Why not a MAXIMUM wage?

Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Previous Topic | Next Topic
Lobby / Latest General Discussion Forum (Protected)
Original message

Stevie D (1118 posts) Dec-21-02, 03:20 AM (ET) Why not a MAXIMUM wage? One hears these days how the minimum wage is a threat to small businesses. Right. One also hears that there should be a living wage. Depending on where you live, it should be enough to raise a family on 40 hours a week, at least keeping above the poverty level. Meanwhile, America's corporate leaders are paid at an unprecedented rate. Lay off a few thousand workers, get a golden parachute. Should a responsible society allow such a disparity in income? I have no truck with those who wish to work harder to get ahead. But why should we reward those who, through incredibly insensitive practices, be allowed to profit from the misfortune of the very workers who made them successful? Buy a press or congressman, get a tax break. The system is broken; it needs to be fixed. How many millions/billions do you need?   Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Table of Contents

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID    Absolutely YANG Dec-21-02 1    Glad to hear it. Stevie D 12/21/2002 2        90% marginal tax rate Newsjock 12/21/2002 3            I sort of agree... UnapologeticLiberal 12/21/2002 39    Maximum wage Yupster 12/21/2002 8        I see the point you're making Stevie D 12/21/2002 9            Stevie Yupster 12/21/2002 12        I see your point but peabody 12/21/2002 11            Barbra Yupster 12/21/2002 13                People won't stay home peabody 12/21/2002 34        Excellent post jsw_81 12/21/2002 40    Gov. Huey Long proposed something to that effect... maveric 12/21/2002 33  Yes, why not? Buzzz Dec-21-02 4  Don't they call that socialism? Nambe Dec-21-02 5  About time crickets Dec-21-02 6    It's a deep-rooted idea in US culture Stevie D 12/21/2002 7  Did Nixon make for such a suggestion I think? TheCohen Dec-21-02 10    Nixon did propose a maximum wage.. absynthe 12/21/2002 14  Sorry, but... JM Dec-21-02 15    kick LARED 12/21/2002 18  Better to raise taxes, I think spinbaby Dec-21-02 16    Yup, maximum wage is silly. Festivito 12/21/2002 22  The most Albert Einstein was ever paid was Vitruvius Dec-21-02 17    How about this ontheMark 12/21/2002 20  no, use shareholder activism sweetheart Dec-21-02 19    Ah, but greedy CEOs who slash OTHER PEOPLES' wages so they Vitruvius 12/21/2002 30        Great point n/t Stevie D 12/21/2002 36  An age old argument that the wealthy won't let us win - 0007 Dec-21-02 21  What is enough? PsN2Wind Dec-21-02 23    The pie Yupster 12/21/2002 29        But the people who don't go to concerts or sporting events Lydia Leftcoast 12/21/2002 37  By rights the system New_Democrat Dec-21-02 24  Were you listening to Randi Rhodes last night? FlaGranny Dec-21-02 25  Social pressure Armstead Dec-21-02 26  Transfer excess to charities, maintaining status of earners Porcupine Dec-21-02 27  Works for me. nt bemildred Dec-21-02 28  thats what David McReynolds the socialist candiate for president in 20... JohnKleeb Dec-21-02 31  Thanks to all of you who responded Stevie D Dec-21-02 32  There is a easier and better way to fix this is... shivaji Dec-21-02 35  I like that idea... UnapologeticLiberal Dec-21-02 38  Great! God_bush_n_cheney Dec-21-02 41    You're paying better money, hire more attractive employees. Porcupine 12/24/2002 42

Lobby | Latest | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

YANG (5202 posts) Dec-21-02, 03:24 AM (ET) 1. Absolutely I have asked this for years. Over a billion you give it back. Its not about the money at that point anyway. ____________________________________ History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other alternatives. Abba Eban (Born 1915) Things are more like they are now than they have ever been before. Dwight Eisenhower Reality is that, which when you no longer believe in it, it still exists. Phillip K. Dick   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Stevie D (1118 posts) Dec-21-02, 03:46 AM (ET) Reply to post #1 2. Glad to hear it. Actually, I'd settle for a progressive tax rate like we had decades ago.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Newsjock (197 posts) Dec-21-02, 03:50 AM (ET) Reply to post #2 3. 90% marginal tax rate I'm too lazy to look up the numbers now (I'm sure someone will), but let's think about the income tax rates during the 1950s and 1960s -- the era of great public works like the interstate highway system. My recollection is that anything above a rather high rate ($200k-plus in 1950s dollars??) was taxed at an extremely high rate (90%, down to 70% by the time Reagan flattened the tax system). If you're making more than, say, $2 million per year these days, isn't that more than enough? Look at what got accomplished back then (and, for now, ignore the awful social problems of racism and discrimination), and see how that money is needed today to get our nation back on track.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

