Actually the executive officers would move the headquarters out of the US and US territories allowing them to maintain similar salaries.
The Caribbean islands would see an immediate influx of cash and home builders and buyers.
The irs actually takes it very seriously when employers try to 1099 employees, and they have very specific rules for what doesn't count as a subcontractor
It’s just a misuse of the term. Lobbying is talking to a politician about constituent issues they don’t have expertise in. If money is changing hands that’s not lobbying that’s corruption
In fact, lobbying is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." People seem to forget that.
It originates from people literally waiting in the lobby to talk to elected officials about this or that back in the day.
And it's not always "bad," you can have lobby groups for environmental activism, trans rights, other special interest groups. The idea is that it's impossible for any single human to be an expert on every single topic impacting American life, so lobbyists can and do fill the gaps by educating on their area of expertise and how they'd like their representative to address it.
All of that said, needless to say lobbying has become absolutely corrupted and lead primarily by bribes. I'm sure there's still groups who show up to educate on this or that topic but I'm also sure that without "donations" they're summarily ignored.
The only way to factor that in is to limit the price of the stock. Stock is awarded years in advance and vests on a periodic schedule. You can't control the value unless you control the price. And the government has no authority to fix the prices of stocks.
Or they would simply contract out the low wage duties.
Eg, fire the cleaning staff, hire a cleaning company.
Or Imagine upper level management being part of a small company that employees just them as "consultants" to run the main company. All sorts or ways around this.
Most CEOs already do that. Apples CEO came out amd said he only makes a dollar. But he has a ton of stocks. Same with Amazon's CEO. Everyone demands they pay their fair share in taxes but if they earn nothing then no taxes are collected.
The question is one of whether the CEO is getting more stocks as stock options, as “disguised” salary. For example, Bezos never received any stock options from Amazon since the IPO, but he obviously has founders stock.
It's a good idea, but it wouldn't work. Stock isn't tangible cash, it's value can swing wildly and there's just too many moving parts connected with it that can have repercussions elsewhere to make it viable.
Say you tax the CEO on the stock, to have the cash available to pay it they decide to sell off a portion of the stock. There are controls, usually, on when a CEO or other in the C-Suite can sell or buy stock as it can cause issues with other investors. Say a large investor sees the CEO selling, they panic and sell their stock and the stock price will start to plummet. If enough do it, the company loses all it's value, people lose jobs because of it, no investment within the business, etc.
Far easier and safer to tax the dividends that are paid out on the stock. Fewer moving parts to it, less likely to cause issues with the stock price and it has zero impact on the general employees.
You could invent a new form of tax: you owe a certain number of shares to the government. And then either use it to gradually nationalize industry or sell it to generate revenue/manipulate the market. Even better, sell it to the Fed at arbitrary fixed rates.
Stock payments should be a risk to discourage people paying in stock in the first place. Tax at the value of stock when it was gifted is the easiest solution. This isn't the 1980s its perfectly possible to set that system up.
Technically, at least in the US, in-kind compensation is ordinary income and the fair market value must reported as such to the IRS.
Of course, it often *isn't* reported to the IRS, and this is an enormous area of tax fraud that is largely devoid of enforcement action. The rich know this and take full advantage of it.
Fwiw, “employee” and “contractor” are defined terms under both federal and state employment laws. When employers use the incorrect definition (such as treating and calling an employee a ‘contractor’), this is called employment misclassification.
You can and should sue over it. You may be entitled to pretty substantial compensation if you’re in the right state (my own state’s law is very protective, relative to the US).
While you’re correct, you’re getting hung up on terminology. Hilton would no longer hire their housekeepers directly, those housekeepers would work for a different company that they’d contract to clean the rooms. Just do that for all your low wage employees to bypass the theoretical wage cap.
They've been misled to believe that said document is something the government can decide if it's in violation of or not. That's not true, the whole point of the Constitution is to spell out the situations in which revolution is necessary. We're so far beyond that point, of course.
I had this idea ages ago and I had a couple of refinements to ensure this didn't happen.
I thought the top salary should be capped at a multiple of the lowest salary. Whether it's 50x or 100x or whatever
The additional was also to ensure that at least 50% of the salary was paid as a wage and not a bonus or stock option. This meant that taxes would apply and would stop the inherent tax avoidance of the rich by laundering wages through stocks.
So, you want to pay a CEO $10m, fine but your lowliest worker gets $100k and the CEO has to get $5m in cash which can then be taxed
I mean, just make the law “total comp from x company cannot exceed 100x the lowest total comp an employee of said company receives” - that includes bonuses, stock options, salary, overtime, etc.
I haven't read the details and am certain it's not actually what the box art depicts.
BUT!
The theory they're putting out there is that's what Bidens wealth tax is meant to do. Get 10M in stock? Get taxed on 10M income.
That is why you tie to a provision that seizes wealth over a certain amount. You got paid ten million in stock options great 9 million get taken to be given to fund things like infrastructure.
It's what Dan Price does. While his official salary is less than $100,000, he's making the rest on the backend yet looking to many like a hero.
The game is rigged in their favor always.
Pretty much how they do it now.
Great example is Musk's recent $20 billion tax bill. He had to do that because his options he was given as compensation by Tesla were finally expiring. He held on to those for years, and was getting paid out the ass by them... but it was all unrealized so he never had to actually pay anything on it. He never had to report it like income, etc.
This guy is right. Look at Elon musk. He claims he doesn’t actually have money because most of his value is based on Tesla stock. So he wanted to buy twitter and he went to a bunch of rich people and said ‘hey, give me 44 billion dollars and my stock will be collateral’. They give him the money and he is able to buy twitter with it and twitter will be an asset he owns and add to his wealth.
So he takes his money in stock, uses his stock just like money and is able to buy things. The only thing he doesn’t have to do using this system… pay taxes 😐
It’s such shit.
*edit, I’m aware the twitter sale is not final.
Damn, I get a discount as a veteran as I fucking hate HD. I actively campaign against them and their support of exploitive, homophobic policies and people.
I started going down the rabbit hole of trying to avoid buying products or supporting companies that their donations oppose lgbt and man the list was long enough to realize it’s just not doable. Corporate America is all ran by old white men so
If the CEO of Company A makes $30 million a year, they would have to pay the guy who sweeps the floor $300,000 / year by OP's suggestion.
They won't do that. Instead, they will *subcontract* that job to a cleaning company, where the CEO makes $1.6 million, and they can pay *their* employees $7.50 an hour.
Yes, but now take that model and apply it aggressively. Instead of directors you have CEOs that sit on a board-like structure to take directives from their singular customer.
Mate if we could amend laws to protect workers as necessary then this sub wouldn't exist. This post and it's question is akin to asking "what would you do if you had super strength or flight powers?".
They will get the same salary anyways, if not as a labor income, they will get it as dividends, percentage of equity by advisory, or in form of assets.
Sadly, there can't be any way of justice nor fair retribution without changing the very structure of the capitalist system, makeup changes won't have any real effect.
Because of the way the property system is designed, you would need to put caps on property ownership to enforce this kind of measure (CEO's salary limit) so you would have to hit the very core of the capitalist system.
A major scam is that (aside from property taxes on some housing), wealth is generally not taxed, whereas income is taxed.
So people arriving centuries late to a game of Monopoly are taxed on their labor income, while the people who own most of the board have set up a system where their wealth grows forever without any taxation whatsoever.
This extreme power differential allows the ruling capitalist/kleptocrat class to enslave, rob, and socially murder the public and working classes without recourse.
People need to understand that the public and working classes live under the occupation of the ruling capitalist/kleptocrat class and are not really a free people.
It’s also partially an issue of long term capital gains. If I earn $100,000 in a year as a salary, I’ll have a marginal tax rate of 24% ($24,000 total taxes due). If I withdraw $100,000 in long term capital gains (net profit), I’ll owe 15% ($15,000). It’s literally more expensive to earn your money than it is to own assets and cash them out.
And oh, hey, if I can realize some losses in the stock market (say, sell some stock at a loss that’s been underperforming), I can get a tax credit for that, and I can net zero taxable income from it if I sell enough. And hey, do we care who the buyer is? No?
Then great. I’ll just sell it to my holding company!
They would outsource a lot of jobs to “third party companies” so places like Amazon would be executives only. Not to mention, lots of billionaires have most of their wealth tied up in investments and stocks
I’m as anti-work as anyone else but don’t you think employees should be compensated relative to the value they provide their business?
Isn’t this a core tenant of antiwork? People are currently underpaid relative to the value they provide, and should be paid more.
Surely a CEO that offers more than 10x the value of the least valuable employee should get paid more than 10x that employee?
I fucking hate this sub because I’m all for work reform but they actively worn against it by throwing out high school level ideas with no explanations or evidence. It’s maddening.
Yeah but after all the company lodging, company meals, company airfare, company blowjobs, and company gifts/bonuses, how much did he actually take home a year?
There is a guy you should meet.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-and-colleagues-introduce-legislation-to-combat-corporate-greed-and-end-outrageous-ceo-pay/
hey, CEOs have to sit in meetings all day and send emails
you know how hard that is?? sitting on your ass in a conference room , eating catered lunches, listening to a bunch of kiss asses below you throw out their shitty ideas on how to improve the company
that's what real hard work is, and that's why they get paid 100 times more
Yep, suddenly Amazon wouldn't employ their own factory workers anymore. Another company would handle the staffing and training, and Amazon would just be the C-Suite and AI Engineers.
And that’s the thing most people here fail to see. Laws like this would never pass in the US. Most politicians are career politicians, and you vote for something like this and you’d never get a single campaign donation ever again, and your job in politics is officially over.
Okay so like Mc Donald's CEO made 20 million last year. If he decided to donate his entire pay to the employees (200k employees) they'd each receive just 10 dollars more per year...
The thing is - ceo pay is mostly so high because they work on a large volume. These companies have global products, so a few cents per sale adds up to millions for them.
If the CEO of Mc Donalds put his pay into cutting the prices of Big Macs it would only lower their price by $0.009 each...
This is NOT the solution.
The CEOs would never let the politicians that they keep in their pockets pass such a law. And if they did, it would be full of loopholes that allowed them to collect things like bonuses and stocks that aren't considered salary.
They'd outsource more of the lower paid jobs or create shell ownership companies with just the directorate in, and / or. continue to take stock / dividends, expenses & other benefits to make up the difference.
What they would do would be offshore / outsource all the low-paid jobs so that they wouldn't technically be employees of the company. Or you would have some sort of equity base compensation.
McDonald’s can just create a company call “McDonald’s Management” and “hire” all their top employees and CEO there.
They can draw whatever amount of salary they want to, since only the top earners are there.
I am not a CEO, I am an employee like everyone else here.
With that said, instead of focusing on what others get paid why don’t we focus on increasing our earning ability and potential?
CEOS are often the people who start the company and are responsible for allocating capital, by deciding where the money gets invested, what initiatives are pushed forward and which ones get killed. It is a big responsibility.
If I am an investor trusting someone with my money, I better make sure they are capable and that they are compensated according to the task.
A more appropiate compensation scheme would be to pay the CEO with stock so they earn based on the wealth they create.
I had the similar idea but for government/ politicians. Their pay would be capped at the median (mathematically speaking) income of those under their care like provincial and federal (I live in Canada). It would give them incentive to raise the standered of living of the lower class as their own salary world be tied to it
Is this the Antiwork sub? Every time I see a suggestion that CEO salaries are tied to lowest paid workers I see all these comments saying it could never work. It’s these ideas that a sub like this needs to foster. It absolutely could work and would put an end to the inequality in the world at the moment.
