The MAXIMUM Wage Law

[Johnfromokc]

Oh come on now

Lets not let common sense get in the way eh

That is exactly what I meant. And the socialists could care less about risk reward. Because in a socialist society there is no need to take risk. You settle for what is doled out to you because that is the way you are programmed.

And what I make has nothing to do with the issue Johnny

You cannot seem to have a reasonable conversation without making smart asshat comments.

Tell me what you know of a socialist society? You bandy that word about in every single thread you participate in.

Now, do you pay yourself 25 times that of your lowest paid employee? That is, if you even work in this business rather than sit around and draw your inheritance dividend every quarter.

As to risk - if you can't make a go of it, then you shouldn't be in business in the first place. Everyone knows that the vast majority of businesses fail within the first 3 years. Somehow, I can't help but think you know nothing of risk and have likely not risked any of your own money in your inherited business stock.

 

[Johnfromokc]

A salary of several hundred thousand is of course ample. And in fact probably beyond the reach of most business executives.
But it is taking a reward; by its very nature, it can only target the successful.

Would you consider $377,000 USD (£233,856) an ample salary? That's 25 times the U.S. minimum wage. The average U.S.CEO earns 343 time the average worker, which is about 343 times $30,000 which equals $10,290,000.

What is interesting here is people are trying to compare the mom & pop start-up company to a Fortune 500 corporation. That's the type of CEO pay I'm talking about here. This maximum wage would not even affect those small companies.

 

[Zorak]

Would you consider $377,000 USD (£233,856) an ample salary? That's 25 times the U.S. minimum wage. The average U.S.CEO earns 343 time the average worker, which is about 343 times $30,000 which equals $10,290,000.

Yes I would, of course. Who wouldn't?

What is interesting here is people are trying to compare the mom & pop start-up company to a Fortune 500 corporation. That's the type of CEO pay I'm talking about here. This maximum wage would not even affect those small companies.

No, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. It would only affect a minority - the hugely successful. However, it is that minority that most business starters aspire to reach.
But here's another point; what's the difference between a salary and a net worth? You could cap the CEO's salary - but s/he can still sell the shares of their companies for any amount. Is that immoral?

At any rate, this is not the main reason I disagreed with the original concept, I was merely championing Alien Allen's cause.

 

[HK]

I can't help but think people would only find a way round any sort of cap to make sure they didn't lose out.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Yes I would, of course. Who wouldn't?

Indeed. I agree 99% of us could live quite well on $377,000 USD.

No, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. It would only affect a minority - the hugely successful. However, it is that minority that most business starters aspire to reach.

And that minority controls the U.S. economy to the tune of $$$Trillions, and who knows how much of the worlds economy?

But here's another point; what's the difference between a salary and a net worth? You could cap the CEO's salary - but s/he can still sell the shares of their companies for any amount. Is that immoral?

It is immoral insomuch as the shares sold are charged a tax rate in the United States of 15% (and often less in the case of certain corporate subsidies), while wages of the magnitude of CEO stock options would be taxed much higher. Tax capital gains the same as wages, and I have no problem. The problem begins when the wealthiest spend $$$billions purchasing our federal and state legislatures through lobbyists in order to secure more wealth for themselves at the expense of the average worker.

Those corporate $$billions could be better spent on universal healthcare and better wages for workers.

At any rate, this is not the main reason I disagreed with the original concept, I was merely championing Alien Allen's cause.

I'd pick a better individual to champion if I were you. At least someone capable of a reasonable discussion sans insults, like yourself.

 

[BornReady]

It seems that would cause companies to sneak perks to the CEO. Sort of how colleges sneak perks to their athletes since they're not allowed to pay them. Or don't they do that? I'm not sure.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I can't help but think people would only find a way round any sort of cap to make sure they didn't lose out.

That is the nature of greed HK. But is that any reason to fail to pursue what is in the best interest of the working class?

If it is fair and right for the monied classes to lobby and try and pay as little in wages, taxes and benefits to the working class as possible, why is it considered wrong for the working class to seek the best possible wages and working conditions for themselves?

 

[Zorak]

Indeed. I agree 99% of us could live quite well on $377,000 USD.

I wouldn't mind that sort of salary....

And that minority controls the U.S. economy to the tune of $$$Trillions, and who knows how much of the worlds economy?

I see what you're saying. And I'm trying desperately hard not to get into a discussion about this particular topic because I am probably on the same page as you regarding it. While I might like to see a fairer division of wealth, I don't believe a maximum wage cap would achieve such a thing. Or come close to doing so.

It is immoral insomuch as the shares sold are charged a tax rate in the United States of 15% (and often less in the case of certain corporate subsidies), while wages of the magnitude of CEO stock options would be taxed much higher. Tax capital gains the same as wages, and I have no problem. The problem begins when the wealthiest spend $$$billions purchasing our federal and state legislatures through lobbyists in order to secure more wealth for themselves at the expense of the average worker.

Those corporate $$billions could be better spent on universal healthcare and better wages for workers.

15% capital gains tax seems in line with the corporate tax rate, although I could be mistaken there. I have only seen a brief outline of the numbers for corporate tax. This makes sense in many ways, because often capital gains are reinvested back into the stock market. It forms a sort of mutually beneficial equilibrium.
There are of course other ideas. Some think tanks have come up with the idea of having compulsory employee shares, protected against their salary. Or, perhaps, a governmental share in all companies. The government could provide very real stimulus for the economy, and recoup a fair amount back to go on public sector services. In turn, this would lower taxes.

I'd pick a better individual to champion if I were you. At least someone capable of a reasonable discussion sans insults, like yourself.

I am often still surprised by the animosity generated by politics, particularly American politics (irregardless of peoples own nationalities.) Unfortunately, I believe this to be more a local phenomenon.

 

[Alien Allen]

I guess in Johnnys world only the mega rich own any stock

Of course that would be to dismiss the many, many, many, many, many......etc

That have investments in something like a....

Retirement Account

 

[Johnfromokc]

I guess in Johnnys world only the mega rich own any stock

Of course that would be to dismiss the many, many, many, many, many......etc

That have investments in something like a....

Retirement Account

FYI, Alien Alice, I currently own just over 22,000 shares of stocks and bonds. My wife holds a similar amount.

And, unlike you, I've started and built two profitable small businesses with my own savings and sold them for a profit. Add in the 50% partnership held in a small C corporation back in 1989 and that makes three small businesses I've owned.

So your little asshattery comments are meaningless. But keep on talking like you know something because you own shares via inheritance.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Wow! Retro - who has yet to even participate in this thread, just gave me negative reps along with a nasty little childish comment - again. This is the second time he has done this.

I have little stalker troll following me around, lol. :24:

Hey retro - I really enjoyed dinner with you last night. Shall we shower together and have breakfast this morning? I'm under your skin and in your mind. I own you.

What's for lunch?

 

[BornReady]

Wasn't referring to Allen as Alien Alice kind of childish? Maybe it's just me but it seems you are very civil until you start talking about politics, especially economics, and then there's this transformation. Perhaps that's just a subject you're passionate about. But as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Wasn't referring to Allen as Alien Alice kind of childish? Maybe it's just me but it seems you are very civil until you start talking about politics, especially economics, and then there's this transformation. Perhaps that's just a subject you're passionate about. But as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Can't disagree I stooped to his level. He likes to call me Johnny in a derisive manner, and make other insults rather than have any type of discussion...... so I call him Alice. Actually, I'm far more polite to AA than he is to me.

Interesting you overlooked all the other name calling he does, but you noticed I called him Alice. What's up with that?

Anyhoo, no matter. People like AA, if you haven't noticed, never answer questions or get involved in actual discussion. He, and people like him, just make little hit and run snips and insults. The "flies with honey" concept does not work with people like him.

Why is it you don't seem to call AA out for his obnoxious insults but I call him Alice and I'm the one who is childish? Seriously, I'd like an honest answer to that question.

 

[Panacea]

Some people's demeanors bring out the worst in us. It's best to just let their behavior show itself and not reciprocate, hard as it may be. This goes to anyone, really.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Some people's demeanors bring out the worst in us. It's best to just let their behavior show itself and not reciprocate, hard as it may be. This goes to anyone, really.

You are right Panecea. But I have to say it's kind of fun to turn their own game back on them at times. A couple of them run rough shod over other members, hurling insults, and going ballistic when they are asked to verify their wild claims, but they never get called on it.

You know, when you have heard the same repeated talk radio garbage for the 100th time, it gets tiring, yet they keep it up. I was watching FOX News Sunday this morning and Liz Cheney was doing the conservobot rhetoric repeater to the point that even Chris Wallace got sick of it and pointed out the parroting. You just cannot have a rational conversation with these type people.

 

[BornReady]

Why is it you don't seem to call AA out for his obnoxious insults but I call him Alice and I'm the one who is childish? Seriously, I'd like an honest answer to that question.

Sorry, didn't mean to take sides. I was just commenting on your complaint about getting neg rep.

I enjoy your posts. So I probably pay more attention to what you write. I tend to skim with posters I don't know.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Sorry, didn't mean to take sides. I was just commenting on your complaint about getting neg rep.

No worries BR. You should have seen the vitriol spewing from the neg rep bandit. I was being nice calling it childish. I reckon I really get under his skin. And as I said before, I do enjoy turning their tactics back on them at times - however I'd much prefer everyone to be polite.

I enjoy your posts. So I probably pay more attention to what you write. I tend to skim with posters I don't know.

Thanks.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Wow. Neg rep boy strikes again. That's 3 times.

Retro, I think your really 14 years old dude. Grow up.

 

[retro]

So I'm curious... what about people that play sports. Should teams be capped how much they pay players by 25x what the ball boy makes? Or are we exempting businesses like that? Or should player salaries be called at 25x what the league minimum is? That's be about $10.35 million per season in Major League Baseball. There are quite a number of "superstar" players that make over that.

Now, I'm not defending some of the ridiculous contracts that are handed out in professional sports. I'm merely trying to figure out where it starts and stops. What if we're talking about a small business. Let's say that the owner has paid his/her employees, taxes, reinvested in their business, and made sure they were financially solvent. All of that is taken care of, and there is say, $1,000,000 in revenue available for the owner to take as their salary, but they employ two people at minimum wage, should they be limited to only making $377,000 of that $1,000,000 available? Or does this only apply to those evil Fortune 500 companies that are so vilified by the left... and I'm not saying those companies are wonderful either, I'm just looking for clarification as to what companies you're talking about here.

Wow. Neg rep boy strikes again. That's 3 times.

Retro, I think your really 14 years old dude. Grow up.

Nah, it's just fun to watch you react like a my four year old when I tell him to do something he doesn't want to.

 

[Johnfromokc]

And now visitor messages too? :24:

Lunch was awesome retro. Nice to know you think of me so often. See you at supper and then off to bed. :bates:

And you've used the 4 year old comment like six times already. If you are going to try and be clever, you need some new insults, seeing how that is mostly what you have to offer.

I'd imagine the rest of the forum is getting bored with this little back and forth, so I'll end my part in this silly game and let you play with yourself.

Back to the topic now.