Maximum Wage

[Abdju]

Many nations have a national minimum wage, but what of a maximum wage? Currently not a well known idea, it was once popular amongst the left, and was law in the USSR from the establishment of the soviet regime up until the 1930's. It was regarded as a tool to both reduce income differentials and aid in wealth redistribution, as well as (so the official line went) prevent complacency, elitism and the establishment and a class of mandarins.

So, what are you thought on a maximum wage? Typical tyrannical leftie plot to stifle innovation and hold back the successful man? An essential tool in to reign in greed and self-serving mandarins? A nail in the coffin of neo-feudalism or first step on the road to serfdom?

[Hydesland]

Impractical, doesn't work, hugely reduces tax revenue, dissuades entrepreneurship if done too excessively.

[Maurepas]

The idea was proposed in the United States by Governor Long, called the "Share our Wealth" program:

Share Our Wealth was a movement begun during the Great Depression by Huey Long, a governor and later United States Senator from Louisiana....

The key planks of the Share Our Wealth platform included:

1. No person would be allowed to accumulate a personal net worth of more than 100 to 300 times the average family fortune, which would limit personal assets to between $1.5 million and $5 million. Income taxes would be levied to ensure this. Annual capital levy taxes would be assessed on all persons with a net worth exceeding $1 million.
2. Every family was to be furnished with a homestead allowance of not less than one-third the average family wealth of the country. Every family was to be guaranteed an annual family income of at least $2,000 to $2,500, or not less than one-third of the average annual family income in the United States. Yearly income, however, cannot exceed more than 100 to 300 times the size of the average family income.
3. An old-age pension would be made available for all persons over 60.
4. To balance agricultural production, the government will preserve/store surplus. This is made so no food is wasted.
5. Veterans are paid what they are owed
6. Education and training for all children to be equal in opportunity in all schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions for training in the professions and vocations of life.
7. The raising of revenue and taxes for the support of this program was to come from the reduction of swollen fortunes from the top, as well as for the support of public works to give employment whenever there may be any slackening necessary in private enterprise.

I think its a good idea(adjusted for current inflation and all that), personally, but, our system isnt currently set up for it...

[Lackadaisical2]

I'd pick both the 1st and last "bad" options on the poll if I could.

[Hydesland]

I think its a good idea(adjusted for current inflation and all that), personally, but, our system isnt currently set up for it...

It wont work. Being simplistic here, many will just relocate their businesses abroad to avoid it, and there will be less future investment into business in that country. That means you haven't really reduced the number of rich people, and there is less business and growth as well as tax revenue.

[Abdju]

Impractical, doesn't work, hugely reduces tax revenue, dissuades entrepreneurship if done too excessively.

Not a fan of the idea myself, but I'd be interested to see why you say 'impractical'. Legally, the mechanisms needed for enforcement would be almost identical to those used in many states already for minimum wage, so enforcement would be simple, as would legislation.

[Hydesland]

Impractical, doesn't work, hugely reduces tax revenue, dissuades entrepreneurship if done too excessively.

Not a fan of the idea myself, but I'd be interested to see why you say 'impractical'. Legally, the mechanisms needed for enforcement would be almost identical to those used in many states already for minimum wage, so enforcement would be simple, as would legislation.

See above.

[Maurepas]

I think its a good idea(adjusted for current inflation and all that), personally, but, our system isnt currently set up for it...

It wont work. Being simplistic here, many will just relocate their businesses abroad to avoid it, and there will be less future investment into business in that country. That means you haven't really reduced the number of rich people, and there is less business and growth as well as tax revenue.

Which is why I said the system isnt currently set up for it...I think its a good idea, just, impractical...

2-7 I still think would be a good idea, and could be made practical though...

[Chrobalta]

No, just raise taxes.

[Greed and Death]

People will simply accumulate wealth overseas in commodities.
They will also invest overseas in commodities.
for instance lets say bill gates makes about 5 billion year and He normally invest some 25 billion a year to do this.
If you limit His income to 1 billion a year He will simply only invest 5 billion a year. The other 20 billion will go sit in a Swiss bank. Assuming he pays each of his employees 50,000 dollar a year. You have just made 400,000 people unemployed.

[Muravyets]

I don't believe that caps should be put on wages to restrict their potential to rise. However, I do believe that wages for the highest executive levels are way out of proportion to the value of executive work. Further, I believe that the stagnation of lower wages while higher wages continue to balloon is actually damaging to the nation's economy. So, I don't think so much that wages should be capped as that wages should be relative to all wages in a company. I support the compensation models that require every pay grade to stay within a percentage range of each other, so if the boss gets a raise, so does everyone further down the line. This tends to cause compensation at the top of the organization to rise more slowly and to be more connected to something real like company performance.

It's funny how that works, but tying things to reality does tend to slow expansion right the fuck down.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Impractical, doesn't work, hugely reduces tax revenue, dissuades entrepreneurship if done too excessively.

