General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's go there: a Federal Maximum Wage: what would it look like?
I like the idea. What's a presentable bill?
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)Not familiar with the concept.
Does this mean for example - a recording artist would not be able to get paid for a song after a certain amount earned?
What about a painter/sculptor?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)If limits were placed on artists as well I am sure it would provide opportunities for a whole lot more struggling artists of all types to get a piece of the pie.
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)Let the most talented rise to the top! No limits!
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But it's all corporate owned, managed and run. There could be a great band you would love who never gets a shake from corporate media and never gets heard.
A limit on earning would mean artists can make more than enough money to live, but give other a chance to make a living at it more instead of a few hoarding most of the cash.
An artist doesn't need more than $10,000,000 just like nobody else does. If they really do it for the art they will be fine just performing for expenses after a point where they are secure for life financially.
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)He beat the other artists fair and square - and now that he's officially disabled - we have work we want to sell to the highest bidders. Why set a limit when by no fault of his own - when some drunk took away his ability to close his left hand for the rest of his life? Why shouldn't we win - since she walked?
He also has a business where he does custom/metal iron work - think gates, fences, copper bars, furniture -and is a Unesco Certified Restoration Specialist (hangs from ceilings in Belgium churches). No one in America had that UNESCO skill when he came here.
I disagree on the amount - it might not be 'need' - but if you earn it - as long as you pay taxes (set them back to the Eisenhower years) I'm good.
^That's a reasonable and realistic goal^ - because it's already been done. We've done that - it's a simple solution. It's the price to pay for prosperity.
Both of my grandfathers were millionaires during the Eisenhower administration - and they paid all of their taxes AND were STILL able to hand down intergenerational wealth.
My dad's father went the extra step to give money to the black public schools his kids attended (really shitty in the South) in spite of being a high tax payer. He saw an injustice towards his own -and he evened it up when it should have been even with his tax dollars in the first place. But he still did and so far as I know - never bitched about it once. He was lucky to be a black man in Jim Crow who could even do that.
And with the race issue in this country - I don't like what I'm seeing in America. As it works today they could take from us - and just give more to the dominant culture?
Can we fix those issues with the dominant culture before my money is taken away from the UNCF (given annually) and given to some kid who already had a head start at birth? Before it's taken away from my local food bank that I know serves all races - but I see an extra need in the Hispanic/Latino community? Can we ensure women don't have to live in Domestic Violence shelters - before you take the money away we give each year? Or from my husband's "journey to trade" program?
I need all people to be truly equal in America before I'll go along with this. Traditionally - the minorities - we get less of the general till and have to work withIN our communities. It's people like me that can have a great impact where the need is greatest in America.
It's not just David or Charles Koch - Betsy and Dick Devos - it's people on your side too.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)As can I, if I ever finish my dubstep-old time fusion album (yes, really) and it goes platinum.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)a ceiling of one billion. When you make a billion in one year, you pretty much can buy whatever you want several times over so you don't need any more money. I once read that Ghaddafi at the height of his power made a billion dollars an hour. I don't know if our homegrown billionaires get that much, but I'm sure there are many who are getting way too much and should pay the 100 percent income tax over one billion.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)More like $1,000,000 per year, or anything at all once a person has $10,000,000 or more in assets.
A person could live 3 lifetimes comfortably on $10,000,000 and there is really no legitimate reason for a person with that much to keep hoarding even more.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)it will be easier to get Congress agree to the higher figure and yet accomplish the goal of redistributing wealth.
moondust
(19,917 posts)The Swiss 1:12 initiative that failed to pass in Switzerland last November. I think it caps top pay in a company at 12 times bottom pay.
Swiss Activists: Lets Cap CEO Pay
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)That early in the 1900s, tax rate for top earners were at 77%.
I remember someone mentioning that one of the tycoons wanted a 90% tax rate, after a certain amount.
If I were to go look at that, I would probably check that one out and see how much it is, adjusted to inflation.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He also argued with Morgan about what a moral CEO pay:line worker pay ratio was (he said 12:1, Morgan said 16:1 could be ok).
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The goal should be to raise the minimum wage up, not cap wages.
Besides, there would be ways around it. The recipient would form an offshore company or something, and the wages would be paid to that company. Then you'd have to cap business to business transactions, not just domestically but internationally, and that would be impossible.
I think a reasonable tax on the top earners would solve many of our problems. No need for such harsh measures.
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)employees on payroll.
That would include contracted workers.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I hate to put a cap on top wages but, for a short time until a more balanced economy can be attained I could entertain this notion as having merit. I would rather it be an in-house decision coming from the top and therefore voluntary. This would show to me a good faith effort by the 1% that they recognize the issue and WANT to help solve the economic problem that was definitely NOT caused by the 99%.
Note: I am not saying WHO caused it but, I think it was definitely NOT caused by the 99%.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's just what happens when people go for "a little bit more", over and over again.
RedRocco
(454 posts)as persons wanting to avoid paying the tax would then re-invest or do charity
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)But I'd lower capital gains to 1.5 million.
Caveat - lower the retirement age to 60 and increase the minimum on capital gains for retired people.
It might encourage more people to retire who let's face it - they've worked hard all of their lives.
In a just society - they should be able to play for the next 10 or 20 years. If you are going to raise me up to 90% -
I really want to make sure our senior citizens have the BEST lives in the world. No co pays on prescriptions, doctors visits, surgeries, hospitals - and another thing - I like the idea of a food stipend that could be extended to the middle class and poorer and ALL senior citizens - especially the baby boomers.
Make it possible to prevent disease with subsidizing fresh fruits, veggies, etc. etc.
^Totally for the good of society^