Poll: Maximum wage or not
Poll Options
View poll results: Maximum wage or not
Yes, what some CEOs get is ridiculous.
76 30%
Yes but for another reason (please state)
10 4%
No, the CEOs and high-earners EARN their money for
65 26%
No for another reason (please state).
69 27%
Alex Lifeson
33 13%
Voters: 253.
Page 1 of 11
#1
This is something I found on another forum and I would appreciate some input.

During the Great Depression, FDR asked for -- and got -- a law requiring employers pay "a minimum living wage" that would allow people to at least scrape by, keep body, soul and bill payments together and to support their families. Now days, "minimum wage" is synonymous with teenagers working for burger joints. You can't live on it, but we still have it.

What we do not have is a maximum wage.

Back when Babe Ruth was in his prime, it was a big deal when he made more in a year than the president of the United States for what was, essentially, seasonal work. Now days, almost every ballplayer in the major leagues makes more than the president. And some of those bozos make more in one game than the president does in a year.

CEOs of the biggest companies are even more unbelievable. Anyone running a company of any size is probably earning well into seven figures. Some take home nine figure salaries. That's over one hundred million dollars a year. Often these bloated "compensation packages" are given to people whose poor judgement and bad decisions bankrupted the company, sending it crawling to the government for bailout money. Then these titanic numbskulls have the audacity to pay themselves ten million dollar bonuses. All of this for making a shambles of the company.

Speaking of which, I saw something on the news this evening that said of the 19 biggest banks and financial institutions that took bailout money, they spent something like 16 billion just in bonuses in 2008. Worse still, the ones who gave out the most in "executive bonuses" still have not paid back any of that government money...

Meanwhile, some poor soul earning close to minimum wage for one of these same companies who makes a $5 mistake gets sacked on the spot.

Where is the justice in that, I ask you.

So maybe it's time to impose a Maximum Wage Law. This would clap a lid on how much money a person -- in any job -- could earn in a year. I suggest, say, ten times the salary of the lowest-paid worker in the company, or one million bucks a year, which ever is lower.

I would also impose a ban on "executive bonuses" except under the following conditions:
1.The company acutally made a profit from its core business, rather than some cute accounting trick or from sacking American workers in favour of farming jobs out to some place in Asia or Latin America where people make 25¢ a day.


2.No executive bonuses will be paid unless and until the rank and file employees get their bonuses, first.

3.The executive's bonuses would not be more than the what lowest paid employees get.

So, anyone care to comment?
#5
Quote by kaptink
So objectivism wasn't working out for you then?



Actually I'm very against the idea of a max. wage for the simple reason I'm Objectivist.
#6
Quote by kaptink
So objectivism wasn't working out for you then?

yeah, no kidding.
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Actually I'm very against the idea of a max. wage for the simple reason I'm Objectivist.

you just said "maybe it's time to create a maximum wage law" in the op.
Go Veg.
Last edited by im not mental at Jul 25, 2010,
#7
Doesn't really get to the heart of the problems with capitalism, but I'm not opposed to it. Some form of pay-multiple might not be a bad idea.

Problem is, it's doomed to fail, what with creative accounting and transnational firms. Maybe one way of doing it is to ensure that a significant amount of their wages and bonuses are in shares?

EDIT:

Oh, actually.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

Got there first, Paddy.

If a maximum wage could reduce inequality, then it's all good.
Last edited by gabcd86 at Jul 25, 2010,
#8
Quote by Dirge Humani
No, because this is obviously just a thread you made to get reactions out of people.

Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
There absolutely should be a maximum wage.

There you go.

And theoretically, you can't earn more money than there currently is. Although you can have all the world's banks in debt to you.
Also, even though a minimum wage exists, there are people working for less than that. Just because you set a boundary doesn't mean there won't be someone who crosses it.
#12
No.

Not the best example, but Christiano Ronaldo gets payed x amount from Real Madrid. I dunno how much, but you're saying he shouldnt?
#13
OH HELLO COMMUNISM

I think this variable tax rate is bollocks aswell. The onyl way things can be fair if it's unbiased. A percentage can be exactly that and they've gone f*cked it completely. Sure the normal people are happy but what about people who worked very hard to earn that wage?

