Should there be a maximum wage?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Discuss.

[Kingpoleon]

Going to go with a no. If, say, the Chamber of Commerce requires a maximum income of such and such to receive membership and the right to be “approved by the Chamber of Commerce,” I think that would be absolutely appropriate. Federal regulation of this sounds like a bad idea.

[parochial boy]

The worst aspects of inequality are a result of the distribution of wealth, more so than unequal salaries. So, possibly a more appropriate way to address it would be through mechanisms like a Capital Gains, inheritance or a land value tax; or by capping the use of stock options as a form of remuneration (especially as that encourages short-termist profit maximisation by senior executives who will only stay in place for 3-4 years)

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes, of course. No one deserves to make 10 times more than the average person. No human being is that important to society that they deserve to be rewarded in such a way.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A maximum wage would be difficult to enforce and make it harder for American companies to compete in a global wage market (especially if it is static across all industries and not industry-specific or company-specific, which is not elucidated). I do like Kingpoleon's suggestion of creating some impetus for companies to rein in executive salaries, though.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Obviously not.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Obviously not.

[Dr. MB]

I don't like when companies funnel all their profits to the CEO, but I don't think a max wage is the solution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In the form of a marginal income tax bracket at or close to 100%, absolutely.

[parochial boy]

I don't like when companies funnel all their profits to the CEO

That's not really the problem at hand, as I alluded to earlier, one of the biggest problems is CEOs being paid in shares or stock options - as handing out wealth like this drives inequality more than salary differences do.

A major part of why CEOs get paid in shares is precisely because the old accounting standard (I think it has been subsequently changed under IFRS, but would need to double check), meant that issuing shares to executives wasn't counted as a cost and was therefore an easy way for executives to hand themselves massive pay rises without actually affecting their bottom lines.

Of course, this gives executives a pretty good reason to make all sorts of decisions to maximise short term profit at the expense of the health of the company in the long term (cut R&D programmes and the like), because they will leave and sell their shares in three years.

So whichever way you look at it, cracking down on excessive pay is a necessity, both from the argument that it drives inequality and on the argument that it is economically unhealthy.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

In the form of a marginal income tax bracket at or close to 100%, absolutely.

If wealth isn't incentivised, the entire economic system breaks down. It's a rediculous idea.

[TDAS04]

No.  I understand why some would support it, the current gap in wealth is disgusting, but this wouldn't work.

I do of course favor a much higher minimum wage (along with a safety net that that allows all the necessities of life) and much higher taxes on the wealthy.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's something that sounds a lot better than it'd work in practice.

[hunter gatherer]

In the form of a marginal income tax bracket at or close to 100%, absolutely.

If wealth isn't incentivised, the entire economic system breaks down. It's a rediculous idea.

this is the correct answer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In the form of a marginal income tax bracket at or close to 100%, absolutely.

If wealth isn't incentivised, the entire economic system breaks down. It's a rediculous idea.

lol sure

[Alabama_Indy10]

This may be the worst idea I have ever heard.

[Karpatsky]

Yes, but enforced by practice and popular opinion, and not by law.

[Cold War Liberal]

No.

Significantly higher taxes on rich people and big corporations? Definitely. Fewer loopholes? Absolutely. Using those funds to fund antipoverty programs? Yes. But a maximum wage? No.

Raise the highest tax bracket to ~50%, double the estate tax from where it was before the tax "reform" bill, tax capital gains as income (and at the same rate), increase the corporate tax rate to 45% for megacorporations and penalize companies who ship jobs and taxable profits (I'm looking at you, Apple) overseas, establish a commission whose only job is to seek out loopholes in the tax code that can then be eliminated. Turn around and use that new revenue to fund programs that help the poor, cut taxes modestly for the lower and middle class and small businesses, and pay down the debt.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes but only if it is applied globally so the scum can't escape.

[DC Al Fine]

No. At minimum you wind up with ridiculous situations like billionaire owners saving money on salaries paid to millionaire athletes, executives etc.

[Sir Mohamed]

Nah, just tax everything above a million a year big league. A top tax rate between 49% and 51% would be fine.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In the form of a marginal income tax bracket at or close to 100%, absolutely.

If wealth isn't incentivised, the entire economic system breaks down. It's a rediculous idea.

lol sure

     That's not really a constructive response to the criticism proffered, which is an important one.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In the form of a marginal income tax bracket at or close to 100%, absolutely.

If wealth isn't incentivised, the entire economic system breaks down. It's a rediculous idea.

lol sure

     That's not really a constructive response to the criticism proffered, which is an important one.

It's really not, since it's based on a ridiculous and morally appalling premise. The sort of person who would only contribute to society if they get a 7-figure salary (to the extent that person even exists) is exactly the sort of person society can do without.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In the form of a marginal income tax bracket at or close to 100%, absolutely.

If wealth isn't incentivised, the entire economic system breaks down. It's a rediculous idea.

lol sure

     That's not really a constructive response to the criticism proffered, which is an important one.

It's really not, since it's based on a ridiculous and morally appalling premise. The sort of person who would only contribute to society if they get a 7-figure salary (to the extent that person even exists) is exactly the sort of person society can do without.

     At its heart lies a postulate with the potential for empirical testing. That postulate is that people work for money, and that people will not work as hard if their earning potential is capped. A special case of this has been demonstrated to apply in communist states, but the more general case is to my knowledge unproven.

     If it is the case that capping earnings even at a fairly high amount significantly hampers economic growth then I am afraid that your position is the morally untenable one, as you would be sacrificing the wealth and prosperity of a nation and its people for the mere purpose of avoiding the existence of a few wealthy people.

[parochial boy]

In the form of a marginal income tax bracket at or close to 100%, absolutely.

If wealth isn't incentivised, the entire economic system breaks down. It's a rediculous idea.

lol sure

     That's not really a constructive response to the criticism proffered, which is an important one.

It's really not, since it's based on a ridiculous and morally appalling premise. The sort of person who would only contribute to society if they get a 7-figure salary (to the extent that person even exists) is exactly the sort of person society can do without.

     At its heart lies a postulate with the potential for empirical testing. That postulate is that people work for money, and that people will not work as hard if their earning potential is capped. A special case of this has been demonstrated to apply in communist states, but the more general case is to my knowledge unproven.

     If it is the case that capping earnings even at a fairly high amount significantly hampers economic growth then I am afraid that your position is the morally untenable one, as you would be sacrificing the wealth and prosperity of a nation and its people for the mere purpose of avoiding the existence of a few wealthy people.

At the same time, there is an increasing line of argument that spiralling levels income for the wealthiest, and resultant inequality have weakened overall economic performance; in which case uncapped (or at least unrestricted) levels of income are also damaging to economic growth and therefore overall prosperity.