General Discussion

Lurker Deluxe

(1,085 posts)

8. That will lead to more temporary jobs

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:48 AM

Jan 2014

If the multiple is tied to the lowest person on the payroll, there will simply be no more low tiered employees. They will use temporary labor to fill those positions.

Just think about it, if you're a CEO and the reason you can not get more money is because Becky, the receptionist, makes $11/hr. Simply, fire Becky and call up a staffing company and have a receptionists there the next day.

No more low wage people on the staff, period. All temps.

Horrible idea that will just lead to more temporary situational workers with no benefits and no job security at all. These CEOs who make these extreme salaries are not the problem anyways ... not like there are thousands of them running around, you're talking about a couple hundred people.

The problem is capital gains taxes, we need to tax all income the same after a certain level. Get rid of the deductions after a certain level, and create more tiers of taxation, at least two more tiers past the ones we have now.

I don't care how much money you make, as long as you pay your fair share in taxes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can we talk about a Maximum Wage? [View all] Saviolo Jan 2014 OP

the money for CEO's isn't in wage/salary, it's in 'incentive compensation' that geek tragedy Jan 2014 #1

So you include that as part of their assessed compensation. n/t Chan790 Jan 2014 #5

I guess you could get the IRS applying Black Scholes to the option grants, geek tragedy Jan 2014 #7

what if you work for yourself or say, in the entertainment industry? dionysus Jan 2014 #2

I say it should apply to any publicly held corporation OR privately loudsue Jan 2014 #4

sounds good to me dionysus Jan 2014 #6

Holy shit YES!!! THIS is the conversation we really need to be having!!! loudsue Jan 2014 #3

So what should it be? FrodosPet Jan 2014 #10

Yep. Enforcement is the problem, but the standards nevertheless have to be set. loudsue Jan 2014 #12

Ben and Jerry's set theirs at 10x the lowest paid worker which is the Green Party's proposed adirondacker Jan 2014 #59

That will lead to more temporary jobs Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #8

Correct on all points. nt Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #14

Then attach it to a multiple of the median wage for whatever country. Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #16

k Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #18

If you incorporate your business Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #25

No more small business then? Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #27

What in the hell are you talking about? Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #28

we're talking about taxes Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #30

I was responding to your argument on companies cutting jobs to go around the idea in the OP. Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #33

And ... Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #31

Do you mean using a "Doing Business As". Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #35

no Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #43

Ah yes that is completely true. Half-Century Man Jan 2014 #45

incorporation doesn't protect you Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #47

Nothing, because you've pretty well ensured that you will be broke very quickly. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #26

That's why risk is rewarded Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #29

As I said, in a sane system one would start a business because they want to do Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #34

sane? Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #48

Personally I think two things would go the furthest. Eliminate any distinction between incomes. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #51

Or a living wage....no one is talking about a living wage, was popular at one time.....now?? a kennedy Jan 2014 #9

I figure we need a generous minimum wage... hunter Jan 2014 #11

gibberish Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #13

A job that can't pay a good living wage isn't worth doing. hunter Jan 2014 #20

explain it to me then Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #23

Who is cutting apart your grocery store chickens? hunter Jan 2014 #37

If you have a machine shop you are putting money into, the money for the business is a deduction haele Jan 2014 #41

but that is not what is being said Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #46

It's not likely I can sell you anything. But I have zero respect for great wealth. hunter Jan 2014 #55

You can't sell me the multiple of 20 Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #56

The "minimum wealth" for both the foolhardy and the not foolhardy could be kept in trust. hunter Jan 2014 #58

it's called progressive taxation. think of the tax rate in the 50's. cali Jan 2014 #15

Scuba's Rule - TBF Jan 2014 #17

Now you're talking! world wide wally Jan 2014 #19

I've been saying we need one for years. redqueen Jan 2014 #21

The problem isn't wages, it's return on capital. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #22

Exactly. Lurker Deluxe Jan 2014 #24

Elimenate the Tax deduction on wages over $1 Million FreakinDJ Jan 2014 #32

So, the proper term we should be working with is "income" not "wages". nt ladjf Jan 2014 #39

Funny. Professional sports leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB all have salary caps/luxury taxes Yavin4 Jan 2014 #36

There's always the way we used to do it... JHB Jan 2014 #38

A maximum wage is a very different thing to a maximum wage ratio. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2014 #40

Maximum wage talk long past due and will never happen fadedrose Jan 2014 #42

I heard Lewis Black (iirc) talk about a maximum wage a few years ago. Lunacee_2013 Jan 2014 #44

Federal contractor wages ProSense Jan 2014 #49

The problem of "no more than a multiple of the lowest" is... JHB Jan 2014 #50

What part of our Constitution would that fall under? upaloopa Jan 2014 #52

Rather than a Maximum Wage that attempts to pin some number on an amorphous concept Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #53

Switzerland tried to enact the "multiple" thing. moondust Jan 2014 #54

I think we worry too much about CEO pay Travis_0004 Jan 2014 #57

So Peyton Manning could earn up to 10 times what the beer salesman earns? Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #60