What should the Maximum Wage (Earnings/Wealth?) be?

[JanMichael]

I only ask this because of the other thread entitled What should the minimum wage really be?.

Why should this come to mind you ask? Because, perhaps this will seem crazy to you, since we rather arbitrarily set the wages of those at the bottom of the economic ladder, as well as all sorts of other jobs which are salaried and move within a range, why should we avoid the question at the top of the ladder? Why shouldn't there be a Maximum if there's a Minimum? Can they exist without each other? Don't you need one to have the other? If not, shouldn't there be a relationship between them that we all know about and can all deliberate on? Society makes/creates (Ok, that's a tad naive but..) its Government, which regulates Society's markets, and citizen behavior (everyone), why not the Rich too? Why not Maximum Incomes?

We Require people to give their income (And all sorts of other persoanl information and promises) to access Public Monies in the form of First Time Homebuyer, and Single Family Rehabilitation, projects, but do we subject the Rich to open their lives up to us when they extract Public Monies in the form of Corpo Subsidies and "Open" Markets? We demand the individual abide by rules (There are few "wet-bed" shelters anymore. Id's are almost always required, limits are made on who one can have as a visitor etcetera...) for Homeless assistance, for a meal and a place to sleep, why not for the Lear Jet?

We humiliate and probe the poor, and let the Rich off with a pat and a smile, and a Contract with, hmm, let's sat the SSA for a Billion Dollars, without any probing them either financially or emotionally.

What galls me is that we, the collective "We", all seem to leap all over the totalitarian setting of wages and benefits for the Poor, but we rarely take a look at the wealth extraction that goes to the Rich.

The Progressive Income Tax? Why stop with that? We can set the Minimum for someone to eat, sleep, and provide for themselves (And Families at times) with, why NOT THE MAXIMUM?

We say we want to end Poverty, but what seems to need Poverty in order to thrive? Why not end that too? Isn't that part of the root causes?

Doesn't some book talk about camels going through the eyes of needles?

"$5.15 per/hr is for the birds."

It sure as shit is. And a Billion is just as insane.

Flame away.

[Egalitariat]

1. The maximum wage should be the most money you can earn

and still have the people who are paying you think they are getting a good deal -- based on the results you achieve for them.

The minimum wage should be the same.

[JanMichael]

2. That's rather simplistic don't you think?

Fortunes are built, inherited sometimes, and are often more that one person's "achievement". Some are but that systemic too, where'd the "market" come from, what made it possible? We're all connected whether we like to admit it or not. Like many Baby Boomers that didn't have to take their poor old parents in and get strangled under caring for them, because of Social Security.

[K-W]

184. Not if you democratize the economy. EOM

[tsuki]

67. False

[Egalitariat]

143. Boy, it's hard to argue that***

nm

[tsuki]

170. I argue my point further down.

There should be a maximum wage for all wage earners of publicly traded corporations. Since the Republicans are hell bent to invest trillions of tax dollars (Social Security is a tax according to US courts,) then oversight is need to make sure that these wage earners do not raid soon to be bulging coffers. The publicly traded corporation's first responsibility is to the owners, the stock-holders, not the CEO's and top management. To insure that the private accounts are not empty when American's retire is a function of the government to regulate Corporations receiving tax dollars.

All forms of enterprise, entrepreneurship and risk taking should not be subject to an income cap.

Enterprise is capitalism. CEO wage raiding is piracy. At no time in his miserable life was Kenny-Boy Lay worth the 50 million he was paid by Enron in 2002.

[Psephos]

3. Look at historical precedents for your answer

When tax rates become confiscatory, people hide their money with the aid of accountants and lawyers, or move it offshore. Guaranteed, there will always be plenty of other countries who will welcome rich tax exiles.

The US had 90% rates for the very rich in the early 60s. Didn't work out.

Just my 0.02 worth. Peace.

[ProgressiveConn]

47. You make a good point

and thats why the first step would be to attack corporate crime. Hide taxable income? Go to jail. A war on corporate corruption would be something I could really get behind. Fits well with the disposal of the DLC and return to the grassroots.

[Psephos]

52. So do you n/t

[lostinacause]

84. There are a few problems with that.

You have three major negative effects that would happen;
First; tax payers’ money would have to go to enforcement.
Second; you send people to jail; they could otherwise be productive citizens and pay into the tax pool (assuming that is your goal)
Third; there is no incentive to work when you receive little to nothing for what you do.

[ProgressiveConn]

98. I'd say there are more problems with the unchecked corporatism

that is rampant in the GOP and DLC.

"First; tax payers’ money would have to go to enforcement."

Yep. And? I've got no problem with my tax money being spent on fighting corporate crime. It is a much bigger concern for me than say making sure college kids don't smoke weed. Any venture capitalist will tell you that you need to spend money to make money sometimes. =)

"Second; you send people to jail; they could otherwise be productive citizens and pay into the tax pool (assuming that is your goal)"

Sorry when you are taking for your own benefit you are not being productive for society. As for not paying into the tax pool? Thats not a problem because as part of the War on Corporate Crime you would legislate compensation guidelines. Sure Mr Lay you can destroy peoples lives for your own profit. And we are going to send you to prison then order you to pay complete compensation to the victims.

"Third; there is no incentive to work when you receive little to nothing for what you do."

I'm from New England and that kinda violates our Puritan work ethic up here. =) As for receiving "little to nothing" being the cause for laziness I can assure you that very few people think that the pay rates that would be "heavily taxed" are "little to nothing." If anything this is an argument against corporate excesses. Rope in the excesses so that the workers can benefit and thus work harder. I don't know if I buy that but it makes a lot more sense than saying people "won't work hard because they are not making enough" due to a progressive tax scale.

Ideally I'd like to see executive pay capped at 30x the pay of the lowest paid employee in the company too. I just thought I'd throw that in. =)

[tsuki]

108. No incentive...hmmm...

Wal-mart
H. Lee Scott Jr
17.7 mill - 2002 Salary
0.121 mill - Options Exercised as of Dec 2002

Exxon-Mobil
Lee Raymond
25.8 mill - 2002 Salary
16.66 mill - Options Exercised as of Dec 2002

General Motors
G. Richard Wagoner Jr.
7.09 mill - 2002 Salary
5.08 mill - Options Exercised as of Dec 2002


Ford
William Ford Jr.
0.219 mill - 2002 Salary
0 - Options Exercised as of Dec 2002


Enron
Ken Lay
50 mill* - 2002 Salary

General Electric
Jeffrey Immelt
14.4 mill - 2002 Salary
0.95 mill - Options Exercised as of Dec 2002


Citigroup
Sanford Weill
1.56 mill - 2002 Salary
11.8 mill - Options Exercised as of Dec 2002

(*total compensation for Ken Lay at Enron was 200 mill over 1997-2001)

[idlisambar]

91. It worked out fine

Yes, loopholes were exploited, but overall the high tax rates had the desired effect of compressing the wage scale. Salaries of that period for those at the top were very modest, in no small part due to progressive taxation.

Dealing with cheats is an issue in terms of revenue collection, but if the financial services industry were better regulated (something else that should be on the agenda) avenues for cheating could be cut off. In today's climate it admittedly would be difficult, but then today's climate would not likely produce a highly progressive tax either.

[tsuki]

105. We are not speaking of inherited wealth. We are speaking here about

wage. Should the wage for a CEO of a publicly traded corporation be maximized?

[shadowknows69]

181. It should never put people out of work n/t

[tsuki]

195. Kenny-Boy Lay made 50 million in 2002. How are the Enron

employees doing?

[klyon]

120. Why didn't it work out?

<<The US had 90% rates for the very rich in the early 60s. Didn't work out>>

Just because it was changed does that mean it didn't work?
Or it didn't work because the rich wanted more and the law impeded their accumulating greater wealth?

I think it was working to make our country more fair and equitable that is why it was changed. When I look back on that time it was a great time for the middle class, since the change, the middle class is disappearing.

The question really is do we want equity, opportunity and fairness or billionaires, that don't pay taxes, running the show for their own self interest. I choose fairness, make them pay.

KL

[Psephos]

172. From what I've read, it incentivized cheating until it became endemic.

It also created distortions in the way the top echelons got paid. You're right, salaries were proportionately smaller then, but the flip side of that is that companies found other ways to compensate their top people beyond the reach of the tax man.

People are very, very good at figuring out ways to beat the system once they believe the system isn't fair, or that the system isn't giving them enough incentive to succeed. Reminds me of the old saw about the USSR: the people pretended to work, and the government pretended to pay them.

Enforcement sounds good but in practice becomes nearly impossible when everyone's cheating. (Think about the 55mph speed limit.) The IRS, for example, would collapse if it had to audit more than a small fraction of returns. It's not only about cooking the books a little. Money always has a way of pushing Congress to open more legal loopholes. So soon, you'll find there's one set of tax laws for the masses, and another for the elites. Of course, you won't know that unless you can hire some $300/hr accountants and lawyers to do your taxes. Again, that seems to be exactly what happened.

I'm not saying that high marginal tax rates are fair or unfair. I'm only saying that historically, high marginal rates have made the majority of those taxed feel like they're being abused, so they look for ways to abuse back. Overall tax receipts may actually decrease.

At least that's what I've gathered from my readings.

Peace.

[kohodog]

4. You can't put a price on Freedom!

Haliburton (et al) execs should be able to steal, er, earn as much as they can get away with. I think we're talking about our future and Social Security at this point. But hey, they've got Cheney to steer the contract and screw the psople.

Seriously, you make an interesting point. If we simply brought back the anti-trust laws and promoted local, independant companies we'd be better off financially and ecologically. Our present course is turning us into a third world economy and will bankrupt the country.

[JanMichael]

5. Small Companies typically pay less and have worse benefits than large...

...corporations.

I'm not sure that's the answer either.

Of course with a Living Wage, Single Payer Healthcare, and Maximum National Income Extraction, it may be feasible, and Humane.

[kohodog]

8. Read "When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten

I found it profoundly interesting. And I have personal experience having tryed an employee buy-out that failed after two years because of a bad economy, outsourcing and the "Wallmartization" of my industry (Not to mention a few mistakes).

And Multinational Corportions aren't helping us to make a sustainable world. His book gave me an interesting perspective.

[JanMichael]

11. Read "State and Revolution" by Lenin:-)

Just fuckin' with ya'.

I've heard about "When Corporations Rule the World", it looks interesting.

The tile sort of reminds me as "Jennifer Government", a book that spawned that "Nation States" web games. What my name? Michael Walmart.

[kohodog]

16. Unfortunately this isn't a web game and we're unwittlingly part of

a fascist empire. Tomorrow I'm going to town to shop for a new pitchfork and torch.

Care to join me?

[JanMichael]

18. "Rice and Ammo" is my motto.

Buy them, store them, and hopefully a Humane America will suffocate the Insane amerika that we're becoming.

[kohodog]

22. rice and beans is all I got

Until tomorrow when I get a pitchfork.

Time to Revoultion. Damn, we need some new music.