Not a fan of the idea myself, but I'd be interested to see why you say 'impractical'. Legally, the mechanisms needed for enforcement would be almost identical to those used in many states already for minimum wage, so enforcement would be simple, as would legislation.

No, it wouldn't. What's a "wage"? If I get paid in stock options worth $0.01 at the time of issue as my salary, that's my wages, yes? But if they just happen to go up to $10million a few days later, that's just coincidence, right? See, this is the thing: financial dodges are easy, easy, easy for anybody slightly clever about money, and trying to "close all the loopholes" just makes it hard to legitimately pay people.

Really. If you, say, try to restrict payments to all cash, then there are no employee stock ownership plans, no pensions, no benefits, no ... a lot of things people who work good jobs expect. And trying to leave those bennies just makes new loopholes that can be exploited. It's hopeless.

[Callisdrun]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

[Muravyets]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

[Callisdrun]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

Ah, so once again, we are in agreement.

Too bad nobody listens to us.

[Greed and Death]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

that creates issues with larger corporations.
Janitors will make significantly less then then 1/20th the CEO pay a at company which employs 100 + thousands workers.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I don't believe that caps should be put on wages to restrict their potential to rise.

Yay!

However, I do believe that wages for the highest executive levels are way out of proportion to the value of executive work.

Yes and no. I believe it's possible that somebody who runs a company that pulls in tens of billions of dollars a year could do things that are worth tens of millions to the shareholders, and I don't see that it's unreasonable for them to get a cut. But I'd like actual proof that what they're doing is responsible. Y'know, the whole quantitative metrics crap that managers are always going on about. If it's so good, maybe they should try it themselves.

In practical terms, I view wanna-be aristocrat executive compensation as a corporate governance problem, and lemme tell ya, if my party controlled the Congress, things would be different in a lotta boardrooms.

[Maurepas]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

that creates issues with larger corporations.
Janitors will make significantly less then then 1/20th the CEO pay a at company which employs 100 + thousands workers.

Could make it a sliding scale based on number of employees maybe...The real problem though is still the same, it would only increase outsourcing and bite us in the ass...

Before this kind of reform could get off the ground, we would need to force them to keep their employees American...

[Muravyets]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

that creates issues with larger corporations.
Janitors will make significantly less then then 1/20th the CEO pay a at company which employs 100 + thousands workers.

As if I give a fuck about larger corporations, which are only the source of the majority of our economic troubles. The hell with larger corporations and the horses they rode in on. If a proportional pay scheme creates problems with really big organizations, then break them up in to smaller ones.

[Callisdrun]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

that creates issues with larger corporations.
Janitors will make significantly less then then 1/20th the CEO pay a at company which employs 100 + thousands workers.

Janitor work is hard. I don't see why they should make so much less. Plus, I don't really care about CEO's at larger corporations. Why should I be sympathetic to those assholes?

[Maurepas]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

that creates issues with larger corporations.
Janitors will make significantly less then then 1/20th the CEO pay a at company which employs 100 + thousands workers.

As if I give a fuck about larger corporations, which are only the source of the majority of our economic troubles. The hell with larger corporations and the horses they rode in on. If a proportional pay scheme creates problems with really big organizations, then break them up in to smaller ones.

You know...for reasons I cant possibly fathom, I hadnt thought of that...

I agree,

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

that creates issues with larger corporations.
Janitors will make significantly less then then 1/20th the CEO pay a at company which employs 100 + thousands workers.

Could make it a sliding scale based on number of employees maybe...The real problem though is still the same, it would only increase outsourcing and bite us in the ass...

Before this kind of reform could get off the ground, we would need to force them to keep their employees American...

And how would you do that, raise tariffs?

[Conserative Morality]

Janitor work is hard. I don't see why they should make so much less.

Less training/skill is needed.

[Maurepas]

I don't think it would work.

However, one thing I've often thought of, is limiting the degree to which wages can be disproportionate. That is, to say, making it so that you can make no more than a certain multiple of what your employees make. That is, to say, if the limit was 20:1, and you wanted to raise your salary but you already made 20 times what your workers made, you'd have to raise their wages as well.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

that creates issues with larger corporations.
Janitors will make significantly less then then 1/20th the CEO pay a at company which employs 100 + thousands workers.

Could make it a sliding scale based on number of employees maybe...The real problem though is still the same, it would only increase outsourcing and bite us in the ass...

Before this kind of reform could get off the ground, we would need to force them to keep their employees American...

And how would you do that, raise tariffs?

If you want to sell X number of goods in the United States, you need to hire Y number of people here...

I figure if that makes them refuse to sell here, that just does us a favor, as we have a large enough buying populace on our own, and their products being here at all actually hurts us...

They need our money, more than we need them...

[Callisdrun]

Janitor work is hard. I don't see why they should make so much less.

Less training/skill is needed.

Depends. There are people who are really bad at being janitors. Others are really good at it. And it's hard, fairly unrewarding, unglamorous work.