... that's why having the reasonable upper limit to earnings would solve the salary aspect of this. The concept of earning money from interest is a whole nother animal... TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT... as far as I'm concerned.


YOU: The harder people have to work to make more money, the LOWER you want their tax burdens to be so that you encouarge people to do those kinds of activities.

ME: Well, look, if that's the kind of world you want then I understand... but I see a world where people are encouraged to do the activities because they know that all wages from top the bottom are fair so when they do work they actually feel like they are genuinely earning the money. A flat tax can accomplish that the same as a progressive tax as long as the earnings are properly distributed. Also, earning 300 grand a year on 12% flat tax would be THE AWESOME money in such an economy. So those become the wealthiest people and all social amenities are structured around that... a less financial polarized world would result. Oh, it would still be financial polarized, but less is the keyword here. The economy, itself, would also see a remarkable shift in the positive direction as this new scenario developed...

People are all different and deserve to earn different amounts of money depending... so the question is what is the reasonable upper and lower limits which can certainly be discussed each year.

[AP]

91. Financial compensation is the carrot on the stick that drives

human progress. On this Labor Day Weekend, it's probably important to note that people deserve to be compensated for their labor, and that it's an insult to not compensate people fairly for the true value of their labor, and that it society would suffer if you told people that they could only get X dollars, no matter how hard they worked.

The only reasonable limitation on wages is no limitation on the rewards people can expect from their efforts. Nobody in their right mind would embark on any complicated, difficult, or risk endeavor if they weren't compensated for those risks.

Perhaps what you worry about is that certain worthless activities (many in the realm of finance) seem to be valued more than other important things (like labor, inventiveness, and risks with very high social rewards). The solution to that problem has more to do with the kind of laws are politicians pass which create artificial rewards for worthless behavior.

Take taxation, for example. It's ridiculous that a billionaires dividends are taxed at a lower rate than a nurse or police officers labor.

Take Enron. It's ridiculous tha the government legislated a system by which energy companies could rip off consumers and state governments through monopoloy pricing of a vital commodity (in the guise of market pricing).

[kengineer]

110. My goodness... paalease...

YOU: human progress. On this Labor Day Weekend, it's probably important to note that people deserve to be compensated for their labor, and that it's an insult to not compensate people fairly for the true value of their labor, and that it society would suffer if you told people that they could only get X dollars, no matter how hard they worked.

ME: I'll take that bet... let's do a poll tomorrow and tell people that no matter how hard they work they can only earn 350,000 per year with 12% taxes. Gosh, so many people are going to complain...

I have another poll for you on this labor day: Do you support increasing the minimum wage to $8.00 per hour (adjusted per cost of living)?

I have another poll for you: Do you support an earnings cap of 350K for all people in the US for any job, which would mean that your wages would be distributively increased precisely by the amount no longer paid to the individuals that used to make more than 350K? Yeah, I can just hear the crickets churping to that on labor day!! (sarcasm)



YOU: Perhaps what you worry about is that certain worthless activities (many in the realm of finance) seem to be valued more than other important things (like labor, inventiveness, and risks with very high social rewards). The solution to that problem has more to do with the kind of laws are politicians pass which create artificial rewards for worthless behavior.

ME: well I didn't think specifically about that but it's a good point.


YOU: Take taxation, for example. It's ridiculous that a billionaires dividends are taxed at a lower rate than a nurse or police officers labor.

ME: I agree



YOU: Take Enron. It's ridiculous tha the government legislated a system by which energy companies could rip off consumers and state governments through monopoloy pricing of a vital commodity (in the guise of market pricing).

ME: no arguments here

[AP]

117. There are many very socially valuable jobs people would not

do for a max of 350K per year. Why take big risks if that's all you could earn in a year? Why try to write great books, if your time could be spent, with less risk, being a doctor or lawyer. We'd probably have a lot less good art and entertaiment, and a flood of doctors and lawyers, which would drive down wages in those fields. We'd probably come to a bit of a cultural standstill, since the promise that drives a lot of book writing and movie making is a carrot a little bigger than 350K.

I'm glad to see that I opened your eyes with those other points.

[jagguy]

and we'll call it Happyland !

"A world where everybody gets duly compensated for the work, creative ideas, and effort they put into producing a product of any kind..." don't want to go there. The current minimum wage folks would get a huge pay cut.

[kengineer]

45. You don't understand or comprehend basic math

The current minimum wage folks would get more money, not less.

It's only the manipulators at the top that would be responsible for what you just proposed, which suggests that either you are ignorant, or one of the manipulators!

Done.

[AP]

46. That's rich, for a guy advocating flat taxes.

[kengineer]

55. Already defeated your argument on that

The whole system has to change for flat taxes to work.

using more comlicated, progressive, tax scheme is simply to penalize people... which suggests that there is SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM.

Now you understand I'm sure.

[AP]

80. You have an inflated sense of your ability to make an argument

Tax burdens depend on your wealth. Wealth is a function of how much you have. Flat taxes don't take into consideration how much you have. Flat taxes burden people with different wealth levels differently.