[napi21]

6. I don't intend to flame you at all, but it's wrong to set a maximum.

I do however think there should be guidelines. I think senior management salaries should be based upon a set standard. IE: the CEO of GM, Walmart, Ford, etc should earn up to $1,ooo,ooo a year. They do have a difficult job, and are responsible for everything. However, anything above that should be based upon corporate earnings, in the form of a bonus. If the company doesn't make any money, they gt NO BONUS! If the company makes millions in profit, they deserve a bonus...they're sure doing something right!

All senior management positions under the CEO should be on a similar program.

The thing that has always bothered me is the people who are granted salaries and bonuses in the multi-millions when the company is reporting losses, like all the airlines, Kmart, Enron, and all the rest of them.

I really don't think it's ever fair to cap potential, but I do think it should be tied to performance.

[JanMichael]

7. I'll be honest and say that I'm pretty blocked right now...

...so I don't have a great deal to say about your post, no offense please I'm zonked, but one line amused me: "and are responsible for everything".

As an absolute that does not stand nor will it ever. One might say the "bottom line" is that responsibility, but that's oftentimes related to national, regional, familial, and international, policies outside if the actions of a CEO.

My last beer is in the freezer, I'll try to get back asap...

[tsuki]

113. Don't confuse enterprise with wage. Entrepreneurs do not earn

a wage. They take risks and either win or lose. CEOs from publicly traded corporations are wage earners. Yes, some of them make $2500 an hour, but they are still paid employees.

[Orangepeel]

9. of course there can be a minimum without a maximum

the minimum should be designed so that someone who works full time can have a decent quality of life (which of course is subjective, but there are some generally accepted ideas about what that is). It shouldn't be an arbitary number.

Setting a minimum wage helps individuals and also helps society by providing people with money to buy goods and by making it so that children can be raised in a decent environment. It keeps businesses from exploiting workers (or would, ideally).

There is no good reason to set a maximum. Money is really just paper that gets passed around -- there isn't a finite amount. Imposing a maximum on some wouldn't mean that others would get more (for people with billions of dollars, there isn't even tangible paper. It is just ON paper). Just because you think people are greedy isn't enough of a reason to institute any kind of regulations against earning money.

[lostinacause]

87. The problem with a "livable" minimum wage

The problem with a "livable" minimum wage beyond it being subjective, is that any increase in the minimum wage creates unemployment. There are people like high school students who don't really need a living wage but still fit a need in society. There are also people who are not worth hiring at a "high" minimum wage and these people would end up unemployed. A better idea to get a minimum standard of living may be wage subsidies. Another important thing to note about minimum wages is that people tend to only be on them for a short period of time.

I also resent your comment about people with quite a bit of money being greedy. I personally started a company when I was 16 and have been going to university since for 4 years (out of 7-9) years.

I live well by student standards. In the summer months, when my company runs, it is not uncommon for me to put 60-70 hour weeks. Many of the people who have money have worked hard and paid the price.

[tsuki]

117. Are you an entrepreneur or do you receive a wage from

a publicly traded corporation? Do you make money by taking risks or by selling ownership in a company to stockholders?

[lostinacause]

179. What would the difference be?

Both make money based on making good decisions. Both take risks and reap the rewards or pay the consequence based on their decisions.

[tsuki]

194. Capitalism is all about enterprise, taking risks, reaping

rewards or getting flushed.

A CEO of a publicly traded corporation is a wage earner. Period. No risks, other than losing his job.

In the past 20 years, they have raided publicly traded corporations for billions, leaving the risk takers, the shareholders high and dry. Look at Aetna, Inc., World Comm, Enron. Do you really feel that Kenny-Boy Lay is worth 50 million in wages? A CEO, whether he does a good job or not, guaranteed 553 times the AVERAGE wage of an employee?

Now that we are getting ready to transfer trillions of tax dollars (SS is a tax, the courts have ruled it so,) should we allow the piracy to continue. At least with a 401K, you can manage your investments. With Bush's plan, the government would decide.

Do you trust Wm H Donaldson, head of the Security and Exchange Commission to keep an open eye for you? Remember, he exited Aetna, Inc with 7 million while share holders watched their stocks fall from 43 to 27 dollars.

No, the publicly traded corporations have been salivating for the SS money for many years. There needs to be safe guards, or in 2042 their will be no such program as Social Security.

[tsuki]

114. Not earning money. We are talking about wage. And there can

not be an affordable minimum without a reasonable maximum wage.

[Lizzie Borden]

10. $20.00 per hr.

That's most anybody is worth.

[hack89]

14. My father made more than that ...

as a union aircraft mechanic. He was a high school drop out that was able to send two sons to college. You would hurt a lot of hardworking, skilled blue collar workers and their families.

[jdots]

32. Oh no another leading question

we have put human progress on a burner behind technological progress .I say we bring back the barter system and feed ourselves to our pets.

[jmowreader]

50. That might be all you are worth

Those who have rare and sought-after skills should earn whatever they can convince someone to pay them.

[lostinacause]

88. Why?

Justify/elaborate.

(Also from an economic standpoint; If that was the most anyone was worth why are there people making more?)

[theboss]

185. I ain't takin' a pay cut

Sorry.

[ultraist]

12. We need more equality but not absolute equality

I support an increase in minimum wage, more social programs that lift people out of poverty, Affirmative Action and other programs that help to promote equal access to opportunity.

These measures would help level out the income distribution somewhat creating more equality. I don't think there should be a cap on income but safety valves to ensure a fairer distribution.

http://pages.prodigy.net/gmoses/moweb/equalinc.htm
"Thus, Gans pleads not for absolute equality, but more equality: "What degree of income equality is compatible with the division of labor, with filling unpleasant jobs,and with economic efficiency in general?"25 (Gans 1974:67). With Rees, we find Gans advocating a minimum income for the "lowest he." For Gans, minimum income should be fixed at 60 per cent of median, a figure which is determined by studying public opinion26 (Gans 1974:68). Furthermore, Gans entertains an income ceiling, based on, "Rawl's well-argued principle" and some yet-to-be-conducted economic study.27 (Gans 1974:68).

In sum, Gans is sure that the poorest should be valued at less than median income, but he is hesitant to fix any ceiling on the value of the rich--better to have some millionaires rather than none. What Gans concludes is that some form of income redistribution may be, someday, economically and politically viable. With Rawls and Rees, like Tawney before them, Gans is concerned to find some rational stance with which to mitigate the monstrous inequalities of modern society. Gans situates his own work within a malaise of cultural crisis, seeking hope against cynicism. But as Gans admits, the quest for more equality has "feasibility" problems which are not overcome by defensive theories: "the fears of economic decline which income redistribution is already evoking suggest that even a moderate scheme . . . would arouse considerable political opposition."28 (Gans 1974:169).

Undaunted by the grim reaper of public fear, Alvin L. Schorr in 1977 boldly collected opinions of three economists and three social workers, published under the title, Jubilee for Our Times: A Practical Proposal for Income Equality. Unabashedly presented as an elaboration of Tawney's work, Schorr and company did their best to put a tilt in the "gyroscope stability" of income distribution in America.29 (Schorr 1977:ix-x). Their "pluralistic" approach yielded a short list of reforms that would redistribute about $60 billion dollars toward the poorest Americans, leaving the bottom twenty percent of the population with ten percent of the nation's wealth: "The central point is that redistribution can be achieved in consonance with the way income is put together in the United States."30 (Schorr 1977:282). The battles for such a plan, however, would have to be fought on a continual basis, with each new session of Congress, "fiscal year by fiscal year":

[Negatron]

13. Maximum wage is hard to frame and hard to sell

Not to mention, there really are some philosophical problems with the idea. Even though there is absolutely no need whatsoever for any human being to have a billion dollars or more, it is difficult to convine anyone that we should legislate against the possibility. After all, it is a "free country." If Gill Bates wants to amass a 50 billion dollar fortune, it's hard to say what right we have to stop him from doing so, even though he is clearly being unreasonable by seeking such senseless and needless sums.

The Green Party wants a maximum wage that is 10x minimum wage. Naturally, that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming reality. However, a proposal to limit salaries to a million a year might find some support, simply because a vast majority of Americans (even most middle class Repukes) will probably feel that all ideology aside, a million a year ought to be enough for anybody.

Even so, i think it would be a tough sell. We don't want to play into the hands of those who claim that we are about "punishing success." In my view, it is far more productive to forget about this for the moment and focus on a liveable minimum wage.

Believe me, I don't like the idea of these billionaires one bit. That money sitting there gathering dust in their investment accounts really irks me, especially when the United States has the capacity to end world poverty instantly, if we chose to. To me, it is a moral outrage. However, there are a lot of things I don't like. The nature of a free society is such that I can't force my own morality on others. For me, understanding this is part of the difference between us and the right-wing fundies.

[ultraist]

15. Good points! Caps are not possible in a capitalist economy

We couldn't set caps but we COULD tax the super rich more appropriately and STOP corporate welfare. There are other measures that could be taken to slow down this rise of corporatacracy. It's REALLY out of hand.

Tort Reform as Bush has proposed it is a BIG MISTAKE and only promotes the interests of large corps and repeat offenders of malpractice. It LOOSENS corporate responsibility and accountability.

We need a Nader type crackdown!

[JanMichael]

17. I'll tel you right now: Nader-like Reforms would slow the process.

And make us more egalitarian than we are now.

But that simply isn't going to happen with the MSM in every corner of our collective World.

It won't happen with our two-party system and it won't happen with our (current) Constitution.

And if, I say "if" because it may happen, these reforms do not take place over the next decade I fear what the results will be. Even minus the Bush bullshit, I'm talking about banana f'ing republic with 15% to 25% livin' large off the rest, and the "Rest" knowing it.

"Ugly" is an insufficient word...

[ultraist]

21. Only 6% earn over $126, 525 and 1% earn over $285,000

The elite ruling class is smaller than I think most people realize. 85% of the US earns UNDER $100,000.

There is something terrribly wrong with that picture. WHY do so few have so much power over the rest of us?

[JanMichael]

25. Did you get those numbers from me????

I've posted the 2003 Household Income report about, well, twice in the last 6 months.

Hang on, I'm trying to find my email with the stats...

[ultraist]

27. Not much shift for that income in the last two years

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html
In 2002, taxpayers reporting adjusted gross income of $126,525 ranked among the nation's top 5 percent of earners, and $285,424 was necessary to break into the top 1 percent.

There are 1.3 more Americans in poverty this year, up from last year.

[JanMichael]

33. I'm using this linked table:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:plx45dxlnyYJ:ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032004/hhinc/new05_000.htm+2004+Annual+Social+and+Economic+Supplement.++Numbers+in+thousands&hl=en

The link doesn't show it but I've broken down relevant percentages on my own, like:

# HOUSEHOLDS UNDER $50,000 60,323,000 or 54%


That means 60,323,000 Households in America earn less than $50,000 or 54%.

[ultraist]

41. That's USCB data that you linked

In that report they don't break out the top 5% though. They lump anyone over $156,000.

I use the US Census Bureau site for date frequently.

[JanMichael]

43. $250,000 and above is lumped.

The top 5% is over $200,000.

From my breakdown:

"# HOUSEHOLDS UNDER $200,000: 106,918 or 95%"

I can't make tables work on DU, if you want i'll email you the word file that I did that does the more relevant percentages. PM me if you want them.

[ultraist]

51. Thanks!

I guess I didn't look at the whole report you linked. That's outrageous that only 5% make over $200,000.

I think my numbers were individual's not households, maybe that's the difference.

[Negatron]

24. I totally agree. No caps, just a progressive tax structure.

After all, if the top tax bracket is 60 or 70 or 80 percent, isn't that all the more incentive to pull down a huge salary?

We need to be hammering home the FACT that even if you tax away 50% of a billionarie's assests, he or she STILL has FIVE HUNDRED MILLION. We need to be fiercely attacking the idea that such people have any reason to bitch, moan, and complain. We need to get tough on this issue in order to combat the GOP talking points. If providing a saftey net for the least fortunate Americans means that some multi-millionaire has to outfit the private jet with vinyl seats instead of leather ones, boo-fucking-hoo. I really think that the average American would respond to some no-BS tough talk in that regard. The world's smallest fiddle can be used by Dems, too. Enough bellyaching from those whose biggest hardship is having to grudgingly pay benefits for the immigrant worker who cleans the Olympic size pool.

Income caps, no. It will never sell in America. Progressive income tax, yes! It's time to get over this fear of "class warfare" and start standing up against this ridiculous greed. Class warfare is already here, and it isn't us who started it. Now it's time to fight back.

[ultraist]

29. LMAO Negatron!!!

"If providing a saftey net for the least fortunate Americans means that some multi-millionaire has to outfit the private jet with vinyl seats instead of leather ones, boo-fucking-hoo"

LOL!!!

[tsuki]

122. I don't find it a hard sell at all. At a time when the Republicans are

trying to move trillions of tax dollars (Social Security is a tax, the US courts have ruled) to publicly traded corporations to insure US workers retirement benefits, we have to begin to take the stance that these trillions of tax dollars cannot be raided by the top wage earners, CEOs.

With William Donaldson (Aetna Investors)at the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we had better move quickly on capping wages earned by CEOs whose employer companies will soon see swollen coffers. Otherwise those trillions will disappear into a maze of golden parachutes.

[Kenneth ken]

19. I had a debate a couple years ago

on this site on this very topic.

I will say $1,000,000 per year. Beyond that, tax the income at 100%.
(edit because I got ahead of myself. $1M per year in total income, from whatever source. Income and wealth of course, are not the same thing. Wealth is the income remaining after all expenses are covered. So if a person make $1M per year, and manages to save $400K of it, that oughtn't be taxed in the subsequent years, though interest income generated by that money ought to be counted toward the $1M cap in each subsequent year. end edit)

The problematic portion of the debate back then was, what about actors, authors, sports figures etc.? I didn't have really good answers for those, so feel free to offer up some. :)

A professional football player for instance does put his future at risk, eg Darrel Stingley or whatever his name was, the last guy to become paralyzed from the neck down due to a hit he took in a game. While that sort of thing doesn't happen to all players, it is also arguable that they have on average very short careers, and spend the rest of their life with some degree of disability due to injuries. So, a cap on their income can have a very adverse affect on their quality of life long after they've stopped playing the game.

Of course, the same possibility for life-threatening injury exists in many other careers hat don't pay nearly as well as professional sports, and these careers at least provide some societal benefit, so overall, I am still inclined to cap athlete incomes at $1M per year.

Actors at the top of their field may make (what?) up to $20M per film, but they only do about one film per year. I still say cap that, and try to push the money down the ladder to the technical crew that helps make the movie become a reality.

Authors, for me, was the trickiest part of this debate. An author is more responsible for the result of his/her work than most people in other fields - the book is the author's words, and marketing will only take a book so far; word of mouth can be just as effective, and that would be a more direct result of the actual book.

As an overall general outlook, I like a maximum wage/income level. No one earns money in a vacuum, even the author's income is dependent on the willingness of others to pay for the writing.

The underlying idea of a society is that it is a group with a more-or-less common identity and sense of looking out for the best interests of the whole. So a healthy society should teach that some times the personal has to be subordinate to the social. One proper role of government is wealth redistribution to better provide for he overall health of the society.

Some one posted the other day that "taxes" should be called "investments in America" - I really like that phrase, as it better identifies what government income ought to be used for. Plus, if one cheats on their taxes, it doesn't merit the scorn that someone cheating on their investment in America - that has a certain unpatriotic slant to it.

:hi:

[Yupster]

26. Think of Shaquille O'Neill

Imagine being that big and having to run up and down the hardwood court with an arthritic big toe.

Now you going to tell him he can only make $ 1 million a year? Fine -he'll tell Miami that he'll play three games a year and every other playoff game and every game in the finals.

Is that good for our economy and our country? What does it accomplish? It reduces taxes paid, especially medicare which has no cap on it. It hurts the hot dog vendors and parking attendants because the stadium won't fill if the stars aren't playing that night. And it hurts many people in other businesses that Shaquille would associate with if there was something in it for him.

Football players are even in a worse situation because their careers are just so much shorter. A lineman may get one big contract and he's done. He could train and focus his whole early life and health on one pro contract, and that will now be limited?

I don't know what you're accomplishing? Who are you helping?

[JanMichael]

28. Are you serious??? Boo fucking hoo! A bad big toe to play a game?

Oh my heart is just breaking for that poor multi-millionaire! And there's a second tragedy thatI would imagine happens on a more frequent basis; God forbid that the poor someone that has to create his shoe is paid 50 Cents and hour...

Crazy man, just crazy. I see a priorities problem here.

Edit: Shit. I mis-spelled too much...

[Yupster]

36. Okay so you don't like Shaq

So you cut his salary to $ 1 million.

What has been accomplished?

I can think of all the people who get hurt. Who gets helped? Maybe the owner will make more money if he can keep people coming to the stadium.

[ProgressiveConn]

53. So you're telling me that a mil is not enough to play all day long?

I'm sorry. If a mil a year is not enough for you to play your sport than you should probably be doing something else. If Shaq doesn't want that mil he is free to go elsewhere to look for work. Wonder how he would enjoy doing construction or something instead. Be much harder for him to earn his mil a year that way.

I understand the player side of the debate too. But we need to realize that the power play between the athletes and ownership just leaves the fans out in the cold. Because professional sports are basically government sanctioned monopolies I think that there is no problem at all with the government imposing strict rules on teams and players. In fact I see restricting athletes and owners in professional sports as EASIER than most private organizations.

[Yupster]

74. No, I'm telling you that people are generally lazy

Now in the future, perhaps a new "Communist Man" will emerge who will toil not for himself, but for the good of society.

But until then, guys like Shaq will work as little asa possible for their $ 1 million. So the competition will no longer be which team can pay him the most, it will be which team will let him play the fewest games for his $ 1 million.

Is that okay?

Maybe if there was a benefit to it, but I can't see what the benefit is.

Who is helped by Shaq just making $ 1 million a year?

Are we all helped because we stuck it to the greedy SOB? Is that the point? I don't get it.

I see lots of people who would get hurt, but I don't see who would be helped.

If we're going to promote a policy which will certainly hurt some people, can't we at least identify who the policy is trying to help?

And what about a singer who makes $ 1 million a concert. Is she still going to do 30 concerts a year or just do her one and go home? And how many people will have their jobs hurt because those other 29 concerts don't occur?

Then there is the medicare tax which will lose millions of dollars of lost revenue because of the concerts not performed, and the income tax too.

I just don't see what benefit comes from inflicting so much pain on so many people.

[ProgressiveConn]

97. Lazy and Greedy.

Thats why purist Utopian ideologies don't really function well regardless of which side they are on. Thats why we regulate the market because if we fail to do so the Greed impulse takes over. If we regulate it to heavily the lazy impulse takes over.

I'm sure we can agree on that yes? So the debate is where do we draw the line. Personally I don't like the idea of a flat maximum income. I prefer a scaling system that taxes under 30-50k incomes very little and can scale all the way up to 99.999...%. I think a mil is a fair amount where the taxes should start to be over 50% of your income. I do however support the rational for applying the flat income cap... Just don't think it is the best method.

[Misunderestimator]

106. Oh please.... you chose a weak analogy. Your idea that limiting

his salary would "hurt" people is ludicrous.

For your singer analogy... I highly doubt that that singer singing only one concert is going to hurt anyone... those concert venues are always booked in advance... and there IS more than one singer in the world.

Chances are that if either the athlete or the singer performed less, they would be squeezed out of the business and replaced by someone else. Just like in any other business.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. Consistent

"Oh please.... you chose a weak analogy. Your idea that limiting"
Posted by Misunderestimator

"Chances are that if either the athlete or the singer performed less, they would be squeezed out of the business and replaced by someone else. Just like in any other business."


Sounds like you believe in a market economy...



Try to be consistent, will ya...


If you don't like what I'm earning don't pay me...


You ain't worth a cent more or less than somebody's willing to pay ya....

[Misunderestimator]

111. Huh? You totally lost me there.

I'm not quite suire why you're arguing with me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. This Whole Scheme Is Rediculous....

People who earn megabucks would just move to other countries to avoid these caps and then we wouldn't get any of their money.....



Leveling won't work cuz we all ain't equal... If we were there wouldn't be women like Rosie O Donell and Paris Hilton running around....

[Misunderestimator]

119. You're arguing with the wrong person, read post #116.

I am NOT in favor of a wage cap. But I do think it's ridiculous to use Shaquille as an example of someone who would hurt the economy and others' lives because his salary is limited. That's all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. I Know You Aren't An Advocate Of This Scheme....

I just find it amusing that some folks think it will work...


This 5X or 10X scheme wouldn't hurt those who could flee...

The Shaqs' the Tom Cruises, the Bill Gates of this country...

[Kenneth ken]

55. I doubt Shaquille Oneal

would tell Miami how many games he would play; he would find himself out of a contract, and having to get a real job. Same with any other pro athlete.

Given that almost all professional sports venues in this country are paid for via bonds by the people who live in the various cities, I couldn't care less if all pro sports withered and died overnight. Maybe the athletes would spend more time studying in school, and find careers that actually provided something useful to society. That would be helpful and accomplish something good.

Additionally, if people didn't have sports to obsess about, they might find more time to actually engage in activity themselves, which would be good for their health, and reduce Medicare costs. And/or they might engage in civic activity and make the community they live in a better place to live.

You worry about poor Shaquille, and football linemen, but don't mention all the other people who put as much time and effort in to develop their athletic prowess, and then either sustain career-ending injuries in high school or college, or else simply don't reach the level of skill that allows them to ever play profesionally at all. Reducing the allure of professional sports might help all of those people to pick different, more attainable goals for their lives.

[Yupster]

77. You don't think there'd be a team

willing to pay Shaq $1 million to only play in home games, or some other arrangement? I think every team in the league would take that deal in a minute.

I also think it would be better for fans to do other things besides go to watch a basketball game.

