ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Yes, but now the effort you're expending to avoid commenting on the subject matter is really beginning to tell.
Maximum Wage: Limiting CEO Pay
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Leaving people to run their own lives is a policy that doesn't seem to get enough attention.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Nope. Mutual fund managers exercise the voting rights of their funds divorcing the owners from having pretty much any say at all in the management of the Corp.
srh88
Well-Known Member
I feel like if you cap a CEOs yearly wage.. they'll most likely just bang out enough work to hit the limit and shut down or severely slow down until the following year. Then repeat
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
that's why you have to tie it to actual production. they get the same percentage bonus as the line workers. that's incentive to get involved with the workers and try to motivate them, try to facilitate them...to listen to them and take their suggestions seriously
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I worked for a company that had profit sharing for all full time employees with more than a year of service. It puts employees on the side of management to reduce or control cost.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
They kinda capped them in the '50's by making a 91% tax rate over $440,000.
So nobody (or hardly anybody) made over $440,000 or they deferred it.
When JFK came along, he cut top tax rates to 67% to spur investment. Seemed realistic and a good idea at the time.
I love how republicans always want tax cuts and mention JFK did it.
Yeah, 91% to 67%. I'm all for a top tax rate of 67% over what 1959 $440,000 would be in today's dollars considering inflation.
What do they do with all that extra money? Donate to right wing politicians?
srh88
Well-Known Member
No idea what would happen with the money. The workers surely won't get it.
Dmannn
Well-Known Member
Individual with cap is needed again,(ehhem Regan). The top percentage over, say 500,000,000 would have a few options:
Reinvest 100% into company
Donate 100% to charity
Tax at 100% rate to relieve federal deficit.
I don't know where it could go wrong.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
I remember when Ali fought Frazier and they each got 2.5 million$.
Ali told Howard Cosell on TV he only cleared $750,000. Cosell told him 'be happy, nobody eIse made money like that'. Lol.
srh88
Well-Known Member
Greed
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but a lot of them already work harder at their golf game than their company's profitability numbers.
The number of zeros in the compensation package seems to have little to do with performance.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The latest round of tax cuts proved that, didn't it?
The experiment with ultra low taxes has been tried; ask Kansas. Ask them why Sam Brownback isn't running the state anymore.
I still think progressive tax rates is the answer, with no breaks given to unearned vs earned income.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Tax rates are the only way to control super incomes.
If you make 20 million, I think you can somehow get by on clearing 50% of that.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I agree. I think higher tax rates are more palatable to the public than an overall maximum income restriction, although I'd support that, too. As long as you can sell it the right way, mos Americans would probably be favorable towards it. Nobody needs to be earning 100% of more than $20 or $25 million when 70% of Americans wouldn't be able to afford a $500 emergency and more than 50% earn less than $30K/year..
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i'm not trying to tax the rich out of existence, many of them are fairly decent people. they provide jobs. if they have to give up a ridiculous amount of their earnings, why bother to stay in the highest tax bracket?
people that earn less than half the median income don't pay taxes, at all. but neither do they get a return for just existing.
when you hit half of median the tax slowly rises till it matches at median. say start at 5% and end at 15% tax for the average tax payer.
again, just take it straight out of peoples checks, just like now, but no tax returns. most of them will be paying less than they are now to begin with, that's your return.
once you go over the average income, the tax slowly rises till it caps out at 40% for the top 10 percent. period. no hidden shit, no breaks for w/e. just a flat 40%.
that's a pretty big chunk to take out of someone, if you don't allow people with good accountants to weasel out of their share.
people that earn less than half the median income don't pay taxes, at all. but neither do they get a return for just existing.
when you hit half of median the tax slowly rises till it matches at median. say start at 5% and end at 15% tax for the average tax payer.
again, just take it straight out of peoples checks, just like now, but no tax returns. most of them will be paying less than they are now to begin with, that's your return.
once you go over the average income, the tax slowly rises till it caps out at 40% for the top 10 percent. period. no hidden shit, no breaks for w/e. just a flat 40%.
that's a pretty big chunk to take out of someone, if you don't allow people with good accountants to weasel out of their share.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
The common man wasn't bitching about the 91% tax rates in the '50's/early '60's.
There are CEO's making 100 million. WTF does anyone need 100 million for? If it's there, they'll take it but really, WTF does anyone need that kind of money for?
Most people could live well off the low interest of $2 million without ever touching the principal. If you can't live on 80,000 in interest, you're too far in debt or a cocaine addict.
You don't need 4 houses, 6 cars and 3 boats unless you hit 50 home runs or make 3 hit movies a year.
And if you do, good for you. Pay more taxes. Be patriotic. We could use some better roads and bridges.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Lol I'm sure they could find a way...