Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Yeah I don't disagree with you guys at all really. I've never argued for a total state-controlled economy (maybe a couple more industries than we currently have). I've mostly been arguing for tax as a means to offset gross imbalances. Not that truck drivers and doctors should make the same money, but that the kids of truck drivers should have the same opportunities to succeed as the kids of doctors, and that education should be incentivized towards what you're good at/interested in, not what makes the most money. In order to do that, there are certain things that you either A) need to provide the truck driver with enough income that he can afford them for his family, or B) have those things provided by state and funded by taxes on excessive wealth.
Either way, I've ranted a lot about it in here so I'll leave it to others to discuss.
|
I think there a lot of grey area between a state-controlled economy and an unchecked capitalist economy. Is it okay if CEOs earn more than their lowest paid employees? Absolutely. Should they be making 200+ times what their lowest paid employees are making? Absolutely not.
That's where the state should step in and prevent that kind of inequality. For example, since 1965, the ratio of CEO pay to average pay has skyrocketed. Where CEOs once made 20x what their workers made--now those CEOs are making nearly 300x what their workers are making. How is that fair?
Interesting idea mentioned in this Boston Globe article--tying CEO pay ratio to tax rate. Companies want to pay lower taxes? Pay workers more and you get a lower tax rate. That way companies who refuse to pay workers fair wages pay more taxes. Those taxes would then go toward the safety net needed to keep those low wage workers out of poverty. Companies that have a lower ratio of CEO to worker pay would pay less in taxes, because their employees would be less of a strain on public services. These are the kinds of things that need to be put in place, because with states moving more and more toward union busting, the labor force has no chance of demanding higher pay. Therefore, the government needs to step in to stop those with power and money from stepping on those without power or money.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business...4RN/story.html
So it's not about limiting CEO pay randomly--it's limiting CEO pay vs. what said CEO is paying his employees. If he wants a raise? He gives his employees a raise.