UnapologeticLiberal (436 posts) Dec-21-02, 05:48 PM (ET) Reply to post #3 39. I sort of agree... although there is a part of me that says having 90% of your income confiscated, no matter how much you earn, is kind of unfair also. But I think the rest of what you said makes sense. I think $2 million a year is a good amount...large enough that incentive exists and a person who makes that much has everything he could possibly need, but small enough that they do not consume an outrageous share of the pie, and incentives exist to pay fair wages and observe environmental regulations and charge reasonable prices   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Yupster (127 posts) Dec-21-02, 04:09 AM (ET) Reply to post #1 8. Maximum wage First the statement "over a billion you give it back" doesn't have a whole lot of meaning since only a handful of people make a billion dollars a year. All of those few people who do are able to realize the bulk of the money or not realize it in any single year in particular. My guess would be the only people who would make $ 1 billion per year would be people who own large chunks of stock in a company and that stock goes through the roof. The problem is the gain does not become income until it's sold, so if you put a billion limit on income, the person will just make sure he doesn't sell enough stock to generate $ 1 billion income that year and the only one who loses is the IRS who doesn't get the extra tax from that excess sale that isn't made. Now, the most suggested maximum wage limit I've heard is $ 1 million per year. It is a terrible idea. Because. Barbra Streisand makes $ 1 million per concert. If she's told she can't keep anything over that amount, she has one concert a year. Is that helping anyone? It's sure hurting lots of people including t-shirt salesman, ticket takers, and concert goers. Shaquille O'Neal says it's a great idea. His toe is arthritic anyway. He'll play 4 games per year. The team can pick the games. An inventor makes a million on a new prosthetic for handicapped people. At his limit he holds back his next invention until the million a year for the first one runs out. A songwriter makes a million. He holds back his next songs for release until the next year. A guy opens a wildly succesful restaurant employeeing 150 people and making a million. He cancels his second restaurant because what's the point. A guy hits an oil well and makes a million. He never drills another well because what's the point. We all love to hate the rich, but do we realize how important a relative few people are to the rest of us? Do we realize that hundreds of low income workers make a living from Barry Manalow giving Las Vegas shows or Shaq clanking free throws. Do we really want these high income -- high results people sitting at home after they've made their million by January 10th of each year? Ideas like this are heard all the time and in my opinion just seem so ....... I won't fill in the blank because I'm getting too frustrated as I write this.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Stevie D (1118 posts) Dec-21-02, 04:19 AM (ET) Reply to post #8 9. I see the point you're making You expressed it as well as anyone I've seen. But, how would you defend the massive profits made on the backs of the working and middle class? Should society simply allow the concentration of wealth to continue to accummulate to the few? What happens when just a tiny percent hold all the economic cards? At what point do the wealthy owe something back to society? I don't hate the rich. I just want a sense of proportion in terms of what is gained from their ventures versus what is given back.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Yupster (127 posts) Dec-21-02, 05:11 AM (ET) Reply to post #9 12. Stevie "how would you defend the massive profits made on the backs of the working and middle class?" I will try to answer this though it's more of a slogan than an argument or example. First, the term profits usually refers to what companies make rather than individuals. To individuals first. A few years ago Michael Jordan signed a one year contract with the Bulls for over $ 30 million per year. He paid $ 11 million in income taxes and another $ 1 million in medicare premiums (which unlike SS is not capped). "At what point do the wealthy owe something back?" That $ 11 million is probably more income taxes than was paid that year by everyone in my family and extended families and their friends. That $ 1 million in medicare premiums probably paid the health care costs of 100 elderly patients that year. I think Mr. Jordan paid more than his fair share back. Certainly more than I ever did. To corporations now. First I question the term "massive profits". Most corporations today are losing money or at best barely running a profit at all. McDonalds just posted its first quarterly loss ever. When a company does make a profit it basically has two things to do with it. 1. It can distribute the profit to the owners (shareholders) in the form of a quarterly dividend which is fully taxable as income to the shareholders. 2. It can expand its business which hopefully brings in more jobs, more products and more future profits. The one place I am outraged is the deals CEO's are able to make in corporations. Leaving a failing company with hundreds of millions of dollars is an outrage and should be stopped. The place to stop it is by making such deals subject to vote by a clear vote of the shareholders. The cashing in of stock options for hundreds of millions is a problem too, but recognize that was pretty much forced on business 25 years ago. The idea was that it was an outrage a guy made 30 million a year when his company lost money and the stockholders lost. So instead, CEO's were given relatively little pay and large options so they only made a lot if the company prospered and the stock went up. Now the CEO's are cashing in the options from the good years of 4-7 years ago and everyone's screaming. It's a bad system but it was a reform from what was considered a bad system then. Very long post but economics is a long topic.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

