GhostofSparta Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 http://gawker.com/5932875 Let’s Have a Maximum Incomeby Hamilton Nolan Rich people across the Western world are anxiously watching France, where president Francois Hollande is vowing to raise the top tax rate—on earnings over $1.2 million a year—to 75 percent. Tres bien, Mr. Hollande. The problem with this otherwise fine idea is that the very rich can simply pack up and move to a more accommodating Western nation with lower taxes and less concern for income inequality, like America. There is, though, a more elegant solution to this: a maximum income. Let's have a maximum annual income of, oh, $5 million, pegged to inflation. All income above that would be taxed at 99 percent. Our precious national sports stars, celebrities, and corporate executives could still be fabulously wealthy. The daydreaming poor could still have a nice big number about which to hopelessly dream. Five million dollars a year. Five million! Anyone with $5 million can invest it conservatively enough to earn 5 percent a year and still be making $250K per year without lifting a finger. In other words, $5 million provides you with the means to live as a member of the one percent without ever touching the principal. It's everything that any reasonable person could ask for, financially speaking. A million and a quarter per year? Far more than anyone should be earning, in a world with so much poverty and want, but not so much that someone could consider themselves set for life. It's a number at which the go-getting rich person is still aspirational. They hope to double or triple that salary before their earning days are done. So a hefty 75 percent tax, though completely just, will not only spook them enough to flee, but allow them to retain a modicum of dignity while doing so, at least among the more affluent segments of their peer group. More at the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Uh, no. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Can I still get paid in gum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 You'll know that wealth inequality has passed extreme levels when more than a tiny fraction of Americans start to think that this is a good idea. But really, how bad does an idea have to be in order to make you think, "Yeah, this is one that Ayn Rand would've gotten right." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I wonder how our current economic system would fare once investors who post capital gains of millions of dollars per year are told that they can no longer collect income past a certain amount. Cause, you know, that would cause another great depression...changing our entire economic system and such. I mean unless you're going to hold stockholders hostage and seize their assets because the government now dictates how you can and cannot profit. Maximum income? While we're getting all socialist here, how about we pay people according to their importance to society. That would be a fun one. You know people who write communist blogs for a living who have a value of 0 would get paid the same they are right now, etc. Sanitation workers, electric companies, teachers, they'd all be rolling in the dough all the way up to the societal limit. Every player in every major sports league would start putting those degrees in communications and criminology to good use! I'm undecided whether that would be considered national socialism (extreme right) or some sort of communism. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 That's crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Actually, wait, no, it didn't even really seem that way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Can I still get paid in gum? Im proposing a gum tax. Bubble gum is taxed higher than Big Red because I dont typically get Big Red stuck in my shoes at the baseball field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I flew to Atlanta and back last week: I'm pretty sure some of those buildings i drove by on route 85 were WAAAAY more than 5 million. my two cents: What arbitrary who cares what someone else makes... none of your business Just like the bedroom of a Gay couple it's none of my concern. Just like the bedroom of a non-gay couple it's none of my concern. Like the medical forms of a 4 time Planned Parenthood visitor should i keep track? no Is that a gun in that safe or should i care? no Were you a teaparty or 99%'r protestor or should it matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Does anyone really believe in this (the maximum income)? So stupid. :doh: That said..I keep seeing this chart being thrown out on Twitter. I've always wondered about the accuracy of it..because if it's accurate, it explains a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 The whole article read like a disgruntled, edgy sociology student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Does anyone really believe in this (the maximum income)?So stupid. :doh: That said..I keep seeing this chart being thrown out on Twitter. I've always wondered about the accuracy of it..because if it's accurate, it explains a lot. http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/average-ceo-to-worker-pay-by-country-chart.jpg What does it explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 What does it explain? The disfranchisement that the average American worker might feel (comparative to the other countries listed). And..perhaps why some, as misguided in their attempts, are calling on this way to limit that disfranchisement. edit..perhaps disfranchisement isn't the right word choice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 The numbers are estimates and that one was from the dot-com boom. Last year it was "only" 231, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a credible, but left leaning think-tank. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/ratio-ceo-worker-compensation In the 80s, management guru Peter Drucker talked of a maximum ratio of 20:1 being desirable. But what has changed is the role of options and other benefits. Many CEOs had top corporations are "only" getting paid a few million in salary and bonus (i.e. close or not too far from the maximum ratio recommended by Drucker, but their options can dwarf that by an order or magnitude, even in the absence of good performance.) Shareholders need to do more in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Does anyone really believe in this (the maximum income)?So stupid. :doh: That said..I keep seeing this chart being thrown out on Twitter. I've always wondered about the accuracy of it..because if it's accurate, it explains a lot. http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/average-ceo-to-worker-pay-by-country-chart.jpg Harsh reality if that chart is true. But gotta live with it. Maybe I'll make it up to CEO status one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 But what has changed is the role of options and other benefits. Many CEOs had top corporations are "only" getting paid a few million in salary and bonus (i.e. close or not too far from the maximum ratio recommended by Drucker, but their options can dwarf that by an order or magnitude, even in the absence of good performance.) Shareholders need to do more in this regard. There isn't any mechanism for shareholders to do that. The traditional model of corporate governance does not allow it. ---------- Post added August-20th-2012 at 11:23 AM ---------- As an aside, perhaps the most annoying thing about this blog entry is the idea that anyone mainstream believes it or is going to defend it. It's like the "reparations" issue - no one is pushing for reparations, they are never going to happen, but half the GOP base thinks that Obama stands for reparations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 There isn't any mechanism for shareholders to do that. The traditional model of corporate governance does not allow it. By "Shareholders need to do more" I was thinking that they could burn images of the CEO outside the board meeting, or for those who are admitted, throwing rotten tomatoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 There isn't any mechanism for shareholders to do that. The traditional model of corporate governance does not allow it. I think the mechanism exists, in that I think most publicly traded stock still comes with saheholders voting rights. I think that the real problem is the mindset of the modern stock purchaser (I don't think the term "investor" fits anymore). It's my beleif that the vast majority of those placing there money in the stock market these days are only interested in profit taking and care little about the companies that they buy the stock in beyond the percieved potential rise in stock price. So to me It's not so much the lack of abitlity by the shareholders as much as a complete lack of intrest. That said in an environment where the only traditional check on CEOs and boards of directors are effectively absent its no wonder they do what they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I think the mechanism exists, in that I think most publicly traded stock still comes with saheholders voting rights. I think that the real problem is the mindset of the modern stock purchaser (I don't think the term "investor" fits anymore). It's my beleif that the vast majority of those placing there money in the stock market these days are only interested in profit taking and care little about the companies that they buy the stock in beyond the percieved potential rise in stock price. So to me It's not so much the lack of abitlity by the shareholders as much as a complete lack of intrest. That said in an environment where the only traditional check on CEOs and boards of directors are effectively absent its no wonder they do what they like. No, not really. There are no elections, there are no referendums, there are no terms of office, the proxy rules are totally fixed in favor of the existing boards of directors. The individual shareholder literally has zero power under this system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 It would go against the spirit of capitalism, but would take us significantly closer to Christ's perspective on wealth than we are now. It's amazing how we all pick and choose what exactly to follow/believe (myself included). That being said while I'm not for this idea, I do agree with much higher tax rates on the wealthy for ALL income. If they want to go to another country (like a bunch don't already ship their holdings overseas anyways, like to the Caymans), then let them. If their perogative is to skirt the law at every chance and exploit any loophole they can to the point they pay less taxes than those making 25% or even less of what they do, then I say adios because they aren't paying their fair share, haven't for some time, and their actions and attitude are only furthering the growing wealth divide. You can't have capitalism if people don't have a fair chance in the game because the system's been corrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Does anyone really believe in this (the maximum income)?So stupid. :doh: That said..I keep seeing this chart being thrown out on Twitter. I've always wondered about the accuracy of it..because if it's accurate, it explains a lot. http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/average-ceo-to-worker-pay-by-country-chart.jpg I find that vague charts on the Web are almost always extremely inaccurate and/or biased. I can't believe that takes into account every CEO out there, or takes into account that there are extreme outliers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 It would go against the spirit of capitalism, but would take us significantly closer to Christ's perspective on wealth than we are now. It's amazing how we all pick and choose what exactly to follow/believe (myself included). That being said while I'm not for this idea, I do agree with much higher tax rates on the wealthy for ALL income. If they want to go to another country (like a bunch don't already ship their holdings overseas anyways, like to the Caymans), then let them. If their perogative is to skirt the law at every chance and exploit any loophole they can to the point they pay less taxes than those making 25% or even less of what they do, then I say adios because they aren't paying their fair share, haven't for some time, and their actions and attitude are only furthering the growing wealth divide. You can't have capitalism if people don't have a fair chance in the game because the system's been corrupted. Well put. I'm not sure why some assume capitalism must allow for a winner-take-all mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 probably because a significant amount of Democrats especially the uneducated in places like Detroit back in 2009 believed it. Just youtube its Obama's money he's giving it to us and read the comments. Government stealing other people's money to bribe the ignorant aka uninformed, the slackers and or the poor, to stay in power has been going on for generations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxiumone Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The disfranchisement that the average American worker might feel (comparative to the other countries listed).And..perhaps why some, as misguided in their attempts, are calling on this way to limit that disfranchisement. edit..perhaps disfranchisement isn't the right word choice... I wonder if the factors in the large "small" private business class we have in America that many other countries may not have (never looked into it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.