Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Instead of a Minimum Wage, how about a Maximum Wage in America?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Gothic Sponge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 02:56 PM
Original message
Instead of a Minimum Wage, how about a Maximum Wage in America?
It's a hypothetical question, but how about having system where a salary cap is placed on how much someone can make a year. Let's say..... 50 million a year. If you make over 50 million, the extra money is put into the system for education, universal health care, housing, or whatever will benefit society as a whole. What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mermaid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. 50 million is WAY TOO HIGH!!!
more like ONE MILLION...and even THAT is being awful generous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaTeacher Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I would go for a cap. Although---If our government
would meet everyone's basic needs---health care, education, housing, food---there would be VERY little need for money. We probably could eliminate the monetary system altogether (it is soooo discriminatory).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Zanti Regent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
87. Why not index the minimum wage to inflation?
We already do that with people not working (Social Security) so why not index the minimum wage for those at the bottom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicvortex20 Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #87
91. Why not just do away with inflation to start with?
The feds print the money and cause inflation... make them just stop. I dont know when everyone came to believe that inflation was normal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr.Green93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. how about a tax on wealth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaTeacher Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. we already do that--but it is not good enough.
It is not enough to just have a progressive tax system, we need to be ACTIVE about getting that money into the hands of the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr.Green93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. wealth is not taxed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
umass1993 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
83. let wealth determine rate and tax income
Instead of income decidine your tax rate, have your wealth determine your income tax rate. I think this is a solid notion because the wealthy people have the most to protect and secure. Moreover, wealth is much more skewed and so really really rich people would be taking the brunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. thats what David McReynolds the socialist candiate in 2000 wanted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. 50 mil would not be unreasonable...
Many of the CEOs have 7, 8, 9, or 10 digit figures.

Their severance packages are often in the 7 digit range, if not more.

I'm for it.

Still need a minimum wage that's a liveable wage; the gulf between minimum wage and liveable wage (or even poverty wage) is beyond ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Let's go for
a maximum of 5 Million and that would include perks and stock options ( to be accounted for as outgoings on the corporations books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. How in the world would you tax someone
on a stock option that has not yet been exercised?

Most stock options expire completely worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry_M Donating Member (559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. Nah, we need to leave people room to grow
But we should have a rising tax on people and corporations that actually works, without loopholes.
Every dollar should be taxed more and more basically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftist. Donating Member (740 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. Agreed on taxing every dollar evenly
How many people here are in the same situation as I am? The company I work for pays roughly 35% in taxes; I'm paying 40%.

I agree with the maximum wage as well. The sooner (and lower) the better.

... paris
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. 1 million a year for each individual earner.
limiting your personal income to a maximum of 1 million a year per person (not per household) still allows people to live in modest luxury while giving us the change to have a society with the best health care system in the world, the best public educational system, though college, in the world, a living wage for every person in america, and a cleaner, better environemnt and renewed urban areas.

That is a fair and just trade off. No, you wouldn't be able to afford a three million dollar diamond, but tough. The trade off is a just one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Wouldn't This Encourage Entrepreneurs To Go Abroad
Bill Gates could do everything he does now in France, Japan, or the UK... and he would take all the jobs with him...*

Most high wage earners could just move and take the jobs they create with them....



* I realize taxes in those nations are higher than ours but they don't take every dollar over $1,000.000.00


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yes, any "max wage" cap would create flight
But as long as we're dreaming...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UdoKier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
63. The government can also cap the amount a person takes if they leave...
...the country. You already have to report any amount over $10K...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. So I can move to Canada, but I can't take
all my money with me?

What happens to the rest of it?

Does the government take it?

I'm usually the one saying the Nazi talk is over the top, but geeze, all I can think of is Jews sewing their money into their clothes when they left Germany.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. No... Because If This So Called Cap Existed....
Your Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, Michael Eisner's would have moved already....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicvortex20 Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #71
93. That makes no sense... it doesnt exist and thats why their here.
If it did exist, they would move... Pretty strait forward I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicvortex20 Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #63
94. Almost impossible to prevent people moving money now in this age.
With moving millions at the push of a button, its unlikely that any government could respond quickly enough to prevent someone from taking thier wealth elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UdoKier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #94
98. If it were a crime to move millions offshore...
THeir passport could be redlighted and they could not be allowed to leave. Why is it that we are able to detain terrorists at the airports but not economic looters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicvortex20 Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #98
109. And how would you stop them from moving FROM overseas?
Currency is FAR too liquid to prevent from moving around the globe. Any attempt at such silly regulations would continue to force jobs to countries that have less regulations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. That's where the state
would step in and use force to not allow people to move and not allow people to change their businesses, and gosh, isn't this where these experiments have turned bad in the past?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Inequality Is A Fact Of Life...
Rather than making everybody equal ,governemt should see that everybody gets a fair chance and the playing field is level...


Also, there should be a strong social safety net for folks who fail through no fault of their own...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UdoKier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
62. Capping income at $50 million would NOT make people equal.
Even capping it at $1 million would affect less than 1% of the population.

I'm not saying that I support the idea (but in the case of corporate CEO's, I think it would be reasonable, since they are NOT entrepreneurs but elected officials of a sort and having a cap would eliminiate the corps' excuse that they need huge salary packages to lure the "best people" away from higher biudders) Maybe a cap on corporate exec pay would be a good start towards requiring corporations to actually show a tiny amount of good citizenship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #26
95. Economic inequality is a result of man-made laws
(and lack thereoff)

ie abuse of the 14th amendment for protection of corporations.

ie deregulation of the original charters to regulate corporations.

ie WTO
ie NAFTA

see www.reclaimdemocracy.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicvortex20 Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #12
92. Absolutely... its the quickest way to turn the US into a 3rd world country
Very dumb idea and totally ignorant of basic economics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. So Jason Kidd
should just make a million dollars a year?

When he turned around a franchise which lost 10 million a year and turned it into one which makes 30 million a year even after paying him 12 million?

So who should get his other 11 million dollars? The owner? Yeah I bet he'd like it.

If I was Jason Kidd, I would tell the owner for 1 million a year, I would play 10 games a year. The owner could pick the games.

The ones who would get hurt would be the vendors, shirtmakers, etc. The owner would come out better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
50. Yes. It's not that complicated.
It's not about how much money you can make at the expense of a better society. It's about how much money you reasonably need before it just starts getting stupid, understanding that making less money for the direct sake of improving society is a worthwhile and just investment, where taking at attitude of "mine mine mine, and I deserve this and that" is not.

It is ridiculous and insulting how much professional athletes are paid, and it has had a negative impact on every game.

But look, there are far bigger problems with a 1mil a year cap than this. I'm not seriously saying this would work. I'm just dreaming. I'd rather live in a world where no one WANTED to make more than a million dollars max because they felt so committed to building a better society and world that they WANTED to earn money specifically for reinvesting it back into society. But of course that will never happen. Because most people have attitudes like yours: I'm entitled. It's my right. Your problems are not my problems. Don't tell me what to do.

And that's why our society will never really improve unless it is completely torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. Athletes and actors...
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 04:39 PM by MrSandman
Now we have professional olympians and reality TV. If a movie can't gross $100m, it is a failure.

Agreed.

On edit: That is why I haven't watched a sporting event for a long time nor have I attended any, except Higih School for a very long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tight_rope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
37. Here here!....I agree with you. Bush has turned Capitalism to shit!
I don't think that the forefathers of American would have been pleased with people who today feel that capitalism means destroying the government, killing the innocent and using the Constitution as toilet paper. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlienGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
11. How about tying maximum and minimum wage together?
Pass a law that says that the highest-paid worker of any given corporation can't make more than x times the salary of the lowest-paid worker. That way, to give themselves a raise the execs must give everybody below them a raise too...

Tucker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Si if the peanut vendor
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 03:31 PM by Yupster
at the Meadowlands makes 8 k per year, then Jason Kidd can only make 20 X that or 160 k per year. Yeah I bet he'd go for that.

OR you could go the other way. Keep paying Kidd his 12 million. Just raise the peanut vendors salary to $ 600,000 per year.

That would work. I can't see any economic problems which would result in that. (thinking of Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School listening to his economics professor)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlienGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. So what's your solution?
Please note I did not give any particular value for x.

Do you think we should just keep the system as it is?

Tucker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. I offered my ideas in post 16
on how to stop corporate executives from earning so much

The authors and inventors and athletes and singers who strike it rich after years of hard work I have no problem with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
90. Somehow...
The notion of spoiled multi-millionaire athletes and entertainers having to take a pay cut isn't exactly the most powerful argument against such a proposal, IMHO...

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
103. The peanut vendor is a bad example
It's not a full-time kind of job. The people at the top of the concessions food chain (bad pun) would be full-time--the purchasers and warehousemen--but there's no reason for the guys walking through the stands to be full-timers.

And don't the teams that play in the Meadowlands just pay rent? Which means whatever Jason Kidd makes wouldn't affect what the concessionaires make, but the Meadowlands' president's salary, if executive pay is tied to the lowest level employees, would be affected by the concessionaires.

We get into this every once in a while, and it's stupid. I would require all CEOs to hold a federal CEO license. You would have to take a test to get one. If your company's largest asset is tax-loss carryforward, you lose your CEO license. If your company is convicted of any of several offenses--fraud being the big one--you lose your CEO license. If you yourself are convicted of any of several offenses, you lose your CEO license. If your only answer to any fiscal problem befalling your company is canning workers, you lose your CEO license. If you lose your license, you must be retrained at an accredited business school before you can get it back. Your second license revocation is permanent.

This would prevent situations like the Dubya Bush problem, where he ran company after company into the ground because his presence as head of a company granted the directors access to his daddy.

I don't begrudge a CEO what he or she makes if three conditions are met: the paid workers are fairly compensated, the corporation is a good citizen, and the organization is profitable or that it fulfills its stated mission. (The weasel language in the third condition is intentional--it's to handle both for-profit and nonprofit corporations. The weasel language in the first condition is to handle corporations like the Salvation Army, which relies on a network of volunteers.) Robert Ulrich at Target and Bob Nardelli at The Home Depot meet all three conditions, even though their stores are full of imported merchandise. Bob Tillman at Lowe's (overtime problems, Chinese overtime schemes, low base pay and shitty benefits) and Lee Scott at Wal-Mart (if you can't name ten things that are wrong with Wal-Mart in one minute, you must have just found this site) do not. And naturally, Kenny Boy Lay (bad citizen) needs not only to have his CEO license pulled, permanently, but also requires summary execution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mermaid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. I Like This Idea!!! n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. The custodians at Exxon will like it too
until they get their notices that they've been fired, but they can report to Manpower Inc for some possible piece work with the company without benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. no thanks
I don't want government telling me how much I can earn.

I agree the rich should take on more of the burden for taxes, healthcare, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. No one does, nor are they willing to pay what's necessary
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 03:21 PM by Selwynn
..to support the kind of society we could and should have.

So, you do it anyway. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. nah...
to support the kind of society we could and should have

THAT is subjective.

Some people may not be willing, but the power of government takes their share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
53. It's not subjective actually. Equality is just, it is not up for debate.
And the government doesn't come close to taking their "share."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. we're not talking about equality
If you and I came from equal socio-economic backgrounds, attended the same schools, had the same opportunities but because of the choices we made I became rich and you became impoverished, I am under no obligation to give you anything.

And it is ALL subjective and is completely open to debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. No one willing
I agree with that. Few of us are willing to pay for things like universal healthcare.

Oh, we're all for tax increases, but only if it's on someone else.

Tax the rich is fine if you're not rich. I'd like to hear someone say tax us all more for once.

Instead what you hear is I want more, more, more, and tax someone else to pay for it.

Just greed. Common to everyone regardless of class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlienGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. "...if you're not rich."
Face it: you're never going to *be* rich. Those who have gone up the socio-economic scale before you have pulled the ladder up behind them.

Even upper-middle-class people--loosely defines as people who make a lot of money but cannot live an opulant lifestyle on investments alone without working--are never going to be RICH.

Tucker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. If you define rich as
living an opulent lifestyle without working, then you're right, I'll never be rich. Nor would I want to be.

I have no problem with wealth and money, but I am not impressed by people who need to own 20 cars, or six mansions or three private planes. That's kind of disgusting to me.

My definition of rich is to be able to work hard and do pretty much the stuff you want to do without worrying about whether you can afford it. By that definition, I am rich. After building a good business for 13 years, I sold it last year, and for the first time in 14 years became an employee again. I don't make as much, but I still make a lot and I'm happier, and my wife still doesn't have to work outside the home.

So, by my definition at least, I already am rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
54. I am willing.
Tax me more.

I make 50,000.

But I'm willing to pay more taxes for universal health care or education , or even so that people hwo make less than me can have more tax relief.

I just wish that people with 50,000,000 felt the same way I feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowjacket Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #54
68. You don't have to wait for the government to legislate it...
You can voluntarily overpay any amount that you would like. Or you can give as much as you would like to a local school system or to a free clinic or some other charity. I know you realize that this will never happen, but I think the consequences of a maximum wage are so onerous as to be unworkable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Charity I do. But overpaying the government I won't yet.
I would if I could specify exactly what it went to and know for a fact that's what it was going for.

An increase in taxation would be coupled with a policy and program agenda that I support. What I should have said is I am willing to pay for social programs with more taxes. If congress were to pass a 100 billion dollar school renewal/funding program and pay for it by taxing, I would gladly pay for that.

Yeah - a maximum wage has so many complicated problems it would never seriously work. In the ideal world, people would have enough compassion and discipline to set a maxmium wage for their self and contribute the surplus that is really excessive to social programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowjacket Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. I had a professor in college who would agree with you...
He used to talk about how American society needs to "decide what's really important." He was talking more about environmental concerns, but his argument was along the same lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. That's what the House of Representatives
is supposed to do.

We elect them and they vote for us, and if they vote the wrong way, they're not reelected.

However, gerrymandering makes 75 % of the House seats easy wins, so they don't have to give a damn what we think.

I recommend term limits, and having zero retirement plans for elected officials. I don't want them there for 40 years each.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
16. Wrong way to go
Thnk about who actually makes over $ 5 million per year?

Corporate executives.

Business owners who sell their businesses that year.

Sports and entertainment stars.

Inventors and artists who hit something big.

The group everyone is after is corporate executives, and they deserve much of what they are accused of. However most of what they get are bonuses and stock option exercises, each of which could be easily deferred to get around any law. Most stock options currently expire worthless anyway.

The better way to get at excessive corporate pay is to fight the incestuous arrangement between politicians and trustees and to make it mandatory for all executive bonuses and options to be voted on by stockholders. That would stop it in its tracks because stockholders, if given the chance will not send their company's profits to an executive unless he really made the stock price move. Stockholders would much rather take the profits for themselves as dividends.

The other groups would all just have to go for more complicated contracts so that Shaq would still be getting paid over the next 30 years or so. It would just complicate life and make lots more lucrative work for contract lawyers.

Also, it wouldn't get at the major wealth of the country anyway. The Kennedys and Rockefellers don't make huge incomes. All their wealth is hidden in trust funds which wouldn't be touched anyway by a maximum wage law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlienGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. Only if the stockholders are the employees
If the stockholders are people outside the company, there's never going to be an incentive for the exacs to improve working conditions; and they'll be rewarded (by pay raise) for cutting jobs and lowering workers' salaries to maximize profits and thereby raise stock prices.

Tucker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. The stockholders are not the employees
The stockholders are the owners of the company.

The business is in business to benefit the stockholders, not the employees.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlienGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
57. Then what incentive does it have to provide *anything* for employees?
If the corporation is only responsible to its non-employee stockholders, then it has no incentive at all to treat employees fairly.

Tucker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. Depends on who the employee is
I am an unusual case for sure, but the company has all the incentive in the world to treat me well.

I am a high end salesman. When I sold my business and joined this other company I brought so far 150 of my old customers with me. That has made my new compnay tremendous amounts of profit and will continue in the years ahead.

In return the company gave me a generous salary, a generous bonus package, an office and a secretary. They have wined and dined me (to oppulent excess), and will probably continue to as long as I bring in big profits. The company knows that I can leave at any time, and I would take most of my customers with me.

My secretary is also treated well. She just got a raise and I give her 10 % of my bonuses. The reason is that she keeps my business going, and if she jumped to another company, it would take much of my time for too long to train a new secretary. Therefore, it's considered necessary to treat her well.

However, there are many people at the home office or other places who are considered easily replaceable or not necessary to increase company profits, and those people will not be treated nearly as well. They are considered replaceable, and are treated as such.

This is how I was treated when I was a high school history tacher.
I could take it or leave it, and there was a line of people waiting for my job.

That's the world of business and my advice to the young is to put yourself in a position that you bring in big money to a company. They will treat you very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ldf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #41
59. "stockholders are owners of the company"
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 05:06 PM by ldf
unfortunately (though it doesn't have to be) that mindset is part of the problem.

the corporate executives have this notion that the sky is the limit for their "services", which results in these obscene salarys/bonuses/options, as a reward for higher profits that they engender by laying off employess, forcing more out of fewer employees, and outsourcing.

the other culprits are the stockholders, who don't give a damn about anything but the immediate bottom line.

if the stockholders would only think in the long term they would realize that they need good products and good employees to realize dividends from a productive company.

instead they only look at what they are getting RIGHT NOW from their stock. anything that is necessary to get those dividends are eagerly accepted.

that is part of the recipe for disaster, resulting in the current ponzi scheme none as the NYSE.

but rest assured, just like enron and worldcom, those who are already rich will not be hurt by the collapse of a company. they make sure they are taken care of first, damn the rest, especially the employees, and sometimes the stockholders.

that's why i don't have a huge amount of sympathy for stockholders. hell, sometimes even the employees know what is going on, but if they are benefitting, they go right along.

greed. as long as i get mine, screw the rest.

it's the american way.

edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Wally Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. You know........
If you talk to a complaining employee and give him a scenario where he buys a car and goes into the taxi business as to what should be his share of the take versus how much the driver should get, he really isn't worried all that much about his employee. How much do you try to bargain the guy down when you ewant someone to paint your house?? Do you "race to the bottom" to find the cheapest guy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. Or....... we could have BOTH
but, then....... it would be too much like the much more enlightened countries in the rest of the world.

Naw....... let's just stay in the dark ages.....

It's so much more fun in our fortified castles.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightOwwl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. No way.
I don't want the government telling me who I can marry, what to do with my body, or setting a limit on the amount of money I can make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
24. No, just a better minimum
The idea is for the populace to make as much as possible. The higher the minimum, the better. No maximum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
25. The maximum CEO wage should be limited to
400 times the lowest wage in the company, including outsourced employees. You'd see a living wage in no time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. No you wouldn't
You'd find no more lower paid workers working for corporations.

They'd all be temps and independant contractors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
morgan2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. what seems more realistic and possible to me
is have a maximum ratio of highest paid employee:lowest paid employee. This scheme would give the bosses a reason to push up the bottom wage. The only problem is I could think of a million ways to get around a law like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Companies would just
turn their lower paid workers into temps or contract laborers.

They're already doing that just to avoid providing benefits and to get away from the top heavy provisions of their 401k laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
29. I would never want to limit $ and individual could make from inventiveness
or you would be limiting inventiveness.

But I wouldn't be opposed to a tax code which creates a disincentive for a corporation to distribute its wealth to executives in a way that is very disproportionate compared to the compensatioin it pays to its rank and file.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
36. Actually, I would like to see half of the profits of a company
distributed equally to the employees of that company instead of the stockholders on at least a quarterly basis. I think it would give everyone incentive to work harder to make the company successful if they stand to reap the rewards of their labors. Of course they would have salaries too, but not the obscene salaries CEO's get today. Here's a statistic I just found on another website.

<snip>
THE PRESIDENT who reclassified ketchup as a vegetable in poor childrens school lunches may have finally stopped breathing, but the Reagan Revolution is already well into its second incarnation--far outstripping the excesses of the first. According to Business Week's 54th Annual Executive Compensation Survey, the ratio of workers pay to CEO compensation reached 301-to-1 in 2003, when workers weekly earnings averaged $517 and the average CEO took home $155,769 a week. <snip>

http://socialistworker.org/2004-2/503/503_07_CorporateW...

If this is true, we really need to put some laws into place to cap salaries on the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. Would you also agree
that the employees should share half of the company's losses when it loses money, or is this just a one way street you propose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. It's a one way street and I'm not against it, considering that
salary expense is part of the cost of doing business, just like paying the rent is. In your world if a company loses business then the landlord should also lower the rent? I don't think so. I also think that a business will be less likely to go into the red if employees are sharing in the profits because they would be the first to see if there is any mismanagement or trends that could affect the business and their share of the profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MUSTANG_2004 Donating Member (688 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #36
97. Suspicious statistic
The average CEO brings in $155K a week? I'm not buying that the average CEO make $8 million a year. I'd like to see what pool of CEO's they're looking at.

