3 ms·
The rate of wage increase for the lowest earners in America is higher than for the highest earners. Unemployment is lower than ever. I won’t even cite because y
by seibelj 7y ago
The rate of wage increase for the lowest earners in America is higher than for the highest earners. Unemployment is lower than ever. I won’t even cite because you can prove this with a simple google search.
The fact remains that you think it’s morally correct to take money from people simply because they have it. To me, that’s theft. What is the salary at which we should seize money? You still haven’t answered this original question.
- tasogare 7y agoI didn't say money had to be taken from people. Actually I think it should be taken where it is: at the big company level. Except a few exceptions (Japan, South Korea) most of the taxation is on the shoulders of individuals and small/medium enterprises. Huge corporations such as Total has super low taxation rate, and others (GAFAM) avoid almost entirely taxation with taxes evasion schemes despite making billions from Europeans. Then, besides taxes, companies should also fulfil their role in society by employing "useless" or low productivity people to a certain extend (this is already done a little In France for instance with law imposing a quota of disabled people). I saw it all the time where I live (Japan): people with useless jobs that have been completely removed by automation in Europe. And finally, limiting the coefficient of the highest paid executive (let's say 100x) in comparison to the lowest paid on is no theft either, because the money didn't came in their pocket in the first place. The idea at large is not the "rob" the C-execs of their money but to put more responsibilities on companies, which have acquired a disproportionate power in the last few centuries.