You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

SinningStromgald ,

A good reason to have laws regulating the maximum pay gap between executive and the lowest paid peon. And make sure to include all types of pay like stock options so companies can’t squirm out of it.

pjhenry1216 ,

I'm ok with this, but it's essentially just a step toward socialism which is the better option (but will never happen). Because all this will do is make CEOs less wealthy from the company itself. The investors still make tons more than the CEOs already and they don't do anything. You need to force revenue sharing essentially which is just socialism with extra steps. Cause CEOs will just end up investing in other companies and still be wealthy and get less compensation from the company itself.

TropicalDingdong ,

I mean, it’s a pretty big step. It would basically make it such that a company has to expand it’s footprint to grow revenue.

pjhenry1216 ,

No, for investors to grow revenue it would. Which was the whole initial concept of owning the means of production. You invest in what you thought would make money. You didn't invest because you wanted to take away employee's earned value to yourself. But that's what it came to. A majority of inflation is profit-driven related. Not government assistance related like many corporations and conservatives want you to think. Aside from that, any overt success is shared amongst everyone and no increase would be offset by normal COLA through the supply chain. People could survive and thrive without having to gut the value of employees or those in the supply chain. The only issue would be loss of business which is always a risk. But losses can be shared equally or if it's a large enough loss over a long enough time, it would require some folks to be laid off and depending on why, the employees could put the person running the business.

TropicalDingdong ,

You didn’t invest because you wanted to take away employee’s earned value to yourself.

The fact that this ends up being the way that companies create more ‘shareholder value’ is a particular disease of modern neoliberalism. What you describe seems to me more similar to how companies in the US were run in the 1950s. More of a ‘rising tide lifts all ships’ approach that was used before management became antagonistic towards labor (viewing business units as ‘cost centers’ etc…). Its a particular framing that I think we can say does not guarantee any kind of result of profitability, but seems particularly enshrined in modern management culture.

aesthelete ,

Its a particular framing that I think we can say does not guarantee any kind of result of profitability, but seems particularly enshrined in modern management culture.

It’s enshrined in a management culture that has largely conquered labor through a mixture of anti-union measures and taking capitalism global so that they can pay as close to zero as possible for labor in other countries.

Sure, the products and services (and the country) all suffer, but nobody really seems to give a shit about that.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod ,
@Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social avatar

Exactly. Increasing pay would be really, really nice. But we can do that and have more control over our workplaces. Worker owned companies would prevent huge disparities in pay from reoccurring, regardless of what the government does.

Like a wise and angry man once said: "Fuck the G rides, I want the machines that are making them."

Wilibus ,

I don’t think the point is for them to be less wealthy, the point is you shouldn’t make more than 600 times what half your employees make.

pjhenry1216 ,

I know. But investors don't care. They're the root of the problem. CEOs are simply an employee of the company that ultimately represents the shareholders interest. Affecting their pay does not affect shareholder value that much. It just commoditizes the CEO position.

solstice , (edited )

Seriously, I literally just posted the same comment basically. It’s really silly how fixated on CEOs people are. I guess they are an easy scapegoat example, but they’re just goons hired by the board of directors on behalf of the shareholders. It’s not like they straight up own the company. (Yeah yeah yeah, there’s stock compensation, and some founder CEOs like Zuck still own shares after IPO etc, i know.)

Franzia ,

Socialism is the abolition of social classes. Regulating capital is usually called Social Democracy, or Marxism. Honestly, sieze the means of production.

AnotherPerson ,
@AnotherPerson@lemmy.world avatar

I’d be absolutely ecstatic for a 1:4 ratio.

Screwthehole ,

That’s just bringing down the top without helping anyone. Need to lift from the bottom instead

AnotherPerson ,
@AnotherPerson@lemmy.world avatar

You can also raise the bottom to make that ratio reach the top…

Steeve ,

You’re not really all that familiar with how ratios work are you lol

Screwthehole ,

Sure I am. If employees made $90/hr the ratio would be significantly improved. It’s not the ratio that’s the actual problem here. You get that right?

Steeve ,

That’s just bringing down the top without helping anyone. Need to lift from the bottom instead

What in the fuck does “lifting from the bottom” mean to you if raising employee wages isn’t it.

Lift from the bottom, pull from the top. The ratio is the actual problem here. You get that right?

Screwthehole ,

They were talking about reducing ceo pay, which who cares? It’s the workers that need the boost. Go back to reddit you jerk

Steeve ,

Raising wages isn’t a boost? The hell are you talking about

Screwthehole ,

You need some reading lessons. MAYBE THIS WILL HELP?

THE GUY SAID CEO PAY IS TOO HIGH. WHO GIVES A FUCK AS LONG AS WORKERS EARN ENOUGH MONEY?

Steeve ,

Lol you’re trolling right?

CEO pay/4 > CEO pay/200

You get that right?

Screwthehole ,

Oh my fucking God. What do you think we are talking about here?

Guy said lower ceo pay to increase the ratio.

Pay ceo 400,000, workers wages stay the same. How the fuck does that help?

Pay ceo 15 million and pay workers 485,000. Same ratio. Now we got somewhere.

People who want to enforce equality by imposing a ceiling are stupid. Impose equality by raising the floor. Who gives a fuck about the ceiling?

Steeve ,

Haha what the fuck do you think we’re talking about here? Nobody said lower CEO pay or anything about a ceiling, we’re talking about lessening the pay gap by enforcing a ratio. If CEOs want to make huge wages they need to pay employees more. This is grade school math dude.

Obviously you’re trolling and I’m just feeding it, but on the small chance that you’re not… Well shit man, maybe don’t dig yourself into stances so strongly if you can’t do basic math?

Screwthehole ,

Dude scroll up. Unless buddy edited the post, this entire response thread was a reply calling for reducing ceo pay to fix the ratio. Which I maintain, despite all the name calling, doesn’t fucking help anything at all

JamesFire ,

Reduce CEO pay… to increase worker pay

Damn, that was hard.

OsrsNeedsF2P ,

Sounds great, and sure might as well pass it, but there’s a lot of ways to get around it

  • Shell companies
  • TC in stock/bonuses
  • Outsourcing to contractors
  • Utilizing foreign jurisdictions
Kalkaline ,
@Kalkaline@programming.dev avatar

A good way to counter is a wealth tax.

solstice ,

Income tax is just fine thanks.

Kalkaline ,
@Kalkaline@programming.dev avatar

Found the CEO

solstice ,

37% federal plus 5-10% state, plus additional Medicare tax and 3.8% investment income tax and a bunch of others, not good enough for you? That’s literally approaching 50% what’s your problem?

mrnotoriousman ,

37% federal means you are in the tax bracket that makes over $578,000/year. You'll be just fine with several more percentage points added on.

solstice ,

So then add more percentage points. You don’t need a wealth tax to do that. Income tax is fine.

pjhenry1216 ,

A majority of wealth doesn't come from income so would never be touched by income tax. A "wealth tax" is just a broad term meaning that they should be taxed on the wealth fairly. Like capital gains for instance is a doozy. Way less taxation than what you likely pay (percentage wise obviously).

So "wealth tax" would include an income tax, capital tax, estate tax etc, all just at rates that are equivalent to how well the system treats them. They get a much larger advantage off the system that is set up than most others.

And the ultra wealthy don't even always have an income. You think Bezos has a salary right now that's significantly attributing to his wealth? Or Buffet or even Zuckerberg? I forget, his his salary still $1 a year? You want to tax only that?

solstice ,

You don’t get it. Unrealized capital gains are just deferred income. It’ll be taxed eventually. Income tax is fine, banish the thought of wealth tax.

pjhenry1216 ,

But they're literally not counted under income tax law. So you're essentially arguing for the exact same thing if you want it to count under some sort of tax.

Edit: short term capital gains is the only one that counts as income. Long term is not and is severely under taxed compared to income tax. Like, I like your intentions, but you're severely fucking up the details and it details your entire motivation and intentions.

solstice ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    pjhenry1216 ,

    When your comment backed me up, I didn't find any reason to respond. Capital gains tax isn't income tax. You admitted it by typing it out. You're just showing that "wealth tax" is just a tax on various means of wealth. I don't know if English isn't your first language, but you're literally agreeing with everyone but saying you don't.

    No one owes you anything, nor do they owe you a response. Especially when it didn't back up your own point.

    Thanks for typing out a lot of words to say "you want taxes other than income."

    You never even offered a rebuttal to what I said. You're a fucking joke.

    Don't talk to me again. You're so unhinged you came back 6 days because someone decided you weren't worth the fucking time to respond to due to your shitty ass logic and poor understanding of language. So again, capital gains tax is not income tax. You agree. Thanks. You understand that "wealth tax" is just a broad term that means taxes on things other than their income (which in many cases is $1, such as Zuckerberg).

    You're not a CPA. If you are? I feel bad for your clients as they're gonna get fucked in audits.

    solstice ,

    So again, capital gains tax is not income tax.

    www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

    Line 7: Capital gain or (loss)

    Cant possibly get more clear than that.

    Confidently incorrect as they say. The hubris of talking shit about technical subjects to an sme is just staggering.

    pjhenry1216 , (edited )

    That's only short term capital gains tax. Long term capital gains is taxed at a different rate than short term. I literally already mentioned that.

    Edit: to be clear, Schedule D would include sales of assets that aren't required to be reported on 1040. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040gi you can follow the instructions there and specifically where it tells you how to choose different tax rates than, you know, the income tax rate.

    solstice ,

    All capital gains and losses foot on schedule D line 16 and flows into 1040 line 7. The worksheet below breaks out items treated differently like section 1250 recapture, qualified dividends and LTCG:

    apps.irs.gov/…/capital_gain_tax_worksheet_1040i.p…

    It’s all income, just different tax rates and rules.If you want higher LTCG tax rates sure, crank it up I don’t care.