[kengineer]

112. I already explained, that would have to be addressed

Existing wealth would need to be separate from what I am talking about.

I'm talking about current wages. Existing wealth would need to be dealt with as a separate entity. If you wish to be progressive on that fine and dandy.

[AP]

119. I see that you don't understand math or what I'm trying to say.

In the same year, for people who have 10,000 (in assets or income or whatever), the value of another 5,000 in income is way greater than for the person who has 345,000 in income or assets.

The value of an additional dollar to person is a function of how much they already have, whether it's in income they earned that year, or whatever.

That's why equalizing the income tax burden requires some consideration of how much income you have.

[uptohere]

100. I don't think so

if they got what was duly owed based upon thier contribution, they would get less. Thats why business argues against a minimum wage in the first place.

Now if they made a more material contribution to the business, they would benefit (get a promotion, a raise) and no longer be the minimum wage workers.

Now if you wanted to just say that there will be a minimum just because there will be one and a max and then somehow prorate in between then fine. Please leave 'just deserts' out of it. Its an insult to those people who worked harder, got educated and applied themselves to move themselves up.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

35. I don't support a maximum wage

Because that seems to me like putting a ceiling on success. But I do support indexing the top salary in a given company to the lowest salary, so that the CEO in that company makes 20x what the lowest paid workers in that company make. Each company could decide for itself how much to pay its workers, but the CEO could not make more than 20 times what the lowest paid workers make in that company. That would leave businesses the freedom to set wages but it would probably cause wages for the entry level workers to go up and make it too costly for CEO's to have inexorbitantly high salaries.

[LittleApple81]

39. agree with this idea

The disparity between the high/low wages (and/or salaries) at most American corporatioins is an insult to humanity and totally unjustified by performance as we have seen lately.

The CEOs have formed little clubs where they set their own salaries and expectations so that, when they are searching for a job, they do not play by the rules of the market they advocate for everybody else.

I tried to get a good link about differential between low and high salaries in American corporations through Google but I don't have time to do a complete search. The one I found is from 1997 but I think it should do for now:

"People now see themselves as being cogs in a big machine that is chewing them up. Yes, some eventually get new jobs but usually at less income and without the benefits they once had. In contrast to this, you've got the guys at the top whose incomes are soaring through the roof. CEOs of our top 300 companies are making 212 times what their lowest-paid employees are making. In the 1970s, it was 29 to 1. Today, in Japan the ratio between the top- and lowest-paid employees is 16 to 1 and in Germany it is 21 to 1.

http://magazine.byu.edu/bym/1997/97spring/downsizing2.html

[kengineer]

42. reasonable start but full of loopholes

But leaves huge gapping loopholes for those who wish to milk the system dry.

Doesn't even come close to solving the problem.

Sure, on paper it looks like earnings are fair... tyranny likes that. Tyranny is most successful when it is hidden and right in front of you.

In fact, nearly does nothing to solve it.

Michael Isner got zero in wages one year for the sake of the employees... then took millions in bonuses.

Boy, what a nice guy!

[camero]

51. This is how it is done in Japan and some European countries

Even though I think a more realistic idea would be 10 times. Companies could go to twenty if the corporation is employee-owned.

Therefore, excess profits could go to things like R&D, or Plants and equipment and not being used to redline the CEO or the boards pockets.

I think it is way past time to look at a maximum wage because society, like the earth, requires balance. A house has a floor so it must also have a ceiling because if it rains, everyone gets wet.
edit: sorry, had a typo

[LittleApple81]

54. Besides, in many German Corporations the Employees have

representatives on the board of directors.

[Kellanved]

148. infact: all

There is no min or max wage; the unions take care of things like that. (or better could do; they're loosing power)
They can do this, because they have a protected position. This position includes up to three representatives on the supervisory board (Aufsichtsrat) of companies with more than 2000 employees; those are elected by the employees. In smaller firms the employees have 30% of the seats.

[kengineer]

59. I Agree

YOU: Even though I think a more realistic idea would be 10 times. Companies could go to twenty if the corporation is employee-owned.

ME: That's a reasonable figure, perhaps. The rest of the corruption must also be rooted out of current financial systems in order for this world to improve.


YOU: Therefore, excess profits could got to things like R&D, or Plants and equipment and not being used to redline the CEO or the boards pockets.

ME: Agree


YOU: I think it is way past time to look at a maximum wage because society, like the earth, requires balance. A house has a floor so it must also have a ceiling because if it rains, everyone gets wet.

ME: fantastic

[bloom]

66. I agree with this also

It would be interesting to know what sorts of work experiences people have that colors their point of view.

I work creatively (have a Bachelors degree) for a corporation that used to value creativity more than it does now (before it was sold). Now the managers get all the perks - esp. the ones who have no clue about the creative process and know nothing of motivation. I feel like I'm working for Dilbert's company.

I'm all for CEO's pay being no more than 10 times the lowest. If they want a raise - everyone gets a raise. Same with bonuses. Why should management be motivated with good salaries and not the people who are the brains behind the product? Makes NO sense to me.

[camero]

67. Thanks to both of you

It's an honor to be complimented by people more intelligent than myself. :)

[ButterflyBlood]

77. yep, that's what I support

I believe that's how it is in Denmark.

[Brian Sweat]

48. Communism - an idea that's time has come

and gone.

[LittleApple81]

56. Communism? where? where?

Kengineer's idea is not "from everybody according to his/ner ability for everybody according to his/her need." I don't totally agree with his ideas but to start saying communism is a little extreme.

[Brian Sweat]

60. For all intents and purposes,

impementing a maximum wage gives the government ownership of the means of production. This is the essence of communism.

And yes, a maximum wage is "to everybody according to their need."

[camero]

62. It is not

It doesn't give government the means of production because the CEO or employees can set the wage at any amount below that. Think of it as sort of a speed limit for wages.

Or do you think that speed limits are communist also?

[Brian Sweat]

72. "Or do you think that speed limits are communist also?"

Actually, yes, but that is another story. :)

I don't think your analogy is valid. Speed limits, for what they are worth, are intended to discourage people from operating their vehicles at unsafe speeds. There are no safety issues involved in a maximum wage.

[camero]

82. And a maximum wage is also

to prevent people from harming one another economically because money in any one year is finite and whatever one gets is taken away from another. I refuse to let someone go without eating so someone can have a Persian rug. It's an abomination against nature.

[Brian Sweat]

161. There is no question that the amount of wealth in a given year is "finite"

but that doesn't really mean anything. I think what you really mean is that the GDP for a given year is fixed, so if one person takes more of the wealth, another person gets less. If this is what you mean, then you are wrong.

[LittleApple81]

64. Well, usually in corporations the managers are NOT the owners

The shareholders are the owners. And given the effectiveness of the CEOs we are seeing lately, they are denying the owners their true wealth.
How does a maximum wage give the government the ownership of the means of production? Will the government take the money or will it be given to the workers that help create wealth with their work?

[Brian Sweat]

74. Giving the government that much control over how a business

operates, gives the government effective ownership.


Also, as much as I think CEO salaries are out of control, they are not denying the owners their true wealth. The owners can always invest in a different company or they can excercise their rights as owners to reign in CEO executive salaries. For some reason they choose not to.

A maximum wage is not communism, but it is a communistic idea.

[LittleApple81]

88. Well, I used to own stock in some corporations

and I never saw any of the proxy vote invitations that dealt with the CEO salaries. The only time I saw one was for the Disney corporation and I voted according to my opinion. Nothing happened, so I am assuming they have larger voting blocks or groups of proxy votes that they can still do whatever they want.
A small investor cannot do much. The larger investors seem to be all in cahoots with the corporations in some way or other.
And the board of directors are a joke.

[kengineer]

114. I'm just plain not following the logic that tics in your brain

YOU: Giving the government that much control over how a business operates, gives the government effective ownership.

ME: You have little comprehension of the term ownership, yes? Let me pose another scenario to you. Businesses should do this themselves... government should not be required for respectful humans to properly respect other humans living in a common land working in a common business. Why do they wish to pad their own wallets so much? It's just out of control, why do you defend it?


YOU: Also, as much as I think CEO salaries are out of control, they are not denying the owners their true wealth. The owners can always invest in a different company or they can excercise their rights as owners to reign in CEO executive salaries. For some reason they choose not to.

ME: owners are a whole nother arena of discussion. How did they get so much money to be the owners? All super wealthy people got that way off of other's backs. It's just the nature of things.


YOU: A maximum wage is not communism, but it is a communistic idea.

ME: Negative, it's an idea that intelligent humans think about when they consider all the relevant factors. It's very silly to be fixated upon the evils of communism when discussing specific potential policies of today. What made Communism evil might have had something to do with 60 million dead humans who were starved, cut to pieces, shot or otherwise mangled.

[kengineer]

113. We're discussing wages, not profits in companies

somebody else mentioned that above but you missed it.

Profits from companies give those companies the means of production.

I'm assuming this is what you are talking about. We're not a bunch of idiots here.

The communism analogy is silly. Line item veto!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

164. The Soviet Union never had a maximum wage, so you're wrong

The only people who believe communist propaganda are conservatives it seems. The USSR never had anything close to an equal distribution of wealth, and when we try to achieve a fair distribution of wealth, we are doing the opposite of what the communists did.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brian Sweat]

61. A moose because a vest has not sleaves?

"They also cared about the environment"

That why they dumped their nuclear waste in the Arctic Ocean.

[moondust]

69. Bring it on!

Based on a living wage for the bottom dog and some reasonable multiple of that for the top dog.

In some cases capitalist "success" derives from sheer luck and manipulation. In some cases it is a team effort in which the lower paid staff does most of the work and receives the least compensation. In some cases it relies heavily on the use of public roads, public airwaves, public ports, public airports, public this, public that. Why should the public be forced to pay again and again in excessive charges for products and services they are already partially subsidizing because some asshole wants to have his own private golf course or a plantation style resource-guzzling house (its excessive consumption incidentally driving up the cost of resources for everybody) or whatever? I don't see a justification for excessive compensation in any of these cases and I suspect they may be the rule rather than the exception.