They could play chess or write poetry or look at native flowers, or play catch with their kids, or take a camera to the woods and take pictures of wildlife, or help clean their neighborhood, or volunteer at Meals On Wheels.

But I think I'll keep my opinions of what recreation is good and bad for people to myself and let them enjoy themselves the way they choose to.

[Kenneth ken]

78. not if they could get a player

at or near the same level of talent for the same $1M to play a full season. Why pay full price for someone you would use part-time, if you can get full-time talent for the same price? Kobe Bryant is supposed to be pretty good; he would also be playing for $1M.

And even if players and owners agreed to have something like a "home" team and different "away" team, that would open up more opportunity for players not currently in the league.

[Yupster]

79. Yes there are a good dozen franchise players

in the NBA.

Kobe is much youngr and healthier than Shaq. He would probably be willing to play more games.

But he'd have his own price for any team that wanted to bid for his services. I think he'd be pretty creative. Maybe 100 free skybox tickets to every game, a private jet at his disposal 24 hours a day, a hotel floor at his dosposal on the road, free food and a mansion paid for by the team.

In short, I believe people will pay for rare talent, and no matter how hard you try to stop it, the money will find its way to them somehow.

And you're right an owner could say to Shaq, I'm not going to have you play half your games when I can have Tim Duncan play all his games, but after Shaq and Duncan, who's the next center? There are around 30 NBA teams that need centers. An owner might say Why should I pay Shaq for 40 games when I can pay Amare Stoudemire for 80 games. Soon you're going to get to Why should I pay Shaq for 40 games when I can get Nene Hilario for 80 games. Well because 10 games of Shaq is worth more than 80 games of Nene.

These guys wouldn't be making $ 14 million a year now if the owners thought they could get someone just as good for $ 2 million. The top level talent is just very thin. It's a supply and demand situation.

[Kenneth ken]

82. I liked the maximum wage question

I don't have any interest in the specifics of basketball, so I'll let this discussion lapse.

Thanks for the taking the time to reply to my thoughts/opinions.

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. Kobe And Shaq Would Just Go To Europe And Play...

Then we wouldn't get any money...

At least this way we are getting close to 50% if you throw in what they spend on sales and property taxes...


How about Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts who make $10,000,000 + a movie?



They will just make their movies elsewhere.....


Bill Gates????


Don't you think the Brits or the French are smart enough to make his software....

What an unworkable plan... Instead of fantasizing about expropriating a group of rich folks why don't you come up with a plan to end homelessness...

And taking away Shaq's money or telling him to be come a roofer is not a plan...

[William Bloode]

59. Thats total crap.

No offense, but it's true. If it was capped he'd either play or get a regular job and joint the rest of us in the lower brackets. After all a million a yr is nothing to sneeze at.

Besides a bad toe????? Feh! I was getting paid $75 a night at one time to get my head beat in with chairs, fall 20' feet to the floor. I did it because i loved it, not because i made a living from it. Hell i had to keep a regular job during the day just so i could afford to be beaten nights and weekends.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. That's Total Crap

"Thats total crap."
Posted by William Bloode

"No offense, but it's true. If it was capped he'd either play or get a regular job and joint the rest of us in the lower brackets. After all a million a yr is nothing to sneeze at."


I am suprised that none of the braniacs here mentioned that Shaq, Kobe, Le Bron and other elite elite athletes would just go to Europe and play...

[Misunderestimator]

104. Shaq's big toe, fans not coming, destroying the economy... is this parody?

HAHAHAHAHA Poor professional athletes... :cry: They can only work for a short time so we should give them more in that time than anyone of us will EVER MAKE IN OUR LIFETIMES. Yeah... that makes sense. :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. Who's We-Kiemosabi?

You are not forced to subsidize Shaq's salary...

[Misunderestimator]

112. LMAO.... I'm not the one that brought Shaq into this....

jump on someone else

[Misunderestimator]

116. For the record... I am not in favor of a max wage.

My comments that you commented on are about the ludicrousness of thinking that one person's (Shaq's) livelihood and salary could seriously affect the economy and other people's lives.

I have no interest in actually capping his salary, and I wouldn't want anyone to cap mine (the glass ceiling above me does that well enough), but I can certainly understand the ridiculousness of it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. No... ... Yupster's Argument Makes Some Sense...

That a Shaq creates employment for other people; vendors, apparel companies, photographers, writers, et cetera...


My argument isn't as sexy or abstract...


If you put an absurd cap on wages Shaq could play basketball in Italy... The Italians would love him....

[Misunderestimator]

124. I agree, but I disagree about the dire straits of the people that would

be affected by capping his salary. I seriously doubt that if Shaq left the game right now, many people would be badly affected for any length of time. I also doubt that those basketball bleachers would empty out and bankrupt the vendors, photographers and sports writers. It's an absurd example, and doesn't really make the case against wage capping, since wages have been capped in some sports... for just the reasons people talk about capping wages in general.

How about we talk about capping philanthropists' income? That would certainly affect others' lives.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. I Agree...

though a Shaq or a Kobe or an Alan Iverson does bring in asdditional fans...


Levelling won't work because we aren't equal....


Shaq is making in excess of $10,000.000 a year... I'll bet at least $5,000,000.00 of that is going to federal, state, and local governments...

That's better than chasing him to Italy by imposing a confiscatory tax scheme....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

164. Why are you comparing entertainment with business and other labor?

It seems a deliberate means of skewing this argument.

That is the position that team owners take when they want to cap players' salaries "It's a business" but when they want to avoid anti-trust lawsuits..."it's entertainment.

Your other arguments are moot as well since they already hide money and avoid taxes.

This isn't about football and basketball players...this is about LABOR...

Frankly, at some point I think shareholders WILL demand some form of CEO limitation..in fact to some degree it's happening now.

What you are accomplishing is reducing the attraction to people like "Chainsaw Al" who get compensated for LIFE for SHIT CANNING a company to the advantage of the shareholders and the DISADVANTAGE of the market and competition.

You are guaranteeing either a higher compensation for the rank and file workers or a BETTER return to the shareholders. Those people pay taxes too...hell you getter a better tax return from 50o workers than one CEO.

[Negatron]

30. Nice Taiji (yin/yang) symbol.

Hi Ken,

I am a Taoist, and I have my own interpretation of the Dao De Jing. You might see something familiar at the top of the page.

http://naturyl.humanists.net/ttc.html

As I mentioned above, the $1 mil cap sounds perfectly fair to me, but I just don't see how we could legislate this. As reasonable as it is, this would be a losing ticket in America. For me, reinstating a truly progressive income tax is a far more likely possibility. If we are willing to frame it with some balls, I think that we could make our voices heard before too long.

[Kenneth ken]

56. I borrowed the mobile

Taiji from a DUer who found it online, possibly at the site you linked.

I think legislating a maximum wage would be the same as a minimum wage was, and is true for most good legislation; shape arguments for it, work tirelessly until the idea gets enough momentum to pass. After that, it's easy. :) Women's right to vote only took about a hundred and some odd years; ending slavery only took a few hundred. It all starts with an idea of improvement, and then putting effort behind spreading the idea.

:hi:

[Orangepeel]

35. you assume that there is $20 million in cash somewhere

and if Tom Cruise only gets $1 million that other $19 will have to go somewhere.

But, if Tom only gets $1m, than the movie will simply cost $19 million less to make and the film company will keep that extra "money" in some other investment instead.

People are always going to pay workers the least they can get away with -- that's why we need a minimum wage. But, having a maximum wage isn't going to change that.

[Kenneth ken]

58. nope, sorry.

The money a movie generates in profits does go somewhere, so it does exist, and may be paid out somewhere else in the future. Maybe the $20M Cruise gets came from the profits of ET, which he had nothing to do with.

The original post didn't ask about corporate profits, so I haven't touched on that.

In specific terms of movies, I believe most of the fields associated with movie-making are unionized, so if stars are making less, but movies are still generating large profits, then the unions have more leverage to argue for higher pay when bargaininng with studios (or however it works)

The root of a maximum wage is delegitimizing the greed-based idea of entitlement - Cruise saying, I'm entitled to make $20M because I bring x number of people into any film I star in. Oughtn't it be enough incentive for an actor that their film will be around long after their own life has ended, and people will still be able to view the performance? Who really needs 19 cars, 8 boats and 7 homes? Especially in a world where many don't even have enough food to eat.

[Orangepeel]

60. yep. sorry.

whether or not someone needs 19 cars (they don't) and whether or not there is a set amount of money available for salaries and if Cruise doesn't take it someone else will (there isn't) are two very different issues.

The unions have leverage because they can credibily threaten a strike. That is, they can force employers to pay more. The employers aren't going to pay them a cent more than they have to no matter what Tom Cruise is making. That's why we need unions.

[Kenneth ken]

64. oops

I missed this in your prior post, I shouldn't have.

"...the film company will keep that extra "money" in some other investment instead. "

Film companies make films; if they didn't spend $20M to hire Cruise for one film, they could use the other $19M to make more films, maybe only one smaller budget film, but even that would provide work, and income for more people than giving it all to one person.

[klyon]

138. and if Shaq made less then the price of tickets might come down

and I could afford to sit next to Jack Nicholson and watch the Laker cheerleaders live. Or rather the Heat cheerleaders live but I don't know who i would sit next to.

KL

[Yupster]

80. I agree that it's really classless

to own 19 cars and three mansions.

However, I also think it's a bad idea for people to tell other people what those other people "need".

I think it's downright dangerous for us to allow the government to tell us what we "need".

[Kenneth ken]

85. needs

I am shifting my overall outlook on life away from capitalism, so we may have some fundamental disagreements at that level. I like the idea of a maximum wage as a means of bridling unbridled capitalism in a move away from capitalism as a societal structure.

In Naomi Klein's book No Logo, she mentions the Mexican revolutionary subcommandante Marcos, and ideas of not a different world, but of many different worlds; where something at a level much smaller than a nation-state or even a state wield the power. Decisions for the community being made at the community level, and so each community deciding for itself what its needs are, and how best to meet them.

There are many, many hurdles to overcome before a world like that could survive, but the world we currently live in is unsustainable, so it's worth exploring alternate possibilities.

At a personal level, these sorts of ideas help me with my homeowners association; looking for ways to minimze expenses by getting other people in the community involved in improvement projects, rather than hiring things done - it saves me money personally, on my HOA fees, does the same for the rest of the community, and additionally helps (hopefully) to make a better, more interconnected community, where people know their neighbors and such. Sort of trying to put a maximum income limit on my HOA and still meet the needs of the community. :)
But it requires involvement of the community in defining and prioritizing what our needs are. That is sort of the ideal of what our nation was supposed to be about; we've just got far away from that.

[tsuki]

126. I don't agree that enterprise, writing a bestseller, an inventor,

an investor, should be capped. Taxed, yes, but capped no. Wage earners of a publicly traded company should be capped. It is important to do that now to insure that the trillions of tax dollars about to be transferred to these companies be protected and not squandered. The retirement of young Americans will depend on fiscal responsibility.

[klyon]

135. If the athletes with short careers put their money in a trust

and took it out at less than a million a year, if that is the cap, then they should be fine, that would apply to anyone making huge one time amounts of money. So they can still get paid a lot and spend the money over a lifetime.

So then we would have to have a cap on trust funds or an inheritance tax because the money would take on a life of it's own.

I am not sure of the best solution but I don't like the idea of a society of poor people and very rich people and nothing in between.

KL

[TheFarseer]

20. I always liked the Japanese thing about.....

You can only make 10 times what the lowest paid employee makes(or something like that). If you're paying the janitor $5.15/hr, you can only make $51.50 and hour. The principals behind the rule are good anyway.

[Yupster]

37. I don't think Barbra Streisand

would go for making $ 200 at a concert because the peanut vendor only makes $ 20, or LeBron James or Payton Manning either.

[TheFarseer]

57. Well, the model has limitations but.....

$100 for a concert ticket is JACKED UP

[Yupster]

81. There are limitations, because

Barbra Streisand may work hard for a full year to put together the music, costumes, stage planning and rehearsals necessary to put on a succesful concert.

The peanut vendor may work tonight at the Cubs game and tomorrow night at the Streisand concert.

The idea that her thousands of hours of thought, creativity and rehearsals should be equal to 10 times the pay of the peanut vendor who worked three hours without a bit of skill or thought is just wrong.

Are there really people who would support that?

[tsuki]

129. Again, is Barbra taking the risk, putting together the package?

If she is, then I have no problem with the money she makes. On the other hand, Kenny-Boy Lay got 50 million from Enron, a publicly traded corporation, in 2002. I have a problem with that. He was not worth his wage. He was raiding the company.

On edit, Is that where you want the money for private accounts in social security to go?

[Negatron]

63. Congratulations to the Japanese

For being ahead of us in that regard. It would never go over in America, though. In many ways, we are throwbacks. Such a proposal would be political suicide here, and if the Dems commit political suicide, it's Repukes from here on out.

We can't have that.

[idlisambar]

66. To clarify

there is no such rule. It is a convention (backed by regulation) that Japanese firms do not pay executives the kind of salaries you see here, but there is no rule about 10X.

[Blue-Jay]

23. You're suggesting that there should be a cap on the amount of

wealth a person can accumulate?

That's a little much for me to swallow. As long as they're paying their fair share of taxes (a discussion for another thread), I don't begrudge them their earning potential.

[OxQQme]

31. For me, I think

I'll go see about a right field position on a major league baseball team.
Or join up with the pro golfers tour.
Make millions with minimal exertion.
There's sumthin wrong here.

[Blue-Jay]

34. That's all relative.

People will hold out for as much money as they can get paid. You're placing an arbitrary standard on what a particular profession is "worth". I might not think that a below-average center fielder is worth 5 million bucks, but it's not my call, is it? All I can do is refuse to buy a ticket to watch the greatest game ever known to mankind..... Sorry, but I love the game of baseball. I hate what it's become, but the game is perfection. (Again, that's a topic for another thread).

[Yupster]

39. Hey blue-jay

Have you ever checked out www.whatifsports.com

It's the best for the true baseball fanatic. Check out the baseball theme classified and theme owners forums.

Hope you have a chance to look and enjoy the site.

[Yupster]

38. A cap on wealth makes more sense to me

than a cap on income. I just don't see that.

[Blue-Jay]

40. Please explain.

[Yupster]

44. The truly rich in America,

the real idle rich don't make much income.

They just have lots of wealth. Sometimes it's mostly in municipal bonds so even the income they do collect is tax free.

Isn't the group that's the bigger problem than an author who hits it big with a book one year or a salesman who does real well for a few years.

Do we really want to go after people who make a lot, or people who have a lot? They are not at all the same groups of people.

PS - Your squirrel is my favorite DU art. First time I saw it, I pulled my wife out of bed to see it.

[Blue-Jay]

49. I don't want to "go after" either group.

I just want the tax loopholes closed and the cheats to pony up their share. The dumbassed, limp-dicked, low IQ freeps can quote stats all day long about how the ultra-rich are SOOOO put upon by being made to pay their share of the taxes... I just want fewer loopholes and more equality. A millionaire can afford to pay a few more dollars than a waiter.

[ultraist]

54. The freeps are likely citing this Limbaugh article:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

[ultraist]

42. Inheritances are set to expire

They have been decreased and are due to expire in a few years.

NOT taxing wealth is crazy. It should be taxed MORE than income!!!

[tsuki]

131. No. You can accumulate as much as you want as long as you

are not raiding publicly traded corporations with excessive wages, benefits and golden parachutes.

[welshTerrier2]

45. it's not the exact amount that matters

i've written on this subject on DU many times ...

here's a synopsis:
1. wealth and income should absolutely be capped at an amount that protects our democracy from the abuses of massive wealth ... we must have a government that serves all the people and if that means we have to restrict wealth to achieve this critical objective, then so be it ...
2. our society should impose as little as possible on the rights of the individual to earn as much as they want
3. massive wealth has led to a corruption of our government ... government officials have been bought and make policy to benefit the super wealthy rather than serving the overall public welfare
4. alternative remedies must be fully exhausted before such harsh 100% tax rates on wealth and income are imposed ... a last ditch effort at public financing of campaigns, outlawing of corporate lobbying, no corporate money going to candidates, parties, PAC's or anything else ... these remedies have never been adequate to control the abuses of massive wealth and i doubt they ever will be ... but they should be given every possible opportunity to work before placing restrictions on maximum wealth

and one last point ... none of this is intended to be anti-wealth or anti-wealthy ... there are many people with massive amounts of wealth who side with the "good" guys ... the capping of wealth is not intended as a punishment but rather an acknowledgment that massive wealth leads to massive power which is toxic to our democracy ...

those who see this as a draconian measure would be well-served to understand the goal is greater freedom for all, not less freedom ...

[high density]

46. Infinity sounds like a good limit.

This is America we're living in, right?

[Starlight]

48. I used to prepare taxes at an accounting firm.

I was always amazed at the number of W2s I received with several million dollars in taxable income. Honestly, do you believe anyone really works hard enough to *earn* that much money? It seems to me that they're usually receiving a cut of the earnings the lower paid employees are making for the company.

[Dirk39]

61. The rate should be no more than 1 to 5

as a start.

Noone should be allowed to earn more than 5 times the money the poorest members of the same economic context, a nation like the USA or a construct like the EU, earns.
Inheritance should be completely banned and given to the entire community.
Property owning should be completely abolished. The world belongs to all of us and cannot be sold or bought or owned by individual human beings.

Politicians should earn exactly the average income, no Cent or Euro more or less.

Dirk

[ultraist]

62. That's nearly socialism

Our poorest members make less than five grand a year. We should make no more than 25k a year? Even if you used the median income of 43k, that's only 200k.

Caps are not possible in a capitalist economy. I do not support maximums but heavier taxing on the wealthy for income and inheritance taxes. The loop holes should be closed as well. There are ALL KINDS of ways to skirt out of taxes: Family Limited Partnerships, Trusts, etc.

Politicians don't get paid that much. They don't make their money from their Senate paychecks, I think a Senator's pay is only 75k. That's not much considering the cost of living in DC.

[Dirk39]

69. Only 200k???

I feel so pity for those, who make just 5-times the median income!
Every day and night I think about them and all the SUV's they could buy, if only more of those useless superfluous people would live in slums and work for 50 cents an hour or die, 'cause they didn't manage to live the unmerican dream or commited the crime to not have rich parents.


To be honest: if the complete wealth would be redistributed there wouldn't be any people, who earn 5 grand a year anymore.

And I admit it: I'm a socialist. As a start, all of the things everybody needs, should be public property.
Food, health care, energy, the media and real estates as a start.

The "free" market simply doesn't work. After 16 years of capitalism, all of the former stalinist-leninist "socialist" countries are worse off than before. The live-expectancy rate in Russia is 5 years lower than 1989, every two days a russian city is completely removed from the map forever. The Ukraine today has abbout 57% of the economic force it had before the transition to a "free" market system.

No, I'm not a leninist at all and I don't want the old "Soviet-Regime" back, but the ideology of capitalism has become more ridiculous than the folkloristic version of "communism" the U.S.S.R. did represent.
It feels like living under Stalin: everything is collapsing, nothing works; but the official propaganda announces one victory after the other.
And if the wrong neoliberal medicine doesn't work and makes everything worse - it wasn't just enough of that medicine. We did forget to privatize the last toilet on earth.
We're very close to paradise:-)

What Marx said:
Expropriate the Expropriateurs,

Dirk

[ultraist]

94. No way to socialism

BTW, you cannot buy mulitiple SUVS on 200k if you have other bills like a mortgage and children to feed. In some areas that provides a pretty basic lifestyle.

How old are you?

[klyon]

140. an old saying revisited

You can give a man a fish or teach him to fish and he can feed himself for long as he owns the pond. Or something like that.

KL

[henrik larssonisking]

139. wow and if you ever run for president

you will get less than 1% of the votes even in a fair election.

[theboss]

186. Then why did I go to law school, comrade?

I'm sorry, but my work is worth more than 5 times that of the janitor in my office.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

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

[theboss]

197. I'm pretty sure I could find a few dozen people to replace him

In fact, in the five years I've been here we have had about 10 janitors and the quality never changes.

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

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

[theboss]

199. There are people to replace me, but you can't find them in front of a 7-11

I don't think I'm that special. I just have unique skills that I paid over $100K to acquire. If you were on trial for murder, I doubt you would pay $5 an hour to a high school dropout to defend you.

And I do think paramedics and firefighters deserve more pay. Same with teachers. We don't pay certain government employees enough. I'm not sure how much, but we should be making it a desirable job for the so-called "best and brightest."

I'm not sure if they deserve more than me. They have less training than I do. Their jobs are certainly more important than anything in the twenty minutes they would be involved with you. But ultimately, their job is to keep you alive until somebody with more training can take over. I don't think they should make us much as doctors.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

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

[DistantWind88]

201. Depends on the work

A paramedic makes less than a brain surgeon for a reason.

Bottom line: it goes to supply and demand. If everyone could perform brain surgery, we could pay brain surgeons less money.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

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

[begin_within]

191. 1 to 3 if you ask me.

[idlisambar]

65. A maximum wage will not fly...

...but the idea of using regulation to compress the wage scale is a good one. A better way, which has plenty of precedent is to have a very high top marginal tax rate (>75%) and a high capital gains rate. This has the effect of reducing the incentive for ultra-high salaries among employees, and thus the pressure to give high salaries is also dampened. In addition, if for whatever reason a firm persists in awarding high salaries, a lot of that salary would now be taxed and redistributed -- so even in this case there are basic limits on the level of inequality. This is basically the system we had in place in the post-WWII period and it worked.

[tsuki]

68. I think maximum wage works very well for Publicly Traded

Corporations. Japan uses a maximum wage based on a multiplier of the average wage earner.

Understand that CEO's of publicly traded corporations are not entrepreneurs. They are paid employees of a "person," the corporation. The ultimate goal of a corporation should not be to enrich some of the employees, but rather the shareholders.