    Wealth tax is NOT simply asking for higher tax rates.

    Wealth tax typically includes unrealized capital gains. All unrealized gains eventually become realized one way or another. At that point LTCG tax or estate tax applies.

    Taxing unrealized capital gains is a terrible idea. Wealth tax is a terrible idea. Income tax is just fine. Income tax includes realized capital gains. Crank that rate up if you want. Just no wealth tax. These are completely separate concepts.

    Understand now?

    pjhenry1216 ,

    the fact you even had to say "typically" means its a broad term that just means different things to different people. if someone wanted to tax unrealized gains specifically, they would say that. they didn't. they're essentially just saying they want wealthy people to pay taxes.

    this has been repeatedly told to you. you even used a specific rate to describe income tax as being enough. that alone would have excluded your whole, now further expanded upon but originally excluded by definition, explanation.

    this was also extremely clear from everything i said. multiple times. but obviously, like i said, multiple times, you're in agreement with me. you just have some hangup on the definition of an ambiguous word that the original user gave no further intent behind and just jumped to your own conclusions on nothing, despite being told, repeatedly.

    do you understand now?

    I'm done here. I can't believe you're arguing with someone who has repeated been on the same page as you. Nothing you've said is in disagreement with me (except my claim you're not a CPA). Its like you just want to hear yourself talk or "win" something. Especially after that childish rant about someone not responding to you on the internet. Honestly. You should be ashamed of that. I don't get it. Do you want the last word or not? It's behavior like that which makes me believe you aren't a CPA because you're not acting like a goddamn fucking adult.

    So you don't get all stressed out or angry or need an extra call to your therapist, i'm not going to respond again, but I might downvote you just for fun. And honestly, why is an upvote without a comment ok but a downvote without a comment isn't? Someone can disagree with you and leave it at that. They don't owe you anything, you entitled ass.

    solstice ,

    That’s literally exactly what I’m advocating for word for word. Wealth tax bad, income tax good. Income tax rate too low? Crank it up to your hearts content. Glad we agree.

    JimmyMcGill ,

    I fail to see the problem with your statement.

    50% when you are Uber rich isn’t even that much. In plenty of countries you have that at a much lower level of income. Perfectly doable and fine

    solstice ,

    So crank it up to 60, 70, or 99%! You don’t need a wealth tax to do that.

    JimmyMcGill ,

    Why not both?

    The problem is that once you are super rich you don’t really have an income anymore. You just expand your wealth and you end up paying way less taxes on that.

    This is something that the common mortal can’t even think of.

    solstice ,

    don’t really have an income anymore

    You’re delusional. High and UHNW individuals also tend to have high income.

    just expand your wealth

    Income expands wealth. Unrealized income will be taxed eventually.

    common mortal

    Thank god you’re here to tell us these things. Did you get your accounting degree from university of american samoa too? Please just stop

    CancerMancer ,

    The upper-class does not rely on income the same way the middle and lower class do. Taxing income affects us much more than it does them, that’s why you institute a wealth tax to spread the burden.

    solstice ,

    You simply don’t understand. All income flows into wealth. All wealth is eventually becomes, one way or another, taxable income. You can defer it for a while but it’s literally all the same thing.

    You’re talking about legislating a massive clusterfuck, like you can’t even imagine how messy it would be, that pretty much nobody would comply with free of errors and omissions, all over a timing difference.

    Just please, I’m fucking begging you, stop talking about a wealth tax, especially when you don’t understand how tax works to begin with.

    MonsiuerPatEBrown ,

    Whatever.

    It starts with paying their employees a dignified wage…

    whatisallthis ,

    The point is that if max pay gap laws are passed, CEOs will just hide their actual pay in external resources and normal employees will still make exactly the same.

    Shard ,

    Good. Make them hide it. Then make it illegal to hide income(if it already isn’t). Tax agencies like the IRS are really good at catching this sort of thing.

    Make it difficult for them and their companies.

    Make them have to spend to hide it. If they get caught, the money goes back to the economy. If they don’t get caught, at least some the money they spend on law firms and accounts goes back to the economy.

    whatisallthis ,

    That’s the system we have right now and it doesn’t work. Soooo…

    PunnyName ,

    Ok, let’s do it anyway and make them work for their wealth. Instead of doing nothing, and letting them also do nothing to keep their wealth.

    SuperSecretThrowaway ,

    There are solutions for all of those loopholes, but it will hurt our congresspeople’s investments so it will get shot down

    Steeve ,

    Hey I said this like 6 years ago on Reddit and I got downvoted and called a fucking idiot lol

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Why do we not have a maximum wage when we have a minimum wage?

    I_Fart_Glitter ,

    Because this is America and if you make rules like that you’ll crush the American Dream ^tm^ and no one will want to work at all because you’ve taken away their ability to daydream about one day being the disgustingly rich person doing the trickling instead of the disgustingly poor person waiting to be trickled on.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •