6 ms·

And it’s not only a problem at for profit organizations but also a problem for so-called NGOs and other non-profits —who you’d think would be different… Screw

by mc32 1y ago

And it’s not only a problem at for profit organizations but also a problem for so-called NGOs and other non-profits —who you’d think would be different… Screw it, tax them progressively for every multiplier above the average Jack and Jill’s pay —with adjustments for company size and whatnot.

Hikikomori 1y ago
At some point do we need to make it a law to not compensate anyone more than x times the lowest worker salary?
- ndrwdvvs 1y ago
  this would greatly diminish meta's ability to hire ai researchers
  - Analemma_ 1y ago
    I'm already sold, you don't need to sweeten the deal further.
  - michaelt 1y ago
    Their competitors like Google and OpenAI would also be subject to the same salary cap.
- navbaker 1y ago
  That will never happen in the US as long as the current iteration of the Republican Party has any power to stop it, which is given to them by people continuing to vote against their own interests and thinking that billionaires are what “makes America great”.
  - m00x 1y ago
    The democrats are just as guilty of this. There was bi-partisan support for blocking congress from trading due to clear insider trading and the Democrats refused to support the bill. Democrats were also the ones to move all manufacturing to China, which hurt the American worker more than anything we've done in the past 20 years. If the democrats were actually serious about the working class, they would've let Bernie compete against Trump.
wat10000 1y ago
Never mind the multiplier. Bring back 90% marginal tax rates.
- bpt3 1y ago
  The ones that had numerous loopholes causing the effective rate to be similar to what it is today? Sure, have at it, but it's not going to have the effect you want. If you think anyone is going to pay an effective tax rate of 90%, I'm not sure what to tell you.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Of course they're not. In a progressive system that uses marginal rates, there's little point in giving someone a raise when they're in the 90% bracket, so nobody is going to be paying a 90% effective rate on all their income. The point isn't to actually collect $90 million in taxes from a CEO paid $100 million, the point is to discourage that kind of ridiculous pay package in the first place.
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      Also the 90% was only charged on income OVER a fairly high amount. I think it was the equivalent of income over $2 million.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      In reality, the people who earn that much will do what it takes to avoid those taxes, including moving themselves or their business to someplace that won't confiscate their income if needed.
      - wat10000 1y ago
        Somehow I don’t think Starbucks is going to move overseas. Anyway, most CEOs don’t own a majority share in their company. I’d like to see a CEO try to argue for a massive transformation of the company just so they can personally be paid more. Shareholders should boot them out pretty fast.

by mc32 1y ago

Hikikomori 1y ago

At some point do we need to make it a law to not compensate anyone more than x times the lowest worker salary?

ndrwdvvs 1y ago
this would greatly diminish meta's ability to hire ai researchers
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  I'm already sold, you don't need to sweeten the deal further.
- michaelt 1y ago
  Their competitors like Google and OpenAI would also be subject to the same salary cap.
navbaker 1y ago
That will never happen in the US as long as the current iteration of the Republican Party has any power to stop it, which is given to them by people continuing to vote against their own interests and thinking that billionaires are what “makes America great”.
- m00x 1y ago
  The democrats are just as guilty of this. There was bi-partisan support for blocking congress from trading due to clear insider trading and the Democrats refused to support the bill. Democrats were also the ones to move all manufacturing to China, which hurt the American worker more than anything we've done in the past 20 years. If the democrats were actually serious about the working class, they would've let Bernie compete against Trump.

wat10000 1y ago

Never mind the multiplier. Bring back 90% marginal tax rates.

bpt3 1y ago
The ones that had numerous loopholes causing the effective rate to be similar to what it is today? Sure, have at it, but it's not going to have the effect you want. If you think anyone is going to pay an effective tax rate of 90%, I'm not sure what to tell you.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Of course they're not. In a progressive system that uses marginal rates, there's little point in giving someone a raise when they're in the 90% bracket, so nobody is going to be paying a 90% effective rate on all their income. The point isn't to actually collect $90 million in taxes from a CEO paid $100 million, the point is to discourage that kind of ridiculous pay package in the first place.
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    Also the 90% was only charged on income OVER a fairly high amount. I think it was the equivalent of income over $2 million.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    In reality, the people who earn that much will do what it takes to avoid those taxes, including moving themselves or their business to someplace that won't confiscate their income if needed.
    - wat10000 1y ago
      Somehow I don’t think Starbucks is going to move overseas. Anyway, most CEOs don’t own a majority share in their company. I’d like to see a CEO try to argue for a massive transformation of the company just so they can personally be paid more. Shareholders should boot them out pretty fast.