I'm sick of this piece of shit country.
#14
Quote by sam b
No.

Christiano Ronaldo gets payed x amount from Real Madrid. I dunno how much, but you're saying he shouldnt?



Problem in football is that with many clubs, the player's wages alone exceed what is actually being brought in at the matches. Clubs like Manchester United are rich on paper but in reality are HUGELY in debt.
#15
Quote by sam b
No.

Christiano Ronaldo gets payed x amount from Real Madrid. I dunno how much, but you're saying he shouldnt?


Shouldn't what?

Exist? Live? Be a free man? Not get kicked in the streets?

Of course he shouldn't.

I think entertainment industries can't really work by the same rules, to be honest. It's a different.... ballgame.

EDIT:

Quote by Bearded_Seth
OH HELLO COMMUNISM

I think this variable tax rate is bollocks aswell. The onyl way things can be fair if it's unbiased. A percentage can be exactly that and they've gone f*cked it completely. Sure the normal people are happy but what about people who worked very hard to earn that wage?

I'm sick of this piece of shit country.




1) lrn2commie. There wouldn't be CEOs to be paid exorbitant salaries anyway.
2) 10% of £100 means a lot more to the person than 20% of £100, 000. On top of that, the more money you have, the less you spend, so in terms of macro(?)economics, it makes far more sense to redistribute wealth like that.
3) If you're a million-a-year CEO, you probably get more out of public services than a McDonalds worker. Only fair you should pay more.
4) More normal people than City boys. That's democracy. Not like we're killing them or anything.
Last edited by gabcd86 at Jul 25, 2010,
#16
well i believe there should be a salary cap in all sports. cause then its sort of gives everyone a chance to win. and not buy there way in, but that is a different topic

As in Max. Wage for singlar people, no because if your goal is to fill stadiums around the world, then you dont want to have a cap on what you earn. for an example



Quote by Gunpowder
Thrashturbating? Most metal of all ways to pleasure oneself.
#18
Yes, but only over a certain threshold.

EDIT: what the hell am i talking about, i mean yes.
Last edited by So-Cal at Jul 25, 2010,
#19
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Problem in football is that with many clubs, the player's wages alone exceed what is actually being brought in at the matches. Clubs like Manchester United are rich on paper but in reality are HUGELY in debt.

That's going away from the point of capping Christiano Ronaldo's wages


Yaya Toure has signed for Manchester City on a £200,000 a week deal
#21
Quote by sam b
That's going away from the point of capping Christiano Ronaldo's wages



Actually it doesn't. There's something wrong when the club is paying out more than it's getting in sales to the players. And it's primadonnas like Ronaldo who are to blame.
#22
I think maximum wage can be a good idea, though not in the sense that there is one limit that applies to all, such as setting $1,000,000 as a national maximum wage, as some people have suggested. It needs to be more flexible and have some rules and guidelines, such as the ones the OP suggested.
#23
Quote by The_Clansman_
The government has no right to limit that.

The only have the right to limit their own pay.


The government controls taxes, the treasury, and the Army. They'll limit what they like.
#24
Quote by The_Clansman_
The government has no right to limit that.

The only have the right to limit their own pay.


I've been looking for a while and I still haven't come across a clear statement that says income tax is demandable by law..

I'm probably wrong, though.
#25
Quote by uk.mace
Also, unless the law was global, people would just go and work for companies in countries where the law wasn't in act, resulting in a massive loss for the economy of the country from which those people are leaving.
Yeah, this is a pretty significant point

I read an article once about this. People like Elton John were getting taxed about 90% of their money, and just decided to leave.

Ask George Harrison
#26
Quote by fender_696
Yeah, this is a pretty significant point

I read an article once about this. People like Elton John were getting taxed about 90% of their money, and just decided to leave.

Ask George Harrison



now you know why rich people hire teams of accountants and have overseas bank accounts.
#27
Quote by Bearded_Seth
I've been looking for a while and I still haven't come across a clear statement that says income tax is demandable by law..

I'm probably wrong, though.

There isn't, people quit the irs cause there isn't one.

Quote by gabcd86
The government controls taxes, the treasury, and the Army. They'll limit what they like.

Tyrrany. Thanks bro
#28
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Actually it doesn't. There's something wrong when the club is paying out more than it's getting in sales to the players. And it's primadonnas like Ronaldo who are to blame.

Lolnah
#29
Quote by The_Clansman_
There isn't, people quit the irs cause there isn't one.


Well, the reason I was looking is because it was featured in Zeitgeist, but I heard that it was merely propaganda made up by the creator.

F*cking money. Look at what it did to humans.
#30
Quote by The_Clansman_

Tyrrany. Thanks bro


Rather a tyranny that we have some minor say in (ie: the government), then unaccountable robber barons paying themselves billions in bonuses while being useless at their jobs.

So what do you propose, sir? No more taxes? Perhaps Colorado Springs?.

Have fun with that. I am quite happy for my government to be permitted to redistribute wealth, given it's one of the three functions for government intervention in the economy, and given it makes fucking sense.
#31
Quote by Bearded_Seth
Well, the reason I was looking is because it was featured in Zeitgeist, but I heard that it was merely propaganda made up by the creator.

F*cking money. Look at what it did to humans.


Yeah, But we'll always be evil

Quote by gabcd86
Rather a tyranny that we have some minor say in (ie: the government), then unaccountable robber barons paying themselves billions in bonuses while being useless at their jobs.

So what do you propose, sir? No more taxes? Perhaps Colorado Springs?.

Have fun with that. I am quite happy for my government to be permitted to redistribute wealth, given it's one of the three functions for government intervention in the economy, and given it makes fucking sense.


well, over distributing is bad for the economy too, hyper inflation
Last edited by The_Clansman_ at Jul 25, 2010,
#33
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Back when Babe Ruth was in his prime, it was a big deal when he made more in a year than the president of the United States for what was, essentially, seasonal work. Now days, almost every ballplayer in the major leagues makes more than the president. And some of those bozos make more in one game than the president does in a year.

The sports industry is massive. It makes billions of dollars each year and employs thousands of people. Doesn't it seem fair to give a share of those huge profits to the people who the whole thing is centred on?
#34
Yes. I think when someone has around $500,000,000 in their bank account they shouldn't be allowed to make more money. They have beaten Capitalism at that point. Give it to people who need it.
#35
Where is the extra money going to go? And Presidents make more than one assumes. They make a killing in that they don't pay for a lot of things, and get tons of money for interviews, books, etc.
Quote by vintage x metal
I love you =] I can't say I was very fond of you when we first started talking because you trolled the hell out of my threads, but after talking to you here I've grown very attached to you.

Yeah, write to my fanclub about it, honey.
#36
Quote by NoOne0507
Yes. I think when someone has around $500,000,000 in their bank account they shouldn't be allowed to make more money. They have beaten Capitalism at that point. Give it to people who need it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Philanthropy

The people who have made the most have also given the most, of their own volition.
#37
Quote by The_Clansman_
Yeah, But we'll always be evil


well, over distributing is bad for the economy too, hyper inflation


Government intervention in the form of taxes and benefits leads to out-of-control growth of the monetary supply? Wat.
#38
Quote by Jack Off Jill
Where is the extra money going to go? And Presidents make more than one assumes. They make a killing in that they don't pay for a lot of things, and get tons of money for interviews, books, etc.


The poor, public works programs, improving our educational funding, giving away more scholarships for colleges, paying off national debt, military, healthcare, it goes on and on
#39
Quote by blue_strat
The sports industry is massive. It makes billions of dollars and creates thousands of jobs. Doesn't it seem fair to give a share of that to the people who the whole thing is centred on?



A share yes. But paying a soccer player $200,000 a week and then a pro-racing cyclist getting $50,000 for a lot more effort, skill and time? Something is wrong there...