peabody (23 posts) Dec-21-02, 04:57 AM (ET) Reply to post #8 11. I see your point but I disagree that that would happen. The money that these people are not making must be in circulation elsewhere where it's either employing other people or being invested. When wealth is so concentrated at the top as it is now, those people can't possibly spend it as quickly as if the money were in the hands of the middle and lower class. If Barbra Streisand doesn't give another concert because she made over a million bucks, that's fine. The money that she would have gotten would be used by other people to go to other concerts that they normal couldn't afford to go because it would have been in Barbra Streisand's hand instead. The other concert would employ the t-shirt salesman and ticket takers. Personally, I believe that there shouldn't be an arbitary limit but rather tax the hell out of it, like at 70-90% as it was before.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Yupster (127 posts) Dec-21-02, 05:18 AM (ET) Reply to post #11 13. Barbra I disagree. I myself drove 300 miles to go to a Bowie concert a few years ago (actually quite a few now that I think of it). If Bowie was not giving that concert, I would certainly not have driven somewhere else to see Fleetwood Mac. Bowie is my favorite and he is the only one I have ever driven that far to see. That T-shirt guy would not have sold me a Fleetwood Mac shirt instead. And the ticket puncher wouldn't have waved me through and the gas station wouldn't have sold me the gas. Same with Shaq. When the Lakers play at the Clippers and Shaq doesn't play, the attendance will be less. Those people are not at other games. They just stayed home.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

peabody (23 posts) Dec-21-02, 02:23 PM (ET) Reply to post #13 34. People won't stay home just because Barbara gives less concerts, nor will people stay away from basketball games just because Shaq isn't playing. Maybe you might but with the extra money that they'll have instead of Barbara or Shaq, they'll certainly spend it on something else or somewhere else. People were still going to concerts and basketball games even before these stars got big and started making these outrageous sums of money. Is Shaq going to stop playing or Barbara going to stop giving concerts if they made less money. I doubt it. That t-shirt guy that didn't sell you the Fleetwood Mac shirt might have sold it to someone else who now would have the money to go to a Fleetwood Mac concert, same with the gas station and the ticket puncher. The economy and the world won't stop and everyone would sit home just because these people are paid less. But like I said earlier, I rather not see a maximum wage since it could result in what you said, but rather start taxing the hell out of higher incomes so that all that money is better redistributed through out society.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

jsw_81 (138 posts) Dec-21-02, 05:53 PM (ET) Reply to post #8 40. Excellent post I agree 100 percent. While we should definitely help the poor, we should NOT screw the rich just because we're jealous of their success.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

maveric (531 posts) Dec-21-02, 02:21 PM (ET) Reply to post #1 33. Gov. Huey Long proposed something to that effect... and he was assasinated. I wish I had a link for this. But back in the 30's he proposed that you can only make one million and the rest goes back to the reserve. Wonder if Preston Bush had a hand in this?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Buzzz (252 posts) Dec-21-02, 03:51 AM (ET) 4. Yes, why not? Bush and Frist are going to ram through caps on medical malpractice awards. Why not ram through caps on excessive wages?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Nambe (1352 posts) Dec-21-02, 03:52 AM (ET) 5. Don't they call that socialism? Oh no, it's called terrorism. Ride Don't Drive Image It's Global Cool   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

