You Could Cut CEO Pay 75% And They Would Be Just Fine And You Could Hire Enough Workers

[TheMastersNemesis]

to virtually end unemployment for everyone who wants a job. It is bad and will get a lot worse unless we cap their pay.

[ZombieHorde]

1. I'm cool with a max wage.

I would probably have it over a five-year period or so, just for those make their money in bursts, such as one-hit wonders and authors.

[Dwayne Hicks]

12. I am too

Would you support a federal mandate?

[ZombieHorde]

16. Sure, why not? nt

[freshwest]

2. +1,000. Except they wouldn't get the Masters of the Universe membership cards renewed...

[SunSeeker]

3. Or, no cap so long as the CEO salary is no more than 20 times that company's lowest paid worker. nt

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, TheMastersNemesis.

[Boom Sound 416]

5. Don't you think that's a little bit pie in the sky

1. If we cap the pay to hire workers that would mean that employers need the workers but can't hire them because all the money is going to the CEO. Is that what's really happening.

2. What's the cap?

3. What about non public businesses. ie, if you cap a wage for a sole proprietor at say 1 dollar. But the indivual wants to by a gold plated Lamborghini with baby seal interior who's to stop him from having the company buy it. For that matter if its a publicly traded company who is to stop the board from writing a contract to the CEO that allows for elephant tusk toothbrushes?

[adirondacker]

6. I always liked the Green Party's idea of max = 10x the lowest paid worker.

Ben and Jerry's, along with plenty of small businesses thrived on that system.

[Fearless]

7. Not a cap, but a income gap limit from the most to the least paid in the company.

Let everyone make loads of money. That's just fine. Just don't let a few do it at the expense of the many.

[ZombieHorde]

17. That is also a good idea. nt

[stopbush]

8. The real solution is to raise taxes on personal income.

Back when the top rate was 70%, business owners were given major incentives to put money back into their businesses to avoid taxes. They were encouraged to expand their business. They were encouraged to pay their employees more and give them benefits to attract and keep good employees.

If a business owner decided to keep all the profits for himself, he ended up handing over a huge chunk to the government as a personal tax liability. Ergo, most smart business owners paid themselves a decent but not outrageous salary while taking care of employees and expanding businesses, lowering their taxes at the same time.

The lower personal tax rates pushed by Rs for decades have ruined this model. Why not pay yourself a disgustingly high salary if the taxman is going to let you keep it all? There's no incentive to pay your employees a decent wage. There's no incentive to expand your business. There's no incentive to spread the wealth among your employees. All you're encouraged to do is to take profits.

[Sherman A1]

13. Agreed

Although a wage gap restriction might not be a bad idea.

[Scuba]

15. +1

[moondust]

9. Inheritance cap would help.

What's the point of amassing a superfortune if much/most of it will end up funding the common good rather than being passed along to undeserving children and grandchildren?

Good-bye Waltons and Koch Brothers.

Another option is a top-to-bottom wage ratio similar to the 12-to-1 initiative in Switzerland, either at the organizational level or the state/national level or both (adjusting for cost of living differences).

[HiPointDem]

10. ceo's wages are a small part of the problem. the owners' cuts are bigger.

[pansypoo53219]

11. wealth cap. the 2% can only buy so much shit.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. Occupy ain't dead. n/t

[MineralMan]

18. Instead, lets tax the 1% at a 75% rate.

That way, job stimulus can be done by people who give a shit, instead of the wealthy, who clearly don't give a shit.

Bring back JFK era tax schedules. That'll do the trick.