If public moneys, such as social security taxes, are to go into publicly traded corporations, we must restrict the means by which a board of directors or CEO can raid a corporation using "salaries" and "golden parachutes." To protect investors, we must tie the maximum wage to the average wage, or we'll end up with an bunch of Enrons, Exxons, and WorldComs.

Entrepreneurs are exempt from this multiplier as they are not recipients of public moneys. They are not publicly traded. They rise or fall on risk alone.

[idlisambar]

73. I agree with everything you say here...

...but again a highly progressive tax hitting top earners (income and to a lesser extent capital gains) would take care of the problem just as well as a maximum wage, and would probably be more possible politically (though in today's climate, neither are likely). A maximum wage is fine by me I only worry about its political feasibility -- there is something about a "cap" that rubs Americans the wrong way.

By the way, does Japan really use a maximum wage? I never heard of that, is there a source for this information online?

[tsuki]

103. I cannot find the link. I remember reading about it during the Big Bang

in Japan in the late 1990's. Now, I am unsure now whether it was a federal law or a MITI regulation or guideline. The Japanese corporations are more egalitarian than their US counterparts, and the Japanese prize social justice far more than their US counterparts. Wealth is spread from the top down, while in the US wealth is transfered from the lower classes to the richer classes.

http://www.quietpoly.com/juryfury/debates/econ-postmortem/sophiabarkat/ceo-compensation-inequailty.html

In general, the scenario is no different for employees working at large firms. $20 million is the average salary of a CEO of a "major" corporation; 42 to 1 is the ratio of average CEO pay to average blue-collar worker pay in 1980; 531 to 1 is the ratio of average CEO pay to average blue-collar worker pay in 2002; 535% is the percentage rise in CEO pay in the 1990s. If minimum- wage had risen as fast, it would be $24.13 an hour instead of $5.15 an hour. (See link 9).

<snip>

Romu Gyosei Kenkyu Jo (1984) showed in a study of 38 Japanese companies with more than 10 billion Yen (US $30 million) in paid-in capital, that the average salary of CEOs was only US$122,000 in 1983. In 1988, Romu Gyosei Kenkyo Jo studied 45 companies in Japan with more than 1000 employees and found the mean salary to be US $276,000. Kato and Rockel (1992) study of 599 of the largest publicly- traded companies in Japan showed a mean salary of only US $220,000 for Japanese CEOs.

Indeed, CEOs of Japanese corporations "get five times more than their rank-and-file employees at most. (link 10). Perks like company cars are not usual either if one is a CEO in Japan.

&

http://www.jobjournal.com/article_full_text.asp?artid=716

The fact remains though. Social Security Payroll Deductions have been defined as a tax by the US Courts. With the Republicans getting ready to transfer trillions of tax dollars to publicly traded companies, oversight by government is mandantory. And the biggest abuse is CEO salary and benefits. We cannot transfer tax dollars to prop up companies being raided by pirates, con artists and criminals.

[0rganism]

70. Exactly. Just create several new high-end marginal rates, and we're there

There's no need to arbitrarily restrict salaries with a 100% marginal rate, but we can certainly do better than we are now.

Marginal rate of 35% on income over $100,000/year

Marginal rate of 40% on income over $500,000/year

Marginal rate of 50% on income over $1,000,000/year

Marginal rate of 60% on income over $10,000,000/year

Marginal rate of 70% on income over $100,000,000/year

Ideally, we would have a sliding marginal rate based on a 0% tax for income below median income levels and a top marginal rate adequate to provide sufficient revenue for the previous year's budget.

[idlisambar]

72. I would tighten those brackets a bit myself

In my opinion, there is a bit more room for tightening -- the 70% rate would only hit billionaires with those brackets. Recall that in the 50's the top rate was 91% after around $500,000 or so(~5,000,000 in today's terms) and American industry did just fine, so something between that and the numbers you give would also work.

[0rganism]

192. No need. Compared to what we have now, it's plenty progressive

I happen to like the idea that only a billionaire would have to pay a 70% marginal rate. For cosmetic purposes, it might be nice to have a single higher top rate in the 90% range that no one would pay, but taxing at a cold-war level just isn't necessary to meet the needs of our current government. Right now, with all the deferrments and shelters and outright fraud going on in the higher incomes with respect to tax reporting, an effective rate of 50% on multi-millionaires would probably double the national revenue stream.

Ultimately, I'm not a big fan of federal taxes, especially under shrub. I do think government should plan its revenue to match what it spends in the previous budget cycle. So my ideal strategy would be to set a 0% tax rate on everthing at and below median wage, and match a linear or geometric upward marginal rate increase to a top rate that would be just enough to meet the prior year's needs, adjusted for inflation.

MR (%)
 |
 |                      .---------- TMR
 |                     / 
 |                    /   
 |                   /
 |                  /
 |                 / 
 |                /
 |               /
 |              /          
 |             /
 |            /           
 |           /            
 |          /            
0+---------*------------*--------------- $$
 0       median      top bracket 
         income      for high AGIs
                     starts here 

Knowing the true distribution of incomes across America, it should be easy enough for the IRS to come up with a TMR and curve function to match the necessary revenue stream.

[sweetheart]

71. 30 times the minimum paid by the company

Then there is an unlimited maximum, as long as the proportional
wealth gap is kept within sane dimensions. This would mean that
a executive would be capped at 600,000 dollars as long as the
receptionist go 20,000 bucks. If he wanted more, he's gotta do well
for all his people.

Frankly JM, its a non-starter, as when you hit the higher wage brackets,
you form companies, work offshore, take income paid in euros in an
account in the cayman islands controlled by trustees charged with
keeping a yacht in maintenance that you happen to use whenever you are
visiting the caymans. By creating draconian tax laws, you merely
drive those high earners overseas, as they are the most mobile set of
population, capable of "buying" citizenship pretty much anywhere... and
the attempt to demonize them is wrong headed. "they" are "we"... i
know such folks and they are very very intelligent capable people who
i would want on my own board of directors were i running one, as they
have the depth and wisdom to run companies... hence the pay. THe
presumption that high paid folks are just overpaid idiots is a fallacy
of those who don't work in the upper ranks of business... a fallacy
that makes their political parties perpetually unelectable... just
being a bit too silly-socialist. Even british labour had to drop that
crap before they could get elected.

My thinking is that with shorter and shorter term employment, that
corporations cannot be relied on for retirement, medical and all that
stuff, so rather empoyees (all who draw "pay") should be employed
directly with the government... and subcontracted to companies.
This way, the IRS can "be" that government, and as well, fair wages
and best practices with holiday pay and all will be under the eyes
of public control, and not businesses, many of who, see thier
objectives to avoid and shirk responsibility to their employees.

Then, given this structure, the government will know what people are
below poverty wages for a given area, and can present the companies
that employ them with a bill, for the food stamps and supplemental
public aid these folks draw to achieve a living wage. SO rather than
focus on a global "number" wage, let the wage vary by local costs
for housing and such, with the government doing the adjustment. As
companies will pay for getting their staff living pay, one way or
another, such a mechanism will create pressure to pay living wages
across the board.

[Negatron]

75. If there was a cap, it should be tied to min wage

A good incentive for companies to pay a better wage to its lowest paid workers would be to tie that wage to the earnings of the highest paid executives.

If Joe CEO wanted to make $1000 an hour, he would have to pay his lowest-paid employee $10 an hour, even if we agreed that CEO's could make 100 times more than entry-level employees.

[ThorsHammer]

76. I'd like to separate income from wealth

I have no problem with people earning a fortune through hard work and ingenuity (of course, I am assuming it is all legal). I do think concentrated wealth is a problem, as it keeps power in the hands of a few, and would therefore favor a higher inheritance tax (after a reasonable ceiling to provide edcuation, living expenses, etc). I'd much rather tax money that people have done nothing to earn (inheritance), than tax money that people work for (income). I would not set a maximum income, but would instead get money through inheritance taxes.

[lostinacause]

83. Why? It would do nothing beyond making everyone worse off

Saying that there should be a maximum because there is a minimum is a poor reasoning. The problem with a maximum is that no one is made better out because of it there is also a group of people made worse off by it. It would most likely trickle down to the less wealthy and make them worse off.

[idlisambar]

89. the reasoning

A maximum wage makes those who would receive higher than the maximum wage worse off, everyone else is better off because the money that would go to the high wage earner goes to some other purpose.

[lostinacause]

90. A country's total wealth is determined by what it produces.

If there was a cap on the amount that a person could make they would end up working up to the point where they reached their maximum allowable earning and then would stop producing. Any gains that would be realized by their production are lost. As a result of this there would be nothing to be gained by the less wealthy and losses would occur for people with greater wealth.

You may say that a result would be some jobs in the areas may become available to people with less money. This would cause an inefficient allocation of resources and would very likely end up having everyone worse off as a result.

[idlisambar]

96. some issues with this argument

If there was a cap on the amount that a person could make they would end up working up to the point where they reached their maximum allowable earning and then would stop producing.

I am having trouble seeing how this works. Any person likely to be earning a great deal of money will be doing so on a salary basis and will need to work to earn that salary. Someone earning enough money to hit the maximum has a lot of incentive to show up to work.

A cap on capital gains might have the effect you are talking about, but I don't think anyone reasonable would suggest that. However, a higher capital gains rate would be a good idea -- there is room to raise the now very low 15% rate without making a serious dent in the incentive to invest. The rate of 21% in the 90's certainly didn't slow down the pace of investment.

Turning your logic around, the other thing to consider is the effect that ultra-high salaries has on early retirement. In my workplace there are a number of very productive people who retired in their 30's because of gains in their stock options.

You may say that a result would be some jobs in the areas may become available to people with less money. This would cause an inefficient allocation of resources and would very likely end up having everyone worse off as a result.

I didn't exactly say that, but assuming I did on what basis do you say it would be "inefficient"? I imagine you mean inefficient in the economics 101 sense.

By the way, welcome to the DU. :hi:

[lostinacause]

178. In response

I am having trouble seeing how this works. Any person likely to be earning a great deal of money will be doing so on a salary basis and will need to work to earn that salary. Someone earning enough money to hit the maximum has a lot of incentive to show up to work.

In the case of a salary based maximum if I am really good at what I do I can demand to only have to work 10 hours a week to make the maximum. Employers would have to let the person do that especially with the number that would be trying to do it.

Turning your logic around, the other thing to consider is the effect that ultra-high salaries has on early retirement. In my workplace there are a number of very productive people who retired in their 30's because of gains in their stock options.

To prevent people from retiring after a short period of time the rate would have to be so low that the deadweight losses associated with it would be excessively large.


I didn't exactly say that, but assuming I did on what basis do you say it would be "inefficient"? I imagine you mean inefficient in the economics 101 sense.

I did mean it in the economic sense. One thing that capitalism does well is allocate resources to production efficiently. Assuming there is no market failure, any time that you change the allocation of resources you make things less efficient.