crickets (62 posts) Dec-21-02, 03:53 AM (ET) 6. About time Darn good f*cking idea. Well done. Um, who's gonna introduce the bill? sigh. No, really, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's well past time. How in the world would you get anyone to agree to it though, unless somehow the paradigm is changed? And how to do that?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Stevie D (1118 posts) Dec-21-02, 04:05 AM (ET) Reply to post #6 7. It's a deep-rooted idea in US culture That working hard gets you ahead, and I don't disagree that working harder shoukld get you more. But geez, the disparity in income in the US between the average line worker and the average CEO is HUGE. Yet, in Europe, 32-hour work weeks are common. Here in the US, 60-hour work weeks are just as likely. Euros get 4-6 weeks of vacation. Typical Americans get maybe two. Production figures for American workers have steadily risen since the 1970s. Where are the benefits and extra pay gone? Oh yeah, never mind....   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

TheCohen (204 posts) Dec-21-02, 04:31 AM (ET) 10. Did Nixon make for such a suggestion I think? -= Make vote for Democratic Party to make freedom, peace, and properity for entirety of peoples =- -= Learn of Howard Dean for 2004 =- -=If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.=- Frederick Douglass, former slave   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

absynthe (9843 posts) Dec-21-02, 05:35 AM (ET) Reply to post #10 14. Nixon did propose a maximum wage.. It's a hell of a thing to imagine that a few decades later it would be some pariah idea to be scoffed at by "centrist" democrats. Image When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. Eugene V. Debs   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

JM (1582 posts) Dec-21-02, 07:12 AM (ET) 15. Sorry, but... ...while the idea is noble, it just won't work. Unfortunately, today's system is like major league sports. One company sees someone it wants as a CEO, and good or bad, must pay them the going rate to get them and keep them. The second issue is one of reality check. Until such time as the major shareholders in these companies start rewarding those who do the right and penalize those who do the wrong thing, we will have a continued recycling of bad CEOs and bad professional board sitters who continue to exacerbate the problem. Shareholders need to learn the value of the word no. A government solution (maximum wage cap) is sheer folly because (1) legislators will never support a maximum on how rich their donors can get and (2) goverment progamrs are notoriously black and white. They pass laws without considering the context in which they exist. Laws such as this will penalize the good and the bad. Are you going to tell me that a person like Aaron Feuerstein should have a maximum cap put on what he can earn? That is absurd. This is a person who told all his employees he would personally take care of them until the plant was rebuilt after his factory was gutted by fire weeks before Christmas. (Malden Mills) Leadership by example seems to me a better solution. Put leaders who are scoundrels in office and we get what we deserve. Ethics and corporate culture is a top-down game. Later, JM First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me. Rev. Martin Niemoller http://www.algore04.com   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

LARED (600 posts) Dec-21-02, 07:51 AM (ET) Reply to post #15 18. kick Leadership by example seems to me a better solution. Put leaders who are scoundrels in office and we get what we deserve. Ethics and corporate culture is a top-down game. That is a notion that should be repeated and repeated often. Do right until the stars fall, and if they do, continue to do right.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

spinbaby (1680 posts) Dec-21-02, 07:38 AM (ET) 16. Better to raise taxes, I think A maximum wage sounds like a good idea at first, but when I think about it awhile, I don't think it's a good idea. That's because many of the upper classes don't make their money in wages (or even stock options), they make it on their investments. If you cap wages, you'll forever have a divide between people who earn their money and people who live off their investments. No, I'm in favor of raising taxes in the upper income ranges AND raising taxes on capital gains. __________________ Mediocrity. It takes a lot less time, and most people won't notice the difference until it's too late.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Festivito (2355 posts) Dec-21-02, 09:37 AM (ET) Reply to post #16 22. Yup, maximum wage is silly. More likely to tax more heavily everything over a minimum wage. Some people find more. Some people do more. I think they should receive more, but, after taxes. DU mail me if you think a response would be cool. Sorry, no money to buy a search function.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Vitruvius (409 posts) Dec-21-02, 07:50 AM (ET) 17. The most Albert Einstein was ever paid was LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-02 AT 07:58 AM (ET) about $200,000 a year in today's money. Is a $100 million dollar a year CEO worth 500 times as much as Einstein? No 'way! I would definitely support an "Einstein cap" on executive pay; a good start would be to limit executives to a mere 10 times what Einstein got, then gradually ramp down to parity. Even that would be paying many of them more than they contribute to society. Vitruvius P.S: Isn't it interesting how some of the most worthless people (like many CEOs) are the greediest, and some of the most valuable (e.g. Einstein) are unselfish?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