While CEO compensation is out of the stratosphere, I think that has to do with CEO's being able to pack the board of directors. In those cases, it's almost theft from the shareholders. Rather than a salary cap, I'd prefer to see SEC guidelines that make boards more independent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
38. If the repukes truly do care about life, they CANNOT say 'no' to this.
They know the future as well as the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zidane Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
42. Living wage
Mandate employers pay a LIVING WAGE. Better than both minimum wage or maximum wage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oscar111 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. 110 % tax- where? + define confiscatory,pet term of neocons
I dimly recall hearing of somewhere having a tax rate of over 100%. Where and when was that?

The RW fools often use the slur word "confiscatory tax". At what % are they talking about? I see nothing wrong with confiscating what the nation needs for army, highways and the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oscar111 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Hi cap = greater ability to bribe an end of all caps
Lots of cash = more ability to buy elections, plus then bribe any lawmaker to get new laws that REPEAL all caps.

Recall how Reagan repealed the core of FDR's laws. Any good law can be repealed if power slips into bad hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oscar111 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. 103 Trillion is total wealth. FRB says
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 04:48 PM by oscar111
Fed reserve bank says at the bottom of the page what US wealth is. $103 T.

### ~79 Trillion is debt {liability} of us all.. about line 20.... {not talking of piddling Gov. Debt, which pundits always fuss over... which is 7 T... nor gov. deficit, which is merely the new debt for one year}.

However, that 79 trillion is owed to ourselves and banks. Could just cancel it, like World Bank cancels debt of poor nations.

FRB: Z.1 Release--L.5--Total Liabilities and Its Relation to Total Financial Assets--June 10, 2004

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/acces...

AARP {curses on Novelli, new chief who loves Gingrich} said ten yrs ago, TYPICAL US FAMILY WEALTH at retirement has total wealth of 60,000.... 40 K in house value, and 20 K in forms of "cash".. like savings, etc. There are about 72 million families of 4 in our nation of 300 million folks....

===============================
Now, new subjects that you might like to know.
#####MISCELLANEOUS USEFUL FACTS ON OTHER TOPICS--- 200 million adults.. 150 million registered voters.. ~ 168 M want to work, and ~150 M actually have jobs. 3 M job openings exist, says DOL's..dept of Labor.. project JOLT..Job Openings and Labor Turnover?.... page, link to News Releases...Table of Contents page, then link to Table 1, Job Openings Levels in thousands. Avoid similar Job O. Rates table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
47. Germany has such a thing..

...or did in the late 80s when I was told about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kellanved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. no, it doesn't
There is neither a minimum, nor a maximum wage in Germany.

However, there is a debate going on to introduce both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
60. I swear that's what a German law student told me..

...so I have no reason to not believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kellanved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. that is very strange indeed
Unless we're talking about East Germany.


German CEO wages are low by international standards, but there is no cap. I'm pretty well read in legal matters, so I'm quite sure that I would know, if there had been such a law in the past.

Strictly speaking corporate law can be understood that way, as it says that wages have to be "appropriate". However, as that term is qualified in no way, it is largely irrelevant (unless we're talking about wages exceeding the net worth of a company).
In fact I believe that a wage cap might be against the freedom of profession guaranteed in the German constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moonbeam_Starlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
56. How about five million as a cap
and increase corporate tax rates. Cut out this corporate welfare bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
67. 50 million a year?
Wasn't it Leona Helmsy who stated that" taxes are only for the little people."? Fat chance making the richy rich pay their fair share! Do these Elite, ie, *'s base, think they exist in a vacuum? They get rich off of and at the expense of the workers and yet they feel they have no obligation to contribute to society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. Atheletes And Entertainers Get Big Bucks
and there is very little coercion or exploitation that contributes to their salary....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
72. oh for crying out loud!
You want enough money to take care of the poor and less fortunate? You want social security to be solvent?

Don't cap earnings. REMOVE the cap on earnings subject to social security taxes.

Cap earnings and you destroy capitalism. I, for one, prefer it to all other systems, warts and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Use The Taxes From Capitalism To Bolster The Welfare State....
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fescue4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
75. If one is capable of making $50 mil.
Then one is capable of getting around the limit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
76. Horrible idea.
Why should anyone have the right and authority to limit how much someone can earn?

With the minimum wage laws there are very sound arguments for why the government should have such powers. There are no such arguments for a maximum wage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
77. We ran something like this...
...as a funding mechanism when I was coaching HS policy debate in the late 80's and early '90's.

At three orders of magnitude (x 1000) of the average income, a marginal income tax rate of 99% kicks in.

We had a massive tax break for charitable giving -- 50-50, give a dollar, get a dollar sheltered from the 99% rate -- if you broke into the superbracket.

Won a fair number of rounds with it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slutticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
79. So who gets to set the upper limit....you?
me?

who?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
umass1993 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #79
86. who sets the lower limit!


We vote on it just like the minimum wage.

That is what a democracy is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
80. Couldn't that be seen as oppression?
Government enforcing a maximum wage sounds like a very bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Isn't the current Economic Inequity Oppression?
http://www.inequality.org/facts.html

Sure looks that way to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
81. The truly avaricious would be appalled by this. But seeing how 98% live...
...on somewhere under $300,000/year it would seem like there should be more support.

This always blows my mind. We're the more obscenely economically unbalanced "First World" country on the planet.

Rah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
umass1993 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. I agree
I thought about this salary cap issue myself. It may be a good idea. There may be better ideas to address wealth inequity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
umass1993 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
85. I still think basing income tax on wealth is better
The more you have, the less income you keep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
88. Unenforceable.
Too many ways for big corps to pass goodies to their pet execs without leaving a trace. With minimum wage, at least one of the parties is interested in following the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
89. Very, very Intriguing idea!
I have to think on it a bit. I've always wondered where the damn "ceiling" on prices was going to be. I mean when is a loaf of bread going to be too much? How high can the cost of things go before it's uncountable. It all starts at the top, so putting "caps" on different things just might be the way to go... hmmm

Glad you brought this up. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Wally Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #89
96. And what should the cap be????
How can you cap the price of a loaf of bread and at the same time mandate "living wages" for all of the bakery, delivery, and supermarket employees?? I think that haircuts ought to cost a buck. My barber sure doesn't think that should be the case. he does think that his store rental should be capped, but his landlord sure doesn't. You either have the market set wages and prices or you have a giant government bureaucracy do it. The bureaucracy will create its own series of injustices and suboptimizations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
99. Reform for corporate taxation
Getting rid of loopholes for US businesses with basically phoney bases in places like Bermuda to avoid corporate taxes. That would do more I think. Let's have corporations start paying their fair share again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
100. Here's a good resource for rethinking our society
WE get stuck in the same fears of "socialism" every time any of these subjects come up. We need to study, with an OPEN mind, how some of the other countries compare to the US in terms of survival needs, and standard of living.

This is a good resource for a base of comparison:

http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/8Comparison.htm

There is much here for putting together some very good tools for change, if we really WANT to.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
101. Absolutely not. This is a capitalist society. If someone invents
something (like, say, Windows), then they deserve to reap the benefits of it, even if it makes him or her the wealthiest person in the country or world.

But there should definitely be a liveable minimum wage, so that people at the bottom can at least pay for the necessities of life. We will also have people at the bottom. They should get paid enough to live on, even it's a meager existence. The minimum wage now can't even pay for a meager existence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
102. This topic is all about the politics of envy and greed.
I believe the tax code should be progressive, but only slightly so.

It would eb a horrible idea to institute a 100% tax rate above some level.

That's nothing more than extortion, and you would see a mass exodus of wealth and talent out of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. I'll buy them plane tickets.
There is no societal reason to let individuals accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. It is anti-capitalistic and as we have seen time and time again it threatens the very life of our nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. expropriation of legally-earned assets is not anti-capitalistic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. Greed? Wouldn't that describe those that oppose it?
As to "Envy" you'll have none of that from me, I'm over the avaricious idiocy of my youth, but when it comes to Society, Equality, Cooperation and Economic Justice, I'm all for radical ideas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eagle_Eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
105. Want to earn more than the MAX salary cap?
Have them perform public service. Imagine Bill Gates working in a soup line to earn a few extra buck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaTeacher Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Now that is good thinking!
I love the community service idea! I think that would be great if serving others was the only way that a person could get ahead! It would make them reexamine why wealth is so important to them!

I think we should do everything that we can to make society as equal as we can and to lift up the people on the bottom as far as possible.

Yes--I also believe that a truly equitable society will not have any super wealthy people in it. I would say that anyone with total assets of a million dollars is super wealthy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 20th 2014, 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC