• Jesus_666@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    Mind you, people probably don’t think of your standard high earner they they think of an income cap. They think of people who make four (or even five) digits an hour, a rate that maybe high end lawyers can match. Maybe.

    CEOs of large companies can easily make that much, often not even tied to performance but contractually guaranteed. The super-rich make that much simply by existing.

    Basically, if your labor (or mere existence) isn’t even worth 1000 bucks an hour to your clients you’re a peasant like the rest of us and an income cap is probably never going to be relevant to you.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      Thanks for actually discussing.

      It’s my understanding that the earnings of the hyper wealthy are derived not through “traditional wages”, but instead loans backed by stock, business entities, etc.

      So right out the gate we aren’t hunting the biggest fish: taxation of the hyper wealthy such that they pay their fair share.

      Next, I believe that such a system would be contorted to limit the potential of those at the bottom of the ladder. If we hope to improve the lot of those folks, the conversation should folks on minimum wages, and employment and safety protections

      • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        I agree that going for wages in the traditional sense doesn’t catch many of the most relevant income streams. However, I think that a “maximum wage” makes sense as a theoretical construct used to create a sensible income tax scheme.

        Essentially, tax brackets and rates could be defined in relation to the median income. Go too far above that (hitting the “maximum wage”) and your tax rate rapidly increases, maybe even going as high as 90%. Of course this would have to cover all sorts of income, not just plain money.

        This scheme would effectively box people into a certain band of acceptable wealth and would create an incentive to raise wages – after all, if the average worker makes more, so can the most wealthy.

        (Also, full agreement on needing to talk about better labor protections. American labor law is really lax.)

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          20 days ago

          Decent points. I don’t want to spam my thoughts so I’ll keep it short, I fear corruption beyond the very sound ideas you shared.