ontheMark (3 posts) Dec-21-02, 07:59 AM (ET) Reply to post #17 20. How about this "Income tax" is not a popular phrase at this time. So, how about an "asset tax". It might work like this. Ten % tax on all assets over 10 million dollars, with 10 years in jail for hiding assets. I'd even be in favor of no income tax for those paying the asset tax.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

sweetheart (721 posts) Dec-21-02, 07:56 AM (ET) 19. no, use shareholder activism The point that there is a huge wage disparity between the CEO's and the worker bees cannot be addressed as you put. It is good for all of us when a company gets really really successful, and i have no problem with people being inspired to achieve such success... by killing the motivation, you end up indirectly supporting socialist mediocrity... and this i am against; it rots the human spirit. The people who make the big wages are the business owners. They only have 1 boss... their shareholders; wall street and the big pension funds... the pension funds with your money in them... that is the path to dissent about unfair compenation. It has worked a charm in britain where overpaid execs get exposed in the media and often have their pay packets cut back to reasonable size. If you overtax income above a certain level, then the business owners will simply use the money within the framework of the corporation they control. Instead of taking a paycheque to buy a new house on hawaii, the company will buy a house on hawaii as a corporate condo; a property investment. The money will go towards first class executive flights, limosines, big fat dinners, new carpets in the office, and anything which can be written off within the business, but still have a nuance of private compensation. Then the public purse gets no tax take, and the businesses fester with inappropriate spending. There is no simple solution to the issue; but it is a two pronged strategy... shareholder activism, public media exposure of fat cat spending, and a long term shift towards branding excessive pay as irresponsible... I think a healthy graded flat tax provides a more stable framework for wealth creation. Its a nice wish, but on the ground, healthy tax reform does the trick.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Vitruvius (409 posts) Dec-21-02, 01:57 PM (ET) Reply to post #19 30. Ah, but greedy CEOs who slash OTHER PEOPLES' wages so they can hike their own kill everybody's motivation except their own. The same goes for CEOs who lay OTHER people off en masse, then overwork the survivors, then reward themselves with HUGE pay hikes for their "cost-cutting success". This is why Japanese and European CEOs pay themselves ~$200 - $400,000 a year, typical. Because they recognize that overpaying themselves would destroy everybody elses' motivation and morale. CEOs and managers who rip off the company teach everybody else that hard work, innovation, and sacrifice will not be rewarded or appreciated -- that only SUCKERS contribute -- that the big boys, who know the score, milk the company for everything it's got. Vitruvius. P.S: In most big companies with overpaid management, if you make a breakthru that becomes a substantial part of the company's product line, the management clique will usually FIRE you so they can promote one of their buddies on your hard work. Similarly, if you're an independent inventor, and make a breakthru that makes it big, chances are excellent that the management of some big company will rip you off and DARE you to sue them. Management is out of control nowadays. They're in the saddle, and RIDING the rest of us. And they've rigged things so that they, and only they, get ALL the rewards. That is why my extended family has decided to make no more inventions unless or until there's real REFORM in this country. Which means: liberal Democrats in power, Rethugnicans relegated to permanent minority status, an egalitarian culture and ethos, and human rights and property rights for all. Not just for rich Rethug management types. In the meantime, some of us are doing routine engineering (and thereby avoiding the career-destroying attacks you get if you make breakthrus), and some of us have switched to basic research or mathematics -- in the hopes that what we learn will help future, more egalitarian, generations.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Stevie D (1118 posts) Dec-21-02, 02:29 PM (ET) Reply to post #30 36. Great point n/t .   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

0007 (4470 posts) Dec-21-02, 08:09 AM (ET) 21. An age old argument that the wealthy won't let us win - Money rules, money is the big stick that beat the poor into the ground. Money buys all the justice one can afford and no more!!   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