"Take only what you need. Leave the rest for future generations."

[John_H]

71. Future State Trooper Alert

It never stops astounding me how some use liberalism to justify their own control freakism and totalitarian impulses. Since it is ultimately about centrralized government control, income capping is an anathema to American liberalism. American liberalism reveres free markets--with the government playing an active role to make sure everyone has the opportunity to reap it's benefits. That's where liberals differ from repukes--who adhere to survival of the lucky--those born to opportunity and priviledge.

We liberals want to make sure that everyone has the same opprtunity to become CEO's if they wish, not create a level playing field through dictatorial policies. Being a control freak is easy yoy just need a pen and a police apparatus to make your decrees stick. Working to change society at its most basic levels is hard, and takes time.

If you can't control your impulses to force people to earn how much you think they can make or behave how you think they should behave just head down to your local state police headquarters and get it over with.

I don't care what you label yourself politically, but if you are an income capper, you're not a liberal or a progressive, at least as it has evolved over the last 200 years in the United States.

[Brian Sweat]

75. "if you are an income capper, you're not a liberal or a progressive"

Hear, hear.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

165. You mean corporations can't be regulated?

It may be a good idea, it may be a bad idea, but regulating a state-chartered corporation about a minimum and maximum wage is certainly a legitimate function of government. We create the corporations, we can regulate them. In fact, we should regulate them heavily enough to make sure they do what we want. Otherwise we should revoke their charter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

172. Ah, more anti-corporate junk

Corporations are collections of people. If you overregulate them, the people -- the best people -- go somewhere else.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

174. more corporate junk. corporations are an collectivist legal entity

Corporations are collections of people. Baseball teams are collections of people. DU is a collection of people. So?

Corporations are chartered by governments for a specific purpose. If they don't serve a public purpose, why should we charter them?

Overregulation of corporationsis is hardly the pressing problem in the economy, unless you are a Republican, in which case deregulation is the number one priority.

[Muddleoftheroad]

175. They DO serve a purpose

They provide employment, they pay salaries and they pay taxes. Not to mention the fact that they provide services.

Sure, go ahead and slap some whacky regulations on them and see how well the economy does.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

176. you want whacky regulations? not me

If corporations aren't serving the purpose they were designed to, we should revoke their charter. Everyone has to be accountable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

177. Accountable

Well, paying taxes, creating jobs and providing services is pretty darn accountable and useful. If you make it hard on them, they will go somewhere else.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

178. you mean they will renounce their charter and go to another government?

Is that what you mean? If they are going to outsource jobs to another country anyway, perhaps they should. We can charter other corporations to provide jobs here.

And who are these "best people" that will go elsewhere if they have to follow the law like everyone else? Perhaps we'd be better off without them :)

Corporations aren't the only kind of business or organization that creates jobs either.

[Muddleoftheroad]

179. They will simply relocate

You think of this corporate charter as some holy writ, it's simply a document that allows a group of people to create a certain type of corporate structure. It's nothing more than that.

These best people are the creative types who start companies and create thousands of jobs. If you make it hard on them, they will do so -- in India or somewhere else.

[Kimble]

76. Well...

I am just wondering what good a minimum and maximum wage would be if there was nothing to buy and inflation was at 20%? This is why this Min/Max idea isn’t a democratic position.

Look, the only thing this would do is destroy social and financial mobility, make goods scarce, and worthless paper money plentiful.

[Sufi Marmot]

79. Could CEOs make more than $350,000...

if they used their extra earnings to establish racially segregated communities? Would that be acceptable to your social engineering program? :eyes:

-SM

[kendric]

83. Workers are EMPLOYEES

They are consenual employees of the company. They work for the CEO, ie the Boss. Not the other way around. Besides, would this be only for public companies? What about private. Its my own god-damn buisness, and I'll pay myself what i want to, thank you.

[camero]

85. YOU can't do anything

without the resources of the earth and others to help you extract it.
What you just said was a tyrannical statement.

If you do not pay them a living wage, then you are a thief. Want more opinions, read the Catholic Ecumenical. I'm not Catholic but I agree with that.

You alone could not get anywhere but the slums without help.

[LittleApple81]

89. The CEO of a corporation does too. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. I Agree To A Point

but as an employer you have a moral obligation to your workers.

A honest wage for a honest day's work.


But the capitalist or the employer is the one who assumes the fiancial risk so he is entitled to a higher wage.

[Yupster]

90. I actually own my own business

I'm a stock-broker in a one man office. When I want to make decisions about my business, I am not going to ask the custodian, the yardman, and my secretary to vote on them. You really think I should?

[camero]

93. Yes

Because what you do affects them and they should have input.
edit: It's called being responsible.

[Yupster]

122. And if my yardman, custodian and secretary

vote to make some uninformed, stupid change to the way my company operates, and we lose $ 200,000 next year, are they happy to forfeit their pay until the company gets back on its feet like the owner would have to do?

I didn't think so.

There are many, many small businesses in America where everyone gets paid but the owner, and the owner works by far the longest hours.

For many restaurants, it can be months before the owner can write himself a paycheck. Sometimes if the business fails, he never did get paid. Yet each month he still has to write out checks to the workers.

[camero]

132. That is the chance you take

any business is a gamble but when you have control over other people's lives, you should at least use thier input to make some decisions. If you tell them up front that if it doesn't work, then you would have to institute a wage freeze or cut, then they would take it into account. People are not as stupid as you make them out to be.

[Muddleoftheroad]

135. They also don't have the right to make those decisions

If they want that right, then they can start their own businesses.

[camero]

140. And

You can do it all alone. See how far that gets you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

142. If you are the boss

That's precisely what you do. You get the facts and opinions and then YOU make the decision. The buck stops at the CEO's office.

[Yupster]

136. Camero -- you're not putting me on?

You really believe that a surgical hospital should give a vote to the cafeteria staff before deciding what million dollar cat scan equipment to buy?

And I as a stockbroker should poll my yardman and custodian before deciding what type of group long term care benefit package I should present to a corporation for my bid for their business?

You're being ironic, or sarcastic right?

[camero]

139. That's twisting the argument

If a decision you make affects them, such as which HMO package to by for your employees, then they should have a say in that.

If your employee has an idea to make things more productive than you should listen.

You're just a businessman, not a King, however much you desire it to be so.

[Yupster]

92. The first thing that this system would accomplish would be

that anyone with a crative idea, or new invention would make sure he has left the USA before he starts producing it.

Maybe that wouldn't be so bad because we have such an excess of jobs in America right now anyway.

[LittleApple81]

96. Nobody is saying you cannot make money or exploit your ideas

What concerns me, at least, is corporations where the CEOs ARE NOT THE OWNERS but use the corporation to make obcene amounts of money that are not justifiable by their performance.

[Yupster]

99. The CEO's are not the owners

but neither are the workers.

Corporations are owned by the stockholders. They are the ones who should make the major decisions.

If there are ideas for strengthening the decision-making authority of the stock-holders, I would probably be for them.

The idea that workers should make the major decicions, I am against.

Take a company like Burger King for instance. They may only keep their average worker for 6 months. If the workers at Burger King could decide on the future of the company, they'd vote to shut the place down, sell off the assets and split the money between the employees. Then they could go off to college with a nice fat wad of cash, or go down the street to work for McDonalds.

[Yupster]

94. But why stop here?

People in third world countries work much harder in more dangerous conditions than anyone in America.

Let's propose the maximum wage worldwide. Why should Americans be able to exploit labor in the third world.

I propose that no one in America should be able to make more than ten times what the lowest paid worker in Tanzania or Tadjikistan makes.

[camero]

98. The way to do that

would be to tax the hell out of multinational corporations to make it more expensive to make things overseas and ship it back. That would certainly bring jobs back here in a hurry.

[kengineer]

153. It should be worldwide, yes

There should be some reasonable maximum wage worldwide. I agree.

Again, this does not trump local group freedom. Any local group that wishes to lift up anybody to superrich status may do so.

The fundamental issue here is that those with money are easily able to manipulate the system to maintain their money. They do this by influencing the educational systems, media, laws, etc... Thusly they maintain their status.

I know you realize that. I'm not sure why people don't think earning 350K in a 12% tax bracket would motivate the hell out of people to want to earn that kind of money... It would. AND you would have a hell of a lot more people who would be able to achieve that level, thusly you would have a hell of a lot more people who would be entering into those "hyper-creative" states of mind trying to create the world around them and produce excellence... etc...

So it is still a very, very good idea.

I've seen some people here mention that progressive positions don't think this way. Well, I guess it's not your kind of progressive, that's all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. A Minimum Wage Is Fine

We should work to make the minimum wage a living wage but I oppose a maximum wage....


Those who make maximum wages pay maximum taxes through the progressive income tax.

Even with *'s tax cuts the maximum marginal rate is around 35%.

[kengineer]

116. right... that was the point of the thread

The point of the thread was to not have to penalize people for earning the extra money. (flat tax)

There really is a reasonable upper limit that we could all decide upon.

Those who resist this idea do so because they like earning "godlike" money. So I don't blame you for defending it.

[vision]

102. Germany has some limits on wages

I think it would be reasonable that wages for the top earners in a company should be linked to what the rest of the workers earn. Not only does it encourage the workers to work harder and be loyal it also allows them to have more income to spend.

Henry Ford, after mass production, found out that nobody had enough money to buy his products. If nobody bought his products than he would have quickly folded. His response was to increase the wages of his workers. The workers than used that increased income to buy the products that they were producing and also spent more money in community so the wages of others in the community increased. The Shopkeepers now could buy a car and pay thier workers more, etc.

Unrestrained Capitalism will eventually self-destruct. Like a snake consuming itself, it will die.

An article last week said that 30 million voters make less than $9 an hour. It doesn't appear that that number is going to decrease. I fear that something is going to give before too long.

