I think the Rothschild's would send the goons after you if you tried to pass a bill like this. hung from the gallows.
peace.
peace.
A CEO sitting on his ass behind a desk doesn't burn a fraction of the energy that a janitor does, standing on his feet all day long pushing a broom, scrubbing toilets.
But I rebuke the pyramid scheme thinking that a CEO has a 1000-times more responsibility and therefore deserves 1000-times the pay. It's pure BS.
A 5:1 maximum wage ratio is generous, would stabilize the economy, and reward the entire organization for performance.
I agree, Insurance companies are a huge expense in the US medical system. They do not exist in a socialized medical system - part of why American medical cost are more than double those of Europeans, who live 2 to 3 years longer, but you are dividing my integrated suggestion into parts and then saying the separated parts don't work well - I agree with that too.To your first point, it doesn't mean that people become doctors to make money. Someone might have no desire to make money, but they just want to heal people. But the reality is, they can't go to school and go several hundred thousand dollars in debt unless they are making a good amount of money later to pay it back. Some people do become doctors for the money, but even the most benevolent selfless person needs to pay for school, and they need to make good money later in life to do it.
To your second, and the part about how we need more skilled trade jobs, this would be made worse by free college education. In many of the scandinavian countries, because college is free, there is a huge shortage of plumbers, carpenters, etc. The people who would have gone into a trade after high school instead went to college and got some language or history or philosophy degree because hey, why not, its paid for. In a system where it is expensive to go to college, only those who really want a higher education will pursue it, and those who are not suited for it who would rather go into a trade will do that.
Personally, I think college is too expensive because of the abundance of student loan programs from the government that allow colleges to charge such exorbitant prices because they know the kids can get a loan and pay for it.
I think medical services are more expensive because of the insurance companies, not the medical system itself. Interesting take on it from John Stossel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI&feature=related
Third, with higher education so accessible, it lures thousands of people every year to go for a degree, even though they have no business in the world of academia. This produces a great number of bachelors, masters, and PhDs who don't have any value on the job market because they studied literature, art history, religious studies, or something like that. In many cases, they didn't choose their major because they actually thought it would give them a job; they chose it because it seemed fun or interesting, or it was easier to get into than law school or medical school.
Unemployment among educated people has become a chronic problem. The other side of the coin is that Finland has long had an acute shortage of people with trade skills: carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, and so on — people who can actually provide a valuable service. The shortage has, predictably, driven up prices and prolonged delivery.
While they may not have gained "job training" they probably did get educated. There is a difference between job training and education. Certainly it is possible to get both, but too often the only trained are easily lead and vote as told, instead of know how to think, drawing on the lessons of history, the thoughts of great prior writers, etc.On Finland: "This produces a great number of bachelors, masters, and PhDs who don't have any value on the job market because they studied literature, art history, religious studies, or something like that. In many cases, they didn't choose their major because they actually thought it would give them a job; they chose it because it seemed fun or interesting,..." {your quote in part}
source: http://mises.org/daily/4655
I don't have facts, but believe that with today's US economy getting trained for high paying job (with some exceptions like going into law or medicine) at college is not likely to be as financially rewarding as becoming a plumber, etc. or starting your own, well chosen small business, which provides a needed service at a reasonable price (for example a plumbing service firm that gives 24 hour coverage).I agree that nobody should go to school just to try and get rich. But that is the way a lot of people are, and it's unlikely that will change. And it's a vicious spiral - you need to go to school to get a good job and then you need to get paid well to pay off for your very expensive schooling. not to mention paying for rising medical costs, etc. Or inflation.
We all want to make a good living so we can support a family comfortably. Sure, some people take it too far, and nobody needs a yaht or a mansion to support their family, but you can't blame people for wanting to provide a good, comfortable living for their families. Some people just naturally want more, and as long as they have to work harder for it and dont get it unfairly then more power to them.
However... I'll give you ONE last chance to partially redeem yourself before you go: Can you tel us exactly why CEOs and their brethren are able to get such huge salaries and perks???
In reality salaries are roughly set by supply and demand, if you put an artificial cap on salaries, it will create a market distortion and I don't see that your plan really accounts for that.
Switzerland to hold referendum to limit executive salaries to 12-times the lowest paid worker at an organization. Read the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/sutter-swiss-executive-pay/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
My limit was 5-times the lowest paid worker.... While I applaud the effort I think there are some reasonable explanations for why the ratio is higher than what I proposed:
- whoever wrote the proposed law didn't want to limit his/her own prospects;
- whoever wrote the proposed law didn't want to scare other people into voting against it;
I think a 12-times ratio would basically maintain status-quo, at least in the public sector. I'll be interested in seeing how this gets implemented in the private sector.
I thought I would start a new thread on this topic. I hope discussion won't drift onto "tax brackets" because that's not what this is. This would be a regulation, like the minimum wage. But it wouldn't be a fixed value, it would be a ratio, based on the lowest paid worker at a given organization.
Basic rundown....
I've read that in California, 50% of the government tax revenue comes from the taxes paid by the richest 1%, ie. CEOs and executives of big corporations. Elsewhere the percentage of tax revenue coming from the super rich is nearly as high.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
The government has trouble stabilizing its tax revenues because of the volatile nature of these super-rich people that pay such a large portion of it. What would happen if the government introduced a law that eliminated the need to tax the rich, by redistributing the wealth using a "maximum wage ratio" ?
I propose a maximum annualized wage (including the value of all basic pay, bonuses, commissions, contracts, shares, etc.) earned by an employee, owner, shareholder, etc. of a company that is equal to 5-times the annualized income of the lowest paid worker at a company.
Case 1: If a company is a sole proprietorship, the annualized income can be as high as you want.
Case 2: If a company is a partnership, the annualized income of one partner cannot be more than 5-times larger than the income of the other partner.
Case 3: If a company employs 10000 people, and the lowest paid worker makes $10/hr (temp, contract, or full-time), or $20,000 annualized, then the top executive cannot make more than $100,000 (cumulative from pay, shares, bonuses, etc).
Case 4: If a business owner is a foreigner who lives abroad, then the same rule applies. The annualized amount of fungible assets paid to that owner could not be larger than 5-times the amount transferred to the lowest paid worker.
Case 5: If a business owner wants to start more than one business, then this might be a way to bypass the limitation. Each business would then pay a certain amount as annual yields, not exceeding the 5-fold maximum wage limit.
==================================
==================================
Cons:
a. that this would require a layer of oversight by the government,
b. businesspeople are obviously going to look for loopholes to increase their wealth beyond this limit, such as by charging personal expenses to the business without giving their employees the same right.
Pros:
a. I see this as a fair way to distribute wealth to a much larger number of people and thereby stabilizing the government's tax revenues.
b. there would be more money in the hands of a larger population to spend on basic goods & services, thereby stabilizing the economy.
Opinions?