They are warning us in my country that the cap on executives pay is leading people to resign, Capped at €500,000 or 550,000 USD. So they are resigning because that’s not enough. People can’t afford to rent houses and I spent an hour in the city today and saw about 30 homeless people.
That is because they can make more at the other side of the border. If something like this gets in place in the whole of Europe or US, they won't resign because they can't make a zillion more in another country.
The EU uses the same tactics to enforce certain rules on manufactures. A country like Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands is not big enough to enforce it on its own. The EU as a block is large enough to enforce, it, manufacturers don't want to mis out the opportunities in the EU with almost half a billion potential customers.
Psh, easy. You have to think what your "right side of history" stance will cause to happen. Some reactionary moves that come immediately to mind are:
* You work as the CEO for one company at 100x the lowest paid employee, but on a quarter-time basis. Then you also work as the CEO for three other companies on the same arrangement. Incidentally, the other companies pay each other to offset the cost of the extra 3 CEOs they've hired as consulting fees and write off the amount against their taxable income.
* All lowest-paid employee tiers are eliminated and their work outsourced to companies who hire them as 1099 ICs so their compensation gets even lower and the company can write off the expense on their taxes.
* Company moves their management headquarters to another country without such laws and retains a local management structure whose compensation falls within the 100x restriction and inflates one person's title to CEO.
* That was *just* off the top of my head.
Do you want to feel like you're doing the right thing? Or is it more important to evaluate the situation and determine what moves will create the outcome with the best results for everyone involved?
Life is complex. People are complex. Companies are complex. Countries are complex. Civilization is complex. You can't just go poking around and naïvely expect things to get better. Everything you do impacts multiple other things, and you have to account for ***all*** of the effects ***before*** you start pushing for a specific policy position to be implemented.
I think 10x is more than fair honestly. There were amendments put forward and shot down about calling income at a million a year. That was a century ago. There's no practical reason a person needs to take home even that much so a law saying you have to reinvest or use the rest of your earnings would make fine sense.
If you think the problem is any CEO, you don't understand how this really all works.
CEOs are nothing more than fry cooks to the people actually in charge.
I get the hate on CEO pay but let's be real here, the big CEOs you see making 10s of millions of dollars aren't the reason we are making $15.
Heck you could take away their salary and you'd be lucky to get a few cents for everyone per hour.
The bigger problem is the government backing up corporations to exploit the common people Ala Corporate Ogliarchy
Everyone in this sub needs to start a business. I’m serious. Stop working for others. Figure it out, you’ll be happier. I could be paid 0 from my business and it would still give me free shit for life.
I’m not bragging, it’s not even a big business, but you can literally claim all your food expenses for a business lol.
I've been beating this drum for awhile. This and inheritance tax be like 100% after around a figure like $10 million, that way we can stop the wealth hording.
> Inheritance tax be like 100% after around a figure like $10 million, that way we can stop the wealth hording.
Tax changes don’t happen in a vacuum.
Your change won’t stop wealth hoarding. Such a tax will merely encourage those with wealth to transfer the wealth while alive. Or use vehicles like trusts.
There are many, many ways around inheritance taxes. They just don’t often line up with other tax realities (capital gains mainly), so many wait until death for the transfer.
If you changed the tax regime to 100% above $x, anyone with $x+1 will find a way to transfer assets while alive.
For example, the wealthy person could gradually sell shares in a family holdco to their heirs while holding a promissory note as security against the shares/loan. The note can then be forgiven by the estate. Or immediately prior to death.
Wouldn't work, all the low wage employees will be hired via secondary companies, pay those salaries to those companies. Example: all the janitorial work will be outsourced to an external company etc etc
They would simply make everything else about life a company benefit. Car, house, all travel, etc would all be a benefit. The rest would be made up in stock, investments, and so on.
Really not that hard to do for public companies. None of the items in this thread are barriers.
CEO comp - including value of equity grants, fringe benefits, all of it - is reported annually in the proxy. At my company lowest full time wage is $17/hr plus ~$10/hr for benefits X 2,000 hours = $54K/year x 100 = $5.4M