[idlisambar]

193. "Assuming there is no market failure"

That is a very large assumption, rarely applicable to any situation much less the labor market. There are many fundamental problems with the typical neoclassical microeconomic models that make them less than useful as a guide to practical policy-making.

To make a more specific point, the notion of "pareto efficiency" in the neoclassical sense is extremely limited, usually referring to a static allocation of resources such that no person can be made better off without someone being worse off -- under this notion of efficiency an economy consisting of 1 master and 100 slaves is considered efficient. There are economists who have explored the limits of the concept of neoclassical efficiency -- even from ardent capitalists like Schumpeter and the libertarian leaning Austrians.

[lostinacause]

205. little market failure

In terms of markets the wage market does not usually have the same degree of market failure that other markets, such as the markets for certain goods, have. The neoclassical model describes how firms and workers behave fairly effectively. If it interests you I am more then willing to go through some of the reasons why. Neoclassicalism is definitely a poor way to determine welfare economics. Modeling welfare as a public good is a way to at least partially get around the issue.

Regarding Pareto efficiency, it accomplishes two things; it establishes the ideal efficiency and establishes the most efficient role of having a certain outcome. The idea of trying to pursue it when possible is good but by no means is it something that is the means to all ends.

[leftofthedial]

86. 10 times the minimum wage

max

[ultraist]

93. HAHAHAHA!!!!

You must not have children and a mortgage!!!

[rman]

101. Minimium wage should be enough to provide for children and mortgage.

So ten times minimum will also be enough to provide for children and a mortgage.

In fact i'd say 5 times minimum should be plenty.

[Misunderestimator]

107. Minimum wage SHOULD be enough to provide for children and mortgage

but it ISN'T.

I'd say 100 times minimum wage might be a start.... Some people actually do good things with their money, so if they are only able to make enough to get by, we may lose a lot of philanthropies.

But more than that I agree with a progressive tax as another poster described above. Works great in other countries, the wealthy can still maintain their wealth, but end up contributing more to society.

[rman]

125. why not set a both a realistic minimum wage and maximum wage?

why only one or the other?

i argue that IF minimum wage would be fair, then a maximum wage that is 5 times minimum wage would be plenty.

the reason why minimum wage is as low as it is, is that Repubs have been blocking a senate vote on even adjusting minimum wage for inflation, for several decades now.

[Misunderestimator]

127. We absolutely should set a higher minimum wage, but limiting it

on the other side won't work. We would have a mass exodus of doctors and scientists and other high-wage earners, who would be welcomed with open arms into the European community. I doubt they will complain about the higher taxes there if the choice here is a lower wage.

[rman]

132. Well, obviously Europe should do the same

Of course there are all sort of practical problems with implementing both a fair minimum- and maximum wage.

But that doesn't mean it's bad in and of itself.

Now if we think it would be a bad thing then we wouldn't have to think of ways to try and implement it, and there would be no reason to debate it.
But if many people think it would be fair then it is worth thinking about trying to implement it.
I'd say the main reason it is hard to implement is because most people don't even conceive of the idea to begin with - which i think is due the media's role in framing the public debate. So it might be well worth it to try and spread the idea of a fair minimum and maximum wage. In order to do that there needs to be debate about it, and arguing it's not worth discussing because it is hard to implement is not going to help.

[Misunderestimator]

137. I agree that there should be a debate about it...

which is exactly what we're doing. Putting a 10-times- or 5-times-minimum wage idea out there generates debate as well.

A brilliant scientist who spends years upon years in school, depletes all his money and creates enormous debt, then graduates and struggles for decades to pay off that money because he is incapable of ever earning more than $100,000 a year. There are so many other factors involved than just a fair wage range.

Where would the incentive be for people to better themselves with education if in the end, they would possibly have no better life than if they did not go to school?

Where would all those homes go that would be out of reach for anyone to afford?

Where would the government get its tax revenue?

How would we cap investment earnings, why should we?

Should someone who works 80 hours a week be paid twice as much, or would there be absolutely no incentive to work more than 40 (which is fine, simplistically speaking, until you consider interns who work 80 hours or doctors on call, or diplomats who are away from their homes 75% of the time serving us, or even lawyers working overtime representing citizens against health insurance companies, or prosecuting corrupt corporations)?

[rman]

146. fair min. and max. wage would be part of a broader program:

Public schooling: no need to self-finance your education so that you later can contribute to society. Since society benefits from brilliant well educated scientists, society (we) pick up the bill.
And since such people are relatively rare and thus more valuable to society, we take extra good care of them by allowing them up to 5 (or 10) times higher then minimum wage. They're not better people per se; everyone has the same rights and even minimum wage provides for a decent living.
Anyway, in my model there isn't the problem of people starting their working life with a debt.

I'm not entirely sure about taxes. It seems kinda pointless to first have money printed so that workers can be payed and then take part of that money back to pay for public/social services.
Of course we'd have to take the Central Banks out of the loop. Once we again have control over our own money there's no need to pay interest on money that is printed. I might well do away with taxes all together and have social services payed for directly by the government. (though i need to do more thinking on this).
The basic premise is that there should be enough money in circulation so that the goods and services available and in demand can be traded. As the wealth of a nation increases due to (government regulated) activities of business entrepreneurs etcetera, more money must be brought into circulation. So a startup business would not get a load but a conditional gift (must be spend on building a business that actually adds value to the economy).

Having to pay interest on the medium of economic traffic (money) because it is under control of a private entity is just plain silly in my book - it's our nation, our government, our economy, our money to begin with.

There probably wouldn't be a stock market - no more making money bubbles from money. The economy is not to be played like a gambling machine.

I think min and max wage should be on an hourly basis. That solves the 80hr work a week problem.

Moreover, without a small minority of people accumulating the majority of wealth that is generated by a nation, there will be much more wealth available to the population at large. We could work less hours then we do now even on minimum wage, and still be much better of then many people are now. On the other end of the scale there'd be 'important' people making maximum wage and ,making long hours, they'd be rich by any standard, just not filthy rich.

While i'm at it, i'd do away with political parties to. There'd be elected representatives for every so-many people, who'd meet in a forum to make national policies. There'd be roughly the same amount of reps as there are now in Congress, much the same kind of procedures, just not affiliated in political parties, and not bought for by big (bad) corporations, since there aren't any.
Also media should not be corporate funded and there'd be tight limitations on media ownership.

[Misunderestimator]

148. You say "I think min and max wage should be on an hourly basis."

"That solves the 80hr work a week problem." How does that solve it? What about people who are incapable of working 80 hours for whatever reason, be it physical or because they actually enjoy spending time with their family? You'd still have an enormous wage gap, AND the incentive to work those hours is still the same, to make more money... sounds like we should do away with all time-and-a-half pay too to be fair... oh yeah, our government already has that plan underway.

Otherwise, your plan sounds pretty enormous, and would separate this country from the rest of the world. Other countries won't be giving up their stock markets... sounds like it needs to be a GLOBAL plan, and we know how easy those things are to accomplish.

And please tell me WHO pays the government to provide everything you mention, since the highest tax bracket would no longer exist? Also, who decides who is an "important" person who deserves more?

[rman]

150. did you read all my post?

"...We could work less hours then we do now even on minimum wage, and still be much better of then many people are now."

where "many people" would be "the (working) poor".

because

"...without a small minority of people accumulating the majority of wealth that is generated by a nation, there will be much more wealth available to the population at large."


And of course for those people who can not work at all (and don't have someone providing for them) there'd be social services.

[Misunderestimator]

153. Yes, I read that... and I agree that such socialism would allow for

better lives. As for wealth being available for the population at large, that could only occur in a truly socialist country. And though there are certainly positive things to say about that potential, I don't see how we would ever get there, without the rest of the world coming along.

I believe that removing the monetary incentive would cause some people to become complacent, and you would certainly have problems administering all the new social programs and ensuring that people don't take advantage of the system, which would require more government jobs and programs.

I sincerely believe that raising the minimum wage, and strengthening unions and other workers' rights programs will accomplish more than capping the wealthy.

I also believe that the lack of incentive would discourage people from bettering themselves with education, be it formal or informal.

[JanMichael]

155. Oh my god. The "Socialism in One Country v. Internationalism" argument!

Don't see that everyday.

Wasn't that Trotsky v. Lenin?

[Misunderestimator]

156. Um.... ok.

so, you don't see the problem with us making this huge change alone when we are already so globally entrenched?

I love the idea of everything being fair, I'm just saying that it's not practical in our global economy.

[Thtwudbeme]

159. Michael got excited when he read your post

and started talking about Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky. I wasn't paying much attention because I slept late, and wasn't fully awake yet.

It had something to do with a conversation they had once.

Michael just read this and said, "Debate."

I am going for more coffee. Ya'll are now on your own.

[Misunderestimator]

160. LOL.... :)

:hi:

[rman]

158. incentive would not be removed

"...On the other end of the scale there'd be 'important' people making maximum wage and ,making long hours, they'd be rich by any standard, just not filthy rich..."

There'd less incentive, yes. But it seems for some people it's never enough, people who start whining when the growth of their weatlh today is slower then it was yesterday.

I think even more could be achieved by raising the minimum wage, strengthening unions, etc *and* capping the wealthy. A basic premise being that there is a finite amount of wealth to begin with. Which in the end isn't about money but about goods and services, labor and resources. And "infinite horizon" doesn't apply here any more then it does wrt SS.

I'll try and do my bit over here in Europe, you can try and do your bit in the US. I'd say between the two of us we have a major part of the world covered.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

165. I think the comparisons being made in this thread are skewed a bit

Doctors and lawyers are professionals unless they work for a company such as Kaiser...if they work for such a company, BELIEVE ME THEIR WAGES ARE CAPPED IN FAVOR OF THE CEO's and MANAGEMENT.

Physicians in private practice make NOTHING if they have no patients. It's comparing apples and oranges to compare a professional such as a doctor, or an entertainer such as an athlete with worker's wages.

The VALID comparison is LABOR VERSUS MANAGEMENT and CAPS COULD be set by the shareholders who are repeatedly ripped off by these people.

I don't believe there would be any lack of incentive if people were compensated far less than they are now...case in point...CEO"S ARE compensated less in Europe than in America (millions less) and they have NO TROUBLE finding and keeping them

[Misunderestimator]

166. Now that I agree with...

And not just because it's you :). I completely agree that the place to start is with shareholders and capping the exhorbitant salaries of executives.

My concern on the incentive is for those people, like me, who do make a good income, and work hard for it. I would have no reason to have the stressful job that I have without the incentive that the income from it provides. Otherwise, I would still be a starving artist.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

167. Your wages are already capped in a sense

your company and other behemouths like it set the cap through the grapevine :D

on edit: every time a company BUYS a company and lays off half the employees, they drive wages down by INCREASING competition for the jobs

[Misunderestimator]

168. True...

But it is certainly not capped at 5 or 10 times minimum wage.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

169. No and the caps need not be set that low...there's LOADS of room

for a regulated market and competition. In fact, it's only the past ten years we've seen compensation at the very highest tiers skyrocket out of oblivion.

[Misunderestimator]

171. Yep.... and the CEO of my company

is one of those guys.... My only issue on this thread has been the arbitrary limits suggested, of 5 or 10 times minimum wage.

I think it's quite clear that our biggest problem is with the out-of-control compensations for the very few, and not the salary of someone making $200,000 a year.

[Misunderestimator]

175. I didn't see your edit before...

And your point is taken. Another reason to control corporations and not individuals (or at least not most individuals).

[JanMichael]

173. You are correct. Most people's incomes in the US economy are capped.

What percent of US Households live on less than $100,000?

83%

That's a massive majority.

Then what about Household under %50,000?

54%

Most peoples earnings are capped and they don't even know it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

174. That's why repubs LIKE unemployment

drives wages down by inflating the pool of available workers

[klyon]

142. to those people who would flee our country

I would gladly say bye bye. Like people that find loopholes or generally refuse to pay their fair share of taxes I say they are unamerican and unpatriotic and don't understand what our great country is about. We should be proud to support our country and stand ready to reach out a helping hand to those in need.

a proud American that pays all my taxes
KL

[Misunderestimator]

144. Paying taxes and capping wages are entirely different things.

My father left Europe to practice medicine in this country because he could have a better life here. He has always paid his taxes and is a proud American as well. However, I don't think it would have been fair to tell him that after 8 years of school and 2 years of internship, and then supporting an invalid wife and four children, that he could only make five times the minimum wage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. Huh

"Minimium wage should be enough to provide for children and mortgage."
Posted by rman




"In fact i'd say 5 times minimum should be plenty"



That's $50,000 a year...

The fella who does my landcaping makes 50K a year and he dropped out of high school...

If you capped earnings at $50,000 a person would have to be out of their fucking mind to stay in college till they are thirty to become a doctor and go seventy two hours without sleep during their residency....

Under your scheme you would either force all the productive people to flee or you would destroy the need to be productive...

[rman]

128. $50,000 a year? not if minimum wage would be fair

in a threat on minimum wgae i wrote:

"a specific amount of dollars; it should provide enough buying power...

so that people earning a minimum wage can afford the essential necessities and comforts of life.

how much exactly that is of course depends on how much those things cost."


i argue that IF minimum wage would be fair, then a maximum wage that is 5 times minimum wage would be plenty.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. I Am All For Setting A Floor But Dead Set Against Setting A Ceiling....

eom

[rman]

136. why?

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. Because Some Folks Harder Then Others And Deserve To Be Compensated....

[rman]

147. nobody can work a million times as hard

in fact the poor often make longer hours and do harder work then the very rich, who actually do get rich while they sleep.

the problem is that the more wealth you have, the easier it becomes to get more wealth still. so if this isn't regulated, wealth does accumulate in the hands of a few - not because they work harder but because they have more wealth.

[Misunderestimator]

154. I know people personally (myself included) who work 100 times as

hard as some others, at the same job... and the incentive to work that hard is to be well-compensated for it. Talking about how wealth generates wealth makes it sounds like you're talking about regulating investments, and not wages.

[rman]

161. but the very rich are easily a million times more wealthy then the poor

5 times, 10 times, maybe 100 times ratio between minimum and maximum wage (and wealth, for that matter). To me that's all within a reasonable range.

But a million times more wealthy, or more still, to me that's completely disproportional. You just can't get that rich just by working hard or being clever. The main reason why these people are that rich is because the more wealth you have to easier it becomes to become wealthier still; "money is power", "power corrupts" and all that. You got to be without scruples and being criminal helps to since it becomes ever easier to get away with illegal things, the richer you become.

Note that maximum wage would be a factor x higher then a minimum wage that allows for quite a decent living already.

[Misunderestimator]

162. Yes, and they are that wealthy because of investments mainly, not wages

And I am not disagreeing that a 100 times may be a starting point, as I already said. The income gap in this country is reprehensible. But the solution for is much more complex than capping wages.

[rman]

163. true. like i said: it would part of a broader program

and surely capping wealth would also be needed.

[leftofthedial]

189. I have multiples of both, actually

min should be $15 per hour ($30K/year)

max should be $300K/year.

has to be regionally indexed somehow, but this is the basic idea

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. forget it

[begin_within]

190. That's absurd.... 3 times the minimum wage, max.

[PowerToThePeople]

92. It does not matter

Soon the American Dollar will be as low or lower than the pesso, so even multi-billionaires will be broke as a joke. They have done it to all of us with their long-unchecked greed. Us poor will still be poor, so not much difference there. People will just be having to kill for food and shelter. Total chaos is not too far off in this country...

[rman]

102. multi-billionaires are not bound to a specific currency

they won't have a hard time finding a safe haven elsewhere when the US economy collapses.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. You Answered Your Own Question...

If folks can't make the big bucks here they will go to where they cam make them....

[rman]

149. But they already do that

The really rich global elite is in effect transnational, no matter what nationality they have. This is one of the reasons why the US economy is going down the drain, and why so many develloping nations are so deep in debt to international financial organisations that are run by those same elites.
They run the place, they set the rules, because they have most wealth. It is the result of capitalism without bounds, the result of lack of a cap on accumulated wealth.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

152. It's A Matter Of Priorities...

I am more concerned about making sure granny gets her teeth fixed for free than expropriating Bill Gates and I remain convinced the former doesn't depend on the latter...

[Pushed To The Left]

95. Not necessary

The main difference is that the person making too little money is going to have a tough time surviving and putting food on the table. This is why a minimum wage and a safety net are very necessary. On the other hand,the person making 1 billion is not going to be harmed by making that billion.

[JanMichael]

151. I'd like to thank everyone for keeping this thread more or less civil.

I've been going over the replies this morning and there have been some very cool philosophical/Economic conversations, and heavy disagreements, minus the usual blow-ups and expletives.

It seems that most of us see that there are serious systemic problems, it's just we don't all agree on the solutions. I think it's certainly interesting watching people discuss an idea that our Corpo Media wouldn't touch with a off-shore bank statement, or that our universities avoid like the plague for fear of losing $$$.

Thanks!

[Rockerdem]

157. So many people are shocked at an income or wealth cap

Thats because our leadership has been so inept at explaining the benefits of it to the lower and middles classes. Or because they have been bought off by all that corporate boodle.

The real test of whether Dean is a breath of fresh air is whether he continues the practice of going for corporate donations. If he does, expect to see the same results. If he takes that shortcut, we will know immediately that the interests of the average donor and the little guy are getting short shrift.

[fugue]

176. Iceland essentially has a maximum wage

If you make more than a certain amount a year in Iceland, you get taxed so heavily that it's not worth it to make more than that. I forget the exact amount, but it's not high by our standards, $100K or $200K. So nobody makes more than that. They stop working when they reach that point.

So the wealth stockpiles in the hands of a few are smaller, and the amount of money in the rest of the society is larger.

I've been telling friends about this ever since I first heard about it. I think it's a brilliant solution. It's about time we recognize that luxury kills. There is no person on this planet who is so good that they deserve to live in luxury while the anyone, be they outright evil, deserves to go hungry and cold.

[mainer]

177. What about the self-employed? The artist? The musician and actor?

They're not getting a 'wage." they're getting what the market's willing to pay. Who's going to limit their income -- you?

[ultraist]

180. It is NOT possible to have incomes caps in a free market capitalist econ

To implement caps would require tossing out capitalism and creating a form of socialism. That is NOT going to happen in the US.

However, caps could be implemented in effect, by heavy taxing on income above a certain level as well as other aggressive regulations. But, it is not possible to set a law that says, one can only earn $200,000 a year; that would NEVER fly anyway. Many people LIVE FOR the American dream. Setting income caps is essentially socialism.

Increasing capital gains taxes, inheritances taxes, as well as income taxes for those earning over 250,000 (which is the demarcation point for the top 6%) is a way to put some controls on income & wealth distribution.

With ONLY 6% of the population earning over $250,000 and ONLY 1% earning over $290,000 increased taxes on the top 5% and decreased taxes on the lower 95% seems feasible to me.

We need to restructure our progessive tax brackets. It's insane that someone who earns $150,000 pays the same percentage as someone who earns 1.5 MILLION!

I think it should be something more like this:

10% for Income Under $43,000 up to 75k
15% for Income $75,000 up to 100k
20% for Income $100,000 up to $130,000
30% for Income $130,000 up to $160,000
40% for Income $160,000 up to $200,000
45% for Income $200,000 up to $250,000
50% for Income $250,000 up to $300,000
55% for Income $300,000 up to $400,000
60% for Income $400,000 up to $500,000
75% for Income $500,000 and up

I also believe minimum wage should be 60% of the median income ($43,000)which would put min wage at $13 per hour. This allows a family of three to live above poverty level on minimum wage.

This would level out the income distribution while still allowing for those who invest more in their professions (edu, training, etc) to earn more. There would still be distinct classes.

[Pork Chop]

182. I don't think a maximum would do anything

There would be several ways to get around this. Let's say the maximum wage is 10 times the minimum wage (about $50 an hour).

First, why would anyone spend tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars on education if they couldn't make enough to get it back easily. Instead of going after the highest paying jobs, people would go after the easiest jobs that payed the maximum.

Second, if there was a maximum wage, companies could simply offer more to their top employees through company cars, extra vacation time, etc.

Third, what would happen to the extra money over the maximum wage. Instead of paying their top employees huge amounts of money, the company owners would simply keep the money, thereby concentrating the wealth even further. If there were simply higher taxes instead of a maximum wage, the money that millionaires are earning would go to the government, not to the companies.

I think a change in the inheritance tax would be a good thing. It should be lowered for low amounts of money, because the people inheriting it would need it the most (for college, bills, etc.), but it should be drastically raised after a set amount (after basic expenses), so that people cannot just be born millionaires.

[ultraist]

183. Four Star Rating JanMichael: great topic & facilitating a civil thread!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Well done JanMichael!
(Four Star Rating on a scale of 1-4):

[PowerToThePeople]

188. Ok

GDP of USA in 2004 - 46,912 billion
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm
excel spreadsheet

Population of USA(est.)-295,412,139
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/NA-EST2004-01.html

I figured 40% of total population was working age so..

46,912,000,000,000/(295,412,139/40) =

6,352,074

So, If we do a 50% re-invest into economy and become a pure Socialist nation, we ALL should get about 3 mill a year.

No, poverty should not exist in the USA.

edit-hell, if labor was only 1% and 99% went into other venues we would still each get 63,520 per year.

[wadestock]

196. 10 bucks an hour

The freepers said the last raise in the minimum would cause massive shock waves throughout the industry.

Make it 10 an hour and make all the friggin 3rd world assholes that are sucking this country dry come flocking in here to get the minimum wage...and let the corporate scum pay the wages....they can afford it.

[tralfaz]

203. Because then The Kennedy's and Kerry's

would have to live like the rest of us.

[JanMichael]

204. Thank god or whatever you want.

Maybe then our political "saviors" would actually know what needs to be done for ALL to have a decent existance.

Maybe then lip service about healthcare (Well, under any system i propose healthcare would be a Right not a challenge) and housing would be more reality based...