PsN2Wind (89 posts) Dec-21-02, 09:52 AM (ET) 23. What is enough? Ain't it kinda funny that someone that would drive 300 miles to see Bowie is worried that Barbara Streisand might only do one concert a year? And say the other millions she might have earned are just withheld from the economy, just not put in circulation. Maybe we need Perot here with one of his Pie charts. He could show us that if fat-assed Shaq is getting half the damn pie, the guy selling peanuts is getting an even smaller sliver. " I've upped my standards, so Up Yours!" The late great Pat Paulsen "We have met the enemy and he is us" Pogo "Its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine" REM   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Yupster (127 posts) Dec-21-02, 12:57 PM (ET) Reply to post #23 29. The pie There seems to be a thought about wealth among lots of people that money in America is a pie to be divided up. If Shaq gets a million, that means others are not getting that million. That is not correct. Money or wealth is not a finite number of dollar bills in circulation. It is much more complicated than that. Since the peak of the stock market in March of 2000, literally trillions of dollars have been lost. Where did it all go? It was never there. The value of things like shares of stock are based on what you could have gotten for them if you sold them yesterday. There never were dollars circulating through the economy with the value of those shares of stock. Wealth is created and lost. It is not just circulated. Barbra Streisand creates wealth. She gets people to put $ 200 on a credit card and gets economic activity humming. If Barbra doesn't play, the peanut guy is not interchangeable with her. They are both nice people I'm sure, but one is creating wealth and the other is just doing a job. Our system depends on both of them, but they are not equally important.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Lydia Leftcoast (5236 posts) Dec-21-02, 03:04 PM (ET) Reply to post #29 37. But the people who don't go to concerts or sporting events will either spend their money somewhere else (good for the economy) or put it into savings or investments (also good for the economy). Our society would do just fine without any millionaire entertainers or sports figures. In fact, the millionaire entertainer or athlete is a twentieth-century invention, with the first millionaire athletes having appeared during my lifetime. Many of the lower-paid people do jobs that society really would miss if they weren't there. Image   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

New_Democrat (124 posts) Dec-21-02, 09:57 AM (ET) 24. By rights the system should be self-correcting, as a value of relative income equality or not taking a signifigent chunk of the companies profits should keep salaries relatively equal.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

FlaGranny (1277 posts) Dec-21-02, 10:33 AM (ET) 25. Were you listening to Randi Rhodes last night? That's one of the things she was talking about.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Armstead (5945 posts) Dec-21-02, 11:24 AM (ET) 26. Social pressure Being a realistic idealist I think the idea is great, but it likely would not be possible in the current climate. However, I believe something similar can be accomplished if part of larger social presure. The fact is that these people make so much money because of both the structural unfairness of the entire economy, and the fact that we let them get away with it. We need to seed the ground as much as possible with truth and clear explanations about the problems with the "winner take all" ethic that the GOP corporate conservatives have been pushing for at least 25 years (with the help of the Democtratic establishment). It's a matter of pushing the truth about the growing class gaps, and offering venues where people can channel positive actions to force change through various forms of pressure and policies. "We need a two-party system again....At least." "Despite all appearances: A better world IS possible."   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Porcupine (431 posts) Dec-21-02, 11:37 AM (ET) 27. Transfer excess to charities, maintaining status of earners Work it this way. All income is taxed on a progressive scale until the earner's income equals 100 times the lowest legal full time wage. After that any earnings must be diverted to a charity of the earners choice provided that: 1. The charity does not engage in the practice of political contributions. 2. The charity does not spend its money advocating for or against specific political bills. 3. All moneys donated to the charity are routed through third party bundlers that seperate money from names. Heavy hitters could would have high status and would be socially valuable because of their contributions. The actual amounts they contribute would be kept a legal secret for at least five years. In this way they would seek to maintain long term status rather than short term political gain. If they were unable to live on 100 times the income of our lowest wage earners screw them!! Go Lemmings Go!! Proud Member of the Grassy Knoll Society Order of the Tinfoil Hat CIA Spooferama: Allah, allah, nitric, federal, benzene, phosphate, oxide, titrate, ammonium, bomb, timer, airbus, pgp, recoil, bmg .50, ignition, propane   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

bemildred (3442 posts) Dec-21-02, 11:41 AM (ET) 28. Works for me. nt We are presently executing a plan of redeployment that will minimize response time while maximizing coodination between units in a decentralized networking scheme. -- Chief Stearns, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

