Maximum wage only makes sense as a percentage of other people in the company. Ie. The maximum allowed is 10x more than the minimum wage paid in the company
Anything else means the money would just go to shareholders
And obviously, a minimum wage permitted too by amount
C-suite compensation is already largely handled by share offers - which get further pumped/paid for by share buyback schemes.
This would just further exacerbate it, unless we first re-ban buybacks.
Honestly, we should just ban them regardless.
I think we can do better: nobody who doesn’t work X nunber of hours per week can own stock. That’s how law firms organized as S-Corps do it. Even if the decisionmakers hardly do real work, they have to be at work to gain on their investment. But also, no golden parachutes and executives should be legally responsible for suffering and death from their policies.
Of course there is a Maximum wage. According to my employers I am making it,.
Just tax any income above $10,000,000 per year at 90%. There really isn’t a need for more than that.
Billionaires have very little taxable income. We need a wealth tax.
All countries would need to adopt it because now they can just register their company and summer resort under various identities in [insert tax haven here].
Many also don't truly "pay" for things. They leverage debt against their assets, essentially like a fancy credit card that says "I own MegaCorp, you know I'm good for it, just send the bills to this wealth management firm".
So it's not out of the realms of possibility to say that a billionaire is actually spending very little money, ever. What they have is essentially gifts from whoever manages their assets, and that company just skims whatever things "cost".
IMO taxing wealth is what's needed, but it needs to be framed in a way that makes a billionaire want to invest in their country through high taxes. Make it a privilege that is praised, and ostracise those business that excuse themselves from contributing.
Billionaires don't have taxable income because they've successfully lobbied for carve outs that exempt them from taxation.
That's what makes a wealth tax impractical. How do you pass it through a Congress that's been wholely co-opted by a billionaire friendly caucus?
Chuck Schumer, the senior senator from Wall Street, isn't going to author a wealth tax. Kamala Harris, the former Senator from Silicon Valley isn't going to sign it. And the SCOTUS majority that's on the Harlan Crow payroll isn't going to uphold it.
1% tax on all registered securities, payable in shares of those securities. First $10,000,000 owned by a natural person is exempted.
All securities collected in tax are resold by IRS liquidators in small lots over time, constituting no more than 1% of total traded volume of each security.
Also immediately redefine income more broadly. Tax law says it's one narrow thing, but in reality a lot of money comes in. Let the law march reality.
That wouldn't catch the people who are the real problem, billionaires, who report something like $1 per year in income.
When you have billions in shares, you can use that as collateral to borrow money from the bank, and then you just spend that money. That's not "income" so it isn't taxed.
What's needed is a 90% tax on people reporting high incomes as a start. But, then you need to close loopholes. The carried interest loophole for a start, which would nail most of the hedge fund crowd. Then, tax unrealized gains when they're in the tens of millions range. Then prevent billionaires from handing billions to their children tax free by preventing the "stepping up" of capital gains for their heirs.
Jello Biafra proposed this as a policy when he ran for mayor of SF in 1980 and has been humping this idea ever since. It wouldn'f fly legally but as someone else here noted, you can tax at 90% above a threshold and do it that way.
To read this article, log in
I'm good, random website. I'm good.
I've often said we don't need billionaires. That when one reaches that milestone anything above $999,999,999 should be taken as taxes from that person.
When I say this people often become defensive saying that the government shouldn't be able to dictate how much wealth one person can accumulate. (It also happens that many of these people are prolife but that's neither here nor there.) Often times comparing this action to communism which of course it isn't.
The issue of course is that many people don't understand what a billion of anything is. The human brain can't comprehend such massive numbers. But nevertheless, there are people that are approaching the trillion dollar mark a number even further removed from a billion by several magnitudes.
Should there be billionaires. Probably not... What do you think?
What would be the point in amassing more wealth when its capped? At that wealth no matter what you do, its not gonna get less really if you invested into things. How does that solve any of the problems we have in society?
There wouldn't be a point aside from maybe philanthropy. That these powerful Rich individuals will continue in Mass more wealth above the $1 billion cap specifically so others can benefit from it. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything like that.
Considering there's no fully legal and definitely no moral way to get that kind of money, they should all be behinds bars. As for kids that inherit such wealth, shame on them for accepting blood money and doing literally nothing with it, besides make the world around them even worse.
I was thinking about this the other day, one of my favorite analogies is seconds.
A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is ............ 31,688 years.
The analogy already breaks down, because while most people could understand 12 days and a lot of adults can understand 31 years for having lived it (some even twice or more!), 31,688 years is completely incomprehensible again. How many human generations is that? All of recorded human history is only like 5,000 years. It's utterly, mind-numbingly insane. No trillionaires, ever! No billionaires!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/business/elon-musk-richest-person-trillionaire/index.html
This was published on September 17th of this year, after most of the nonsense of Twitter and utter things. He's still on track, by 2027 no less. There's no telling how directly and flagrantly he'll benefit from a Trump win, either.
My favorite is "do you know the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? About a billion dollars"
Like, being a millionaire is a pretty sweet spot to be in if you're lucky enough. Not quite like a millionaire of decades ago but still good. But if you're a billionaire, a million dollars is basically a rounding error.
I think all the talk about billionaires is using a completely arbitrary number and subject to inflation. Wealth inequality is the big problem, it doesn't matter what number on their bank account is.
people often become defensive saying that the government shouldn’t be able to dictate how much wealth one person can accumulate
Of course it should. If we're expecting to live in a democracy, then people need to have equal voices. If you're a billionaire you have a megaphone, as Elon Musk has shown. Democracy can't work if some people have far more power than others.
There really isn't much difference in lifestyles between billionaires and people with 100 mil. No one needs that much money. Anyone who has made more than 100 million has done something truly heinous to do so. I feel we should set our sights at a much lower tax bracket to cut down any potential antisocial oligarchs.
Because making 400k/yr by sitting on a pile of assets and living a low-cost life in a paid-off small-town cottage is not the same as making 400k/yr as a debt-saddled surgeon renting in a high-cost city center, so targeting income instead of wealth gets us farther from a fairer economy.
Next question.
Next question, why did you immediately go to 400k? Why not 1 million? If you make a million dollars then you've made half the average lifetime earnings of a worker. Double question, if we capped earnings at 400k, would school lenders not take that into account?
I think a maximum yearly income, including any money you could conceivably spend for personal use, would be a wonderful idea. It would certainly put a damper on being a billionaire if you know you could never actually get more than about a hundred million dollars in your life. Just literally running the score up at that point.
Lets put that maximum at $10M/month (or year). Now your counter argument doesn't work any more.
I think we should be setting these max/min wages as relative values, not absolute values. Otherwise we have to pass laws every time the min wage needs to be adjusted. And we'll end up with stagnation.
For example, a person's wage can only be X% higher than the lowest wage of someone a step below them in hierarchy. Including contractors and suppliers so they can't skirt or find loopholes.
There still might be some haywire incentives that require more thought, but it should hopefully encourage labor to be valued at an appropriate proportion of value. Either everyone makes good money, or nobody does.
Should also probably deincentivize layoffs, stock buybacks, etc. at the cost of shareholder earnings / value.
Is it because the people that we need to worry about don't get paid massive wages? Instead they leverage their massive stock ownership as collateral for loans. And stock bonuses are not regulated or taxed in the same way as real wages.
I'd be fully supportive of a "maximum wealth" limit.
What we need to do is implement "prestige wealth". Once you hit, say, 100m you get your assets sold in order to fund a UBI, but you get a nice pin that marks your achievement.
Every time you prestige, you get a new pin, but the color of the pin changes.
"You win! 🥳"
Oddly enough, the same people that wouldn’t want a maximum wage also don’t want a minimum wage. Go figure!
Most of the super rich don't make their Monday through wages.
well most of us super poor can't even make an afternoon, much less an entire day. jfc the entitlement of these assholes
Most of the super rich don't make their Monday through wages.
Certainly they must make their Tuesday through wages?
If the minimum wage was a comfortable living wage
like it should be, in my and many other folks' opinion
then it wouldn't matter. One person's excess isn't a problem, unless it's at the expense of someone else (which, you know, is kinda the case...).
A handful of people’s excess is exactly the problem.
Even if it’s not at the expense of someone else, too much wealth in the hands of one person is still harmful. It gives one person too much power over others, allows for people to buy their way out of legal trouble, buy politicians, etc.
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals