(08-16-2021, 02:28 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(08-16-2021, 08:12 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Well, technically, it's not a wealth redistribution. I think the wealth gap is a very real problem. Instead of the government redistributing the wealth, I'd like a law that limits the wealth of the highest paid employee to 100x more than the lowest paid employee. This includes all benefits and stocks. If the lowest paid full time employee makes 30k, the CEO can make 3 million.

Tax loopholes need to be cleaned up for this to work, and we need to include company benefits (like carsor housing costs), but this is how I'd reduce the wealth gap. If a CEO wants more money, increase the company's profit and raise the employees salary.


....

The ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth in a way that does not go through the government, raises the wage for the workers, and reduces income inequity.

I usually agree with you for the most part, but there is so much wrong with your idea I'm not sure where to begin.

First of all wealth should never be limited.  Also wealth is not "distributed" it is earned.

Income is based on worth.  If I am an employer and I have a position that requires little-to-no experience or skill I would be reluctant to pay $30k for labor.  By the same token if I had a job that required some knowledge/skill/experience I might pay a bit more, say $52k.  A perfect example is let's say I'm a contractor for a residential electrical company.  A laborer would probably earn less than $30k.  An apprentice might earn around that $30k mark with the additional benefit of gaining experience and education.  A licensed journeyman would probably start at around the $52k mark depending on experience.  As the owner of the company my salary is going to be based on how many jobs I can complete within a year.  I also need to be able to manage payroll, overhead, equipment upkeep, etc.  My "gross income" might be upwards of $3 million or more depending on how many jobs I get done in a year.  Keep in mind, that "gross income" number is basically my revenue.  After expenses my actual "income" would be far lower.

Now increase this on a much larger scale.  Say I owned a company like Miller Electric who employs a couple of thousand people.  My income is going to be much larger than the $3 million dollar cap that you would want to impose.

The bottom line is, the idea of "redistributing wealth" is a terrible idea.  The idea of "income inequality" is also a terrible idea.

Ok. I was never linking this to the gross income of the business. This is purely an expendable income comparison. Using your same example, your contractor can take home up to 3 million without paying the labor more than 30k. If the contractor wants to make more, he needs to increase the pay of his laborers. It's not redistribution as much as it puts a soft cap on earnings. Want to make more? Pay your employees more. The government never collects a dime. There is no limit to wealth growth. You just have to shut down the loopholes. 

Now, think of the wealth redistribution that's already happening. Think of how much of your taxes are being used to fund various forms of social welfare. That's increasing every day.

---

Posting from my phone, so keeping it short and sweet.

---