JohnKleeb (1993 posts) Dec-21-02, 01:59 PM (ET) 31. thats what David McReynolds the socialist candiate for president in 2000 wanted and yes how many millions and billions do these people need. They make more in one year than most of us will in a lifetime that is just sad. Image Paul David Wellstone 1944-2002 A liberal, democrat, and hero for all times. A hero's death along with his wife, aides, and pilots. "And when he gets to heaven to Saint Peter he will be one more soldier reporting, 'Sir I've served my time in hell.'" Honor the fallen and the living. Thank you veterans for your service. Ireland Unite under one flag and proud Irish Image Image Image Image Image Ireland xxx Germany xxDemocrats x Slovakiaxxx Slovenia   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Stevie D (1118 posts) Dec-21-02, 02:20 PM (ET) 32. Thanks to all of you who responded When I started this thread, I didn't have a pre-conceived notion that a maximum wage was possible, or even a good idea. I simply meant to engender a discussion, which happened. Not sloganeering. The caliber of posts has been very high, and I appreciate all of them. This is exactly why DU is great. While some of you agreed with my initial premise, others did not. I appreciate Yupster's views, obviously backed by some economic learning. Hell, I can barely balance my checkbook. It's this kind of discourse that is so educating here. I know more now than I did before. We can disagree, but respectfully.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

shivaji (60 posts) Dec-21-02, 02:25 PM (ET) 35. There is a easier and better way to fix this is... LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-02 AT 02:26 PM (ET) pass a law limiting the ratio of maximum wage/minimum wage in all for profit and non-profit organizations to something like 50. That will stop the CEO's from stealing millions every year from the workers and share holders. If a company is very successful and wants to pay the CEO 10 million dollars, fine. But first they must then pay a minimum of 10,000,000/50= $200,000 to each and every worker in that company. This method will reward those organizations which are competitive and successful and at the time will stop the robbing by the CEO's.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

UnapologeticLiberal (436 posts) Dec-21-02, 05:43 PM (ET) 38. I like that idea... it is radical, but I like it. Make it a high maximum, so that there is still incentive to work hard and earn a good, even luxurious living, but cap it at some point no matter what, so that the incentive is removed to try to maximize profits by hiring cheap labor or evading taxes.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

God_bush_n_cheney (1220 posts) Dec-21-02, 09:29 PM (ET) 41. Great! SO I raise the prices to afford that maximum wage. Most of my employees live at home and go to school. The 2 full timers...I pay them well for the industry they are in. I am the GOD in god_bush_n_cheney "I'm a don't ask don't tell man" Haupt Scheißeführer Bush Jan 2000   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Porcupine (431 posts) Dec-24-02, 02:14 AM (ET) Reply to post #41 42. You're paying better money, hire more attractive employees. It works for Hooters!! (kick) Go Lemmings Go!! Proud Member of the Grassy Knoll Society Order of the Tinfoil Hat CIA Spooferama: Allah, allah, nitric, federal, benzene, phosphate, oxide, titrate, ammonium, bomb, timer, airbus, pgp, recoil, bmg .50, ignition, propane   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove | Unlink

Lobby | Latest | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Select another forum Lobby Latest Threads Announcements (Conference)   |--Announcements (Protected) Top of the Page (Conference)   |--Latest Breaking News (Protected)   |--Editorials and Other Articles (Protected)   |--General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--The DU Lounge (Protected)   |--Activism/Events (Protected) Hot Topics (Conference)   |--Politics and Campaigns (Protected)   |--The Media (Protected)   |--Bush, Conservatives, and Conservatism (Protected)   |--9/11, Military Affairs, and Terrorism (Protected)   |--The Meeting Room (Protected) Issues (Conference)   |--Civil Rights/Equality/Privacy (Protected)   |--Economic Issues (Protected)   |--Environment/Energy (Protected)   |--Foreign Affairs/National Security (Protected)   |--Health/Education/Social Policy (Protected)   |--Justice/Public Safety (Protected) Member Feedback (Conference)   |--Comments and Questions (Protected) Overflow Archives (Conference)   |--Latest Breaking News Archives (Protected)   |--General Discussion Archives (Protected)   |--Lounge Archives (Protected)