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.

So if an NFL quarterback makes $35 million, then the ball boy has to make $350,000.

---

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.

So if an NFL quarterback makes $35 million, then the ball boy has to make $350,000.

They'd just start creating LLCs for each employee making them their own CEO while operating as an independent contractor....

---

So if an NFL quarterback makes $35 million, then the ball boy has to make $350,000.

They'd just start creating LLCs for each employee making them their own CEO while operating as an independent contractor....

There are numerous legal techniques in the laws to prevent this work-around -- for example, the law requires the health plan and the retirement plan to be the same for everybody, but it puts in a broad test for what counts as the same "employer" for measuring that. Same thing goes for making an affordable offer of health care under Obamacare. Same thing goes for discrimination type claims.

Bottom line, there's no good reason to worry about high CEO salaries unless one worries about high athlete salaries.

And it's not the government's business to balance things out -- that is a tyrannical view of government and society. But to the true socialist, the government should be deciding that. And it ultimately results in a ruinous state of affairs where everyone is poorer.

---

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.

So if an NFL quarterback makes $35 million, then the ball boy has to make $350,000.

If he's a full time employee, yes. But I'm not sure it would work like that in practice. The owners would look at the revenue and have to decide how much they want to make. So, they figure it how much they want to pay the lowest paid employee and redistribute the rest. Let's say they can afford to pay the vendors and ball 75k, then the players/owners would not be making more than 7.5 mil. In a smaller organization like the NFL, this might result in higher salaries than normal for the peons, but that's the point, generally speaking. 

You guys are right in pointing out that companies would try to work around this by starting multiple companies or creating llcs, but I don't feel like this is impossible to regulate. I think the obvious way is to scale it to size. 

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.

---

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.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Think about what you're going to pay in taxes to achieve the same thing.

---

Think about what you're going to pay in taxes to achieve the same thing.

I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me or not.  If so what do you mean?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

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.

---

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.

You still don't get it.  There is a difference between "wealth" and "income".

Regarding the part in bold, what if instead he hires more laborers and gets more work done?  The pay doesn't go up for the price of a laborer, the quantity of laborers goes up.  Getting more work done means that the owner makes that much more minus the cost of the extra laborers without artificially raising the pay of the workers that he has.

Explain to me how the contractor would "make more" if he paid the workers that he has more?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

LOL.  Water and electric systems are not "production", they're services and commonly owned/operated by municipalities throughout this country.  Factories are production, the control of which is consistent with the socialist model.

Marx would not have made that distinction.

Well, if you read it in Das Kapital, it's gotta be the perfect model.......

Funny, I figured you for more for a believer in the Little Red Book.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Marx would not have made that distinction.

Well, if you read it in Das Kapital, it's gotta be the perfect model.......

Funny, I figured you for more for a believer in the Little Red Book.

I only understand it.  I don't believe in it.  And now you understand it too.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

You still don't get it.  There is a difference between "wealth" and "income".

Regarding the part in bold, what if instead he hires more laborers and gets more work done?  The pay doesn't go up for the price of a laborer, the quantity of laborers goes up.  Getting more work done means that the owner makes that much more minus the cost of the extra laborers without artificially raising the pay of the workers that he has.

Explain to me how the contractor would "make more" if he paid the workers that he has more?

By wealth, I mean the total amount of value accrued by an individual as a form of payment. I don't think someone should be able to exploit a loophole to pay for their vehicle or house or stocks and not count it as their income. If you are using wealth differently than that, know that I am not. To your address your bolded question, how does anyone make money? For most businesses, the truth is that what I am proposing should be a moot point. The average owner is not taking home 100X more than their lowest paid employees. That would be absurd. The reality is that you're probably not seeing those numbers until we start looking at corporations, and those corporations make more profit by becoming more efficient with business expenses and payroll. I think we should limit how much they can cut cost of their employees. The sole job of the CEO is to raise the profit for all in involved. I'm just creating a soft cap with this program.

---