"The UC Berkeley group cites evidence that, in 1974, American chief executive officers made $35 for every worker's dollar. American CEOs now make over $200 for every worker's dollar, a 500 percent increase in twenty years. By comparison, the ratio of CEO-to-worker compensation in Germany is DM21 to 1." http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/96legacy/releases.96/14339.html

Why the hell is a CEO worth $200 for every dollar an average worker makes? That greed goes beyond trying to make a buck. It goes beyond decency. I cannot see how Americans can stand it, as a Christian I cannot see how "Christians" can support that.

[donco6]

106. I don't agree with this idea at all.

What do I care how much the top end makes. If that's how they want to spend their profits, go for it.

I do think we should tax the ever-living hell out of them, however. With no escape clauses.

[Democat]

111. Very bad idea

Minimum wage is not oppressive. Maximum wage is.

[kengineer]

115. Opposite

You are not thinking creatively enough. Both a minimum wage or a maximum wage can be oppressive if they are not set at the proper value.

Need i say more?

[kengineer]

118. EVERYBODY MISSED THIS

People have talked about this and that...

Oppression has been mentioned.

Here is the essence of oppression in earnings:

If I earn more than 25000 the tax rate goes up. That's oppression.

If I earn not much more than that the tax rate goes up again. That's oppression.

All this does is keep the middle class at a lower place than they would be otherwise. It's a sick taxation system. If you want progressive taxes, start the progression after 100 grand or so for starters.

For those under a hundred grand let them actually feel like if they earn more they REALLY do earn more. To help the really poor we would simply have better deductions for them.

[AP]

123. You have it so wrong

The middle class is oppressed because of the fact that a couple together making 300K pay the same exact marginal rate as someone who makes 1 mil or 5 mil per year. The couple was to work harder and sacrifice more than the person making 5 mil to make an extra buck. What's even worse is when a person making 35K a year pays a higher marginal rate on earned income, than a millionaire pays on unearned dividend interest.

[dudeness]

124. there seems to be a lot of bosses and capitalists

here in DU..which is cool..but do not denegrate someone for proposing an alternative to the existing corrupt system..like this one is working so well for the betterment of humanity..

[camero]

128. No doubt

One fact. The amount of people making less than poverty level wages here in FL is around 27% this year. Mostly because we have the lowest wage rate in the US.

[Booger]

127. my take

on the situation, is much like my take on globalism. I believe that it's unworkable to force a change in the way that business is done.
I do believe in making the difference when you can. Like buying from local farmers at a market. Small? Sure. But it does make a difference.

All of that aside, I've been in the T-shirt printing business since '86. Shirts are 1/3 the price that they were even 5 years ago.
that's because they are assembled offshore. While I hate having to use them, it's the only way to be cost effective most of the time.
BUT!
When it works for me, I use www.americanapparel.net . A company that is employee owned, sweatshop free, and the quality far surpasses the the quality of the big brand name shirts that printers use.
That's the way I feel that I can make a difference. Because, honestly, I don't know how you are ever going to force a change in the "business as usual" world. However, anyone is free to start doing it their own way, which just might, in the long run, set a good example for the rest of the world.

[camero]

129. Way to go

I'm glad you can do that. I favor tax policy changes that favor employee-owned businesses because that is where workplace democracy will be.

[ShaneGR]

130. Great idea, if you believe in Communism

[ChemEng]

131. What about the owners of the company?

Let's say I have an idea, and I form a company. I sell stock to investors to raise capital, and build a factory and hire employees (by the way, I'm the CEO). After a few years, let's say I and the company are successful, and now am producing tremendous profits. For the sake of argument, let's say profits are over $100 MM per year.

Since profits are what remain after costs, including salaries and wages, the owners will get the profits in the form of stock dividends. Is that wrong in your view? If so, why?

[camero]

133. It would not stop stock dividends

It is a wage cap. Which means that companies would have more money to invest. Progressive taxation on capital gains would bring in more tax revenue.

[Yupster]

145. It has been suggested earlier here

that your 100 employees (whether they've worked with you a day or three years) should decide what to do with your business. They could vote to dissolve the business, sell the assets, split them equally among themselves, and pocket $ 2-3 million each and say "gee thanks mista" to you.

Now that's economics that I never learned, but then I'm only a small-business owner.

[Nikia]

134. Some interesting ideas

As mentioned before, I think the best idea as far as a maximum wage is to tie it to earnings of employees such as the highest paid employee will make no more 20 times the pay of the lowest paid employee. I do not think that is unreasonable. Some companies might decide that theit lowest paid employee will be paid $6.00 per hour while other companies might decide that their lowest paid employee will make $20.00 per hour. CEO's and other top managers often do have increased expectations of them and are more likely to be suddenly fired than regular employees. Using this formula though, their compensation should be reasonable. It would also protect small business owners. Some years might be more profitable than others. In good years, the very successful ones might be able to pay themselves the maximum wage and invest back into the business. The investment back into the business during the good years would help protect them against possible bad years or drop prices to encourage more people to buy their product or service or give their employees bonuses, which all would be useful things to do with profits.
I don't think this would really decrease the motivation of that many. Many working class people know that no matter how hard they work that they will make only a certain amount of money, especially if they stay with their company which they might be compelled to do if they need health insurance for their families and have accumulated vacation. CEO's and many managers usually get those benefits starting their first day of employment, while working class people often wait months for health insurance and a year for any vacation and several years for weeks of vacation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. White collar/blue collar

Professions pay different things. You eliminate the desire of people to start blue collar companies that pay lower wages. Why open a fast food store for instance? You are looking for a magic bullet solution. Few exist in the real world.

[Yupster]

147. But what about Jason Kidd, Nikia

If a beer seller at the E Rutherford Coliseum works all 40 home games and makes $ 75 a game (I have no idea if that's high or low), or $ 3,000 per year, do you really mean that Jason Kidd should be limited to making $ 60,000 per year?

The man (and I am not his agent) has completely turned around a franchise that was always struggling, always losing money. Now they go deep into the playoffs every year, bringing in tens of millions of extra revenue, not to mention the sales of Kidd shirts and hats and balls and who knows what else.

I think he's worth the whole $ 15 million a year (or whatever)he gets, and probably more. You really want to tie his salary to that of the guy who sells cotton candy at the stadium?

That just seems like crazy economics to me? Especially since a ballplayer's career is usually so short.

[Nikia]

151. Professional sports and entertainment are a little different

The athletes and entertainers are the production level workers in their industries. This is completely different than most service and production industries where production level workers are paid much less than management.
Aren't the CEO's the talent though? What about that guy selling cotton candy? I'll think about these things a bit more. I think that large income inequality is a big problem in the US, though. It often causes civil unrest and even revolutions. People are realizing that hard work isn't getting them very far anymore and branching out on one's own is more difficult as large corporations gain more of the market.

[Yupster]

152. Honest answer Nikia

Let me just add that the amount of time and effort that a guy like Jason Kidd put into getting to where he is today is incomparable to a hundredth degree with what effort it took the guy to get the job selling beer at the stadium.

If you agree with that, please consider the lone guy who emptied his bank account and worked 80 hours a week risking everything he had for next to no pay trying to get a restaurant established. Let's say he finally made it a success.

Now his salary is supposed to be somehow tied to the busboy that took his job to have something to do during the summer until he goes back to college?

I don't believe this reasoning recognizes how few people there are who are willing to take the leap of risking everything they have to open a new business, knowing that most businesses fail, and knowing that they will work far harder than if they just work for someone else.

I don't think this reasoning understands how important these people are to our country as job procucers, inventors and innovators.

[RobertFrancisK]

137. To socialistic to me

I'd be in favor of taxing cororations more, removing the social security and medicare caps, but once you put a limit on how much someone can make, you've taken away an freedom essential to capitalism and take hope away from a lot of working class people that want to make money and do a lot of good for the world.

[camero]

141. Why is this socialistic?

We have minimum wage laws, we have environmental laws, health and safety laws. All of these tell a business how it must behave. Pay your people a minimum, clean up after yourself, protect your workers.

So why the hub-bub about a law against greed?

[Muddleoftheroad]

143. Letting the workers run the company

Isn't socialistic? What is it then? (Besides unrealistic.)

[camero]

155. It's called democracy.

Of course we can't have that in a workplace now can we?

[Muddleoftheroad]

162. Democracy

It assumes we are all equal. Work does not. Work takes into account contributions -- mental, physical and financial. If I contribute 100% of the wealth needed to run the company, then I run it. Your participation is optional.

[camero]

163. Contributions that people determine

Which is flawed. The same was said about political democracy.

The people would just vote not to tax themselves and extend benefits as far as the eye can see. Hasn't happened to this point, though we are getting close. And people do vote to tax themselves for projects they think is needed on a local basis.

People voted for Bill Clinton, who as much as said that he was going to raise taxes on the wealthy because since they got the benfits from society, they should give back to society.

[Yupster]

168. Isn't that what these whole boards are about?

To every problem, the answer suggested is to tax someone else, not us.

Tax the rich, tax the corporations, tax the other guys and give us more, more, more. And meanwhile, we call others greedy. Quite a trick actually.

The situation you described is where Europe finds itself right now where the governments know they cannot afford the benefit programs they have passed, but any effort to change them creates huge demonstrations such as France had a few years ago. The people have voted themselves benefits to the sky, but refuse to pay for them.

We are in a slightly different position here. We are constantly demanding more and more benefits, but we don't want to pay for them either. We want the other guys to pay for them - the rich, the corporations, anyone but us.

And yes, Clinton was elected saying he would raise taxes, but not on us. He promised us benefits, and promised to make someone else pay for them. I'll raise taxes on the other guy, not on you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

171. Nevertheless

If you are the reason a firm exists, then you are the one who makes the decisions.

[RobertFrancisK]

150. This cuts people's dreams off completely

That's what makes it different from minimum wages laws, environmental laws and workers' rights laws is this would put a limit on what you could ultimatly achieve as an American. I'm in no way in favor of all out laizze-faire (sp????) economics, but America is a great country because of the "american dream", the idea that anyone can make something out of themself in this country. I'm in favor of making that dream more accesible to the people through better education and better living conditions for the poor and working class, so their children can go onto succeed. However,our country will lose it's creative edge over every other country if would put limits on what our citizens can achieve.

[camero]

157. It doesn't limit accomplishment

It just limits money. You wanna tell me that money is the only reason Barry Bonds plays baseball?

Especially when most of us willingly play for free. I'm not suggesting that he would play for free, but if there was a salary cap in baseball, he would still play.

[TaxAway]

158. Barry Bonds doesn't have to borrow money to play baseball

entrepreneurs earn their keep because of the incredible economic risk they take.

there is all the difference in the world between a Barry Bonds and a family (most all loans have to be co-signed) that borrows (which 99% of small business have to do) to start a business.

Of course Barry Bonds would pay baseball for $350,000 a year, but you will find few people who would open any kind of small business (and they are the only people who have created jobs in America in the last 15-20 years) if their income was capped.

[camero]

159. There would be

Money is not the only reason you have a business, though it may be your main one. And some do cap thier income and reinvest back into the business, thus increasing thier profits.

That's funny, I was told that the worst thing you could do in a small business was to just stick profits in your pocket. The best was to just pay yourself a salary and put the rest into the business.

And if you are doing well, at christmas or whenever really, pay yourself a small bonus.

[vision]

160. Baseball and small business, apples/oranges

Most professional sport teams are owned by a few rich individuals and the finacing done to build new stadiums are now predominantly paid for by the community. Look at the Texas Rangers, a new stadium was built to keep the team there, and it does bring in money, but the risk was taken by the taxpayer not the owners.

In Kansas City they keep trying to pass a levy to "improve" the stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals. Some improvements do need done, like more women restrooms. Others are not essential, like more coporate box seating. The owners of the sport teams bring in money over fist and the "improvements" would only bring in more revenue. Shouldn't the cost to do the improvements be shouldered by the owner? Instead they, like many others, want corporate wellfare to pay for it.

How many small businesses make over $350,000 a year? What is a small business? Most of us out here in America make $30,000 or less a year, I can think of countless people that would be thrilled fartless to make twice what they make now let alone over 10 times, which the 300,000 figure represents.

Most workers don't expect to earn that amount but most want to be able to pay thier bills and be able to go out and eat once in awhile. The businesses would not survive unless workers did the work, it isn't unreasonable for the worker to expect to be treated with respect and paid a decent wage. Many employeers do that but they are not the ones that workers are complaigning about.

[lameone]

144. Not a very smart or logical idea!!!!

Maybe we can apply this logic to everything in the world, not just economies. In sports, there will be a talent-cap... Once they get a certain number of points/runs in a game, they have to exit the game and sit out to give the bench players a chance...Then there will be the "nice guy" award, which the team/organization will vote on to see who was the nicest player to play with.
In school, those with high grades can only attain a certain number of A's and B's. Then the rest of their high grades will be filtered down to the C, D, and F students to raise their average up. Those kids work hard too.

Ohhh, I know: In politics, districts which have an overwheming majority of one party must be limited too. Let's say in Miami-Dade county (democratic), citizens are only allowed to vote for a certain # of democratic candidates. For the other, oh, let's say 10 candidates left on the ballot, they must pick someone other than a democrat. Afterall, republicans work just as hard in Miami-Dade as the democrats do to get elected...

Yea, this idea would be soooo great...Remind me to save one of my votes as a democrat to vote for you one day

[GOPBasher]

146. I don't support a maximum wage.

I respect your beliefs, but I think that would kill incentive. I support a very progressive tax code, though. I think any income over $300,000/yr should be taxed at 50%.

[kengineer]

154. Now for my next trick...............

The fundamental issue here is that those with money are easily able to manipulate the system to maintain their money. They do this by influencing the educational systems, media, laws, etc... Thusly they maintain their status. I know you realize that.

I'm not sure why people don't think earning 350K in a 12% tax bracket would motivate the hell out of people to want to earn that kind of money... It would. AND you would have a hell of a lot more people who would be able to achieve that level, thusly you would have a hell of a lot more people who would be entering into those "hyper-creative" states of mind trying to create the world around them and produce excellence... etc... thusly the world would be a much, much better place.

So it is still a very, very good idea. Those who oppose this idea don't see the big picture.

[Ein]

156. Maximum Wage is a damned good idea. Why?

Because CEO's get paid 80x that of the lower paid wage labourers, in many instances. And what do they do? Labor-wise?

There is no end to human greed, and a regulation needs to be set.

And a living wage is what I support for the lowest wage, that fluxuates with the market system.

[bitchkitty]

166. Never happen. n/t

.

[Merlin]

167. I am heartened by the good sense of my fellow DUers in opposing this

It speaks volumes about the overall good sense of the people on this forum that they are not generally sucked in by idealistic, impractical pie-in-the-sky ideas like this one. The caliber of critical posts in this thread testifies to that good judgement.

This might be a good idea in a parallel universe. But it is not practical or politically feasible in America. The only value of espousing it would be to marginalize its advocates.

As I said above, much the same thing can be accomplished by increasing the marginal tax rates on the upper income earners. But this nation does not even seem to have the political stomach to do that. So how can one even imagine opting for this kind of a "solution?"