It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Enforce a Maximum Wage!

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Forget the minimum wage, we need to implement a MAXIMUM WAGE! This is something I feel strongly about and wanted to focus on in today's #OffTheGrid episode. Did you know that in the last three decades, a CEOs salary has grown 875% versus that of the average worker, which rose at a measly 5.4%? I propose -- much like in pro-sports -- a salary cap on all CEOs.



Here's the article from the Economic Policy Institute.

Will this help save the middle class? What do you think?




posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

Most of the richest of the richest' pay comes from sources like capital gains. While nice in theory, maximum wage(like minimum) does nothing to balance the current financial system and promote a healthy middle class.

Unfortunately.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Yes I do. Then make them put the extra money into creating jobs. Put that money back into the company.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

The capitol gains used to go back into the company before the Reagan machine ruined the middle class.

Unfortunately.
edit on 0201411America/Chicago15u11Novpm11 by LoneGunMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: LoneGunMan

Please explain what you mean in further detail. Capital gain is a term that has broad meaning. It can be the difference between the purchase price of asset and the amount gained when the asset is sold but it can also apply to income from various financial assets.

Again, please explain in further detail if you can. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Actors,
Athletes,
Artists of any kind,
How do ya think tom hanks will react to a cap on his wages?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

Before the Reagan tax code if you were in a certain tax bracket you were taxed 90%. To avoid wasting that money outside the company they would pay workers more and keep the money in house rather than squander it in taxes.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JesseVentura
Forget the minimum wage, we need to implement a MAXIMUM WAGE! This is something I feel strongly about and wanted to focus on in today's #OffTheGrid episode. Did you know that in the last three decades, a CEOs salary has grown 875% versus that of the average worker, which rose at a measly 5.4%? I propose -- much like in pro-sports -- a salary cap on all CEOs.


Most sports DO NOT have a salary cap, so that is a poor example for structuring some form of limits on earnings. Even in the few sports that have a salary cap, the athletes can earn even more through endorsements, though #1 doesn't earn anything though endorsements. And why start with the CEO's? Why not entertainment types? Let's cap Beyoncé, Oprah, Jay-Z, Bill Maher and Ellen DeGeneres, et al...

Sour grapes to go with Marxist ideals...



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LoneGunMan

I think you're confusing regular income(salary) with capital gains, or maybe I am not understanding what you are saying. Two very different beasts altogether. Tax code has always been holey and I don't mean biblical. There's a reason the richest of the richest shell out thousands of dollars for expensive tax accountants(tax loopholes existed long before Reagan....)

Here's a quick wiki in regard to the history of the capital gains tax if you want to take a look:

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: Also note how capital gains tax started at 7%. This sort of income that gets around taxes isn't anything new but has been an ever increasing problem in recent years due to the growth of large corporations and reduction in small business models.
edit on 14-11-2014 by OrphanApology because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Having multiple sources of income that together lead to higher then average earnings, like your example of athletes earning money through endorsements, etc, is different than a CEO that earns 800x the average American from only one source of income. I'm proposing that the earnings coming from each 'job' need to be limited by the maximum wage.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Absolutely. What would a good figure be for a years maximum wage mr Ventura?


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JesseVentura
Did you know that in the last three decades, a CEOs salary has grown 875% versus that of the average worker


Did you know that a "CEO" is among the most volatile job positions, with near-constant scrutiny, in all of industry?

Did you know that we're currently in a free market economy where the board of directors of companies can opt to pay a high salary to a CEO, who might be in high demand, in order to acquire the typically very rare skill set of that CEO? If the market (companies) is willing to pay the cost (salary & perks) for a valuable commodity (experience) why is that wrong?


Was the cost of Steve Jobs worth it for Apple? I would presume the stock holders would say yes.

Is the cost of Mark Fields worth it for Ford? I think the stock holders would say yes.


Here's a real-world example. Back in the late 1990's, my team won the advertising business for a large company working hard at a turn-around… because they were months away from complete failure. The board fired the entire executive staff (they deserved it), and rebuilt it, beginning with a high-profile CEO. He was very expensive, not just because of the experience and connections he brought to the company, but because of the risk involved in trying to turn around a failing former giant. But because of him at the company's head, they were able to attract other exceptionally experienced executives to the team… he was someone other similarly experienced people wanted to work for. They were also expensive.

But it worked.

After two years, there was a phenomenal turn-around, and eventually a return to the stock's former price. Hundreds-of-thousands of stock holders and pension funds holding the company's stock went from fearing it was worthless, to the former glory of the stock price… not to mention everyone working there still had their jobs. All because the company took a huge risk on insane salaries for the CEO and the executive team.


Free market. It's a good thing.



Edit to add…

Forgot another tidbit about the company mentioned above. A few years later, after I left advertising, the company was acquired for more than their market cap, by a much bigger company, giving stock holders a huge payday. No one was laid off as there was no overlap with the acquiring company. Part of the reason for the acquisition was… you guessed it… the quality of the executive team.
edit on 14-11-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
We really just need to return to the old tax codes of the pre-Reagan era.
Reinstate Glass Steagall and add a tax to all stock trades.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


Stop arguing with facts!
Lol
Sorry

Yeah, nobody should be able to tell me how much to pay my employees. That includes the top employees.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
We really just need to return to the old tax codes of the pre-Reagan era.
Reinstate Glass Steagall and add a tax to all stock trades.


How would your tax on stock trades effect my 401k?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

With respect to your outrage over the disparity between CEO and worker compensation, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly!

However, IMO it would be much easier to fix the problem you speak of by changing our approach to the way we currently legislate minimum wage in this country.

Instead of legislating a minimum amount of money, (in dollars and cents) that an employer can legally pay his employees for an hours worth of work, maybe we should consider some kind of a "floating" minimum wage where the lowest paid person in a corporation can't be paid less than a set minimum percentage of what the highest earner in that company is paid. This would have to include all forms of compensation made by the company to the employees, including fringe benefits, stock options, etc...

This would insure that everyone in the company would rise up together and it would end the run-away disparity we're currently seeing between CEO and worker compensation.

On top of that, it wouldn't always be 20 yrs. out of date and in constant need of congressional action to fix. Once we figure out what percentage is fair, it should remain constant into the future.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

If your 401k is properly administered then there should be no problem with anything the stock market does - including repealling bad laws. 401k's are supposed to be highly diversified and spread around mostly low risk investments.

Part of the cover-up of the 2007/2008 event is that investment firms had begun playing fast and loose with 401k money and were not investing those funds safely - they were buying derivatives and high risk investments. That is why the working class took the hosing when the day was done.

Never forget what we learned that day. Wall Street is too big to fail - and the average American citizien is too small to matter.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

Jesse,

Addressing your OP. I do not think a maximum wage is necessary. Let people make as much as they can earn legally. The caveat is that we need to change the laws, particularly the Tax laws, so that they no longer suit and serve the isanely wealthy. The above poster was correct when he said that supply side economics opened Pandora's box. It gave us a short term boom in innovation and work - soon to be followed by not one but two near collapse economic events. Hell most people don't even remember the recession of the nineties.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
can't force a maximum wage in a system that depends upon capitalism. As long as private organization owned by a select few with no ability to vote. How is anyone to combat a system when bribery using huge numbers can occur.

Where resource mined and obtained by the public are used by the private sector to their hearts content at a bare minimum wage in order to draw upon profit for the select few.

A system like this won't last unless they turn everyone into a cyborg with no autonomy.
edit on 14-11-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The stock holders got a huge payday? What about the average employees that are the backbone of the company? Did they get a piece of the action? Whatever happened to compesaring the hard working Joe who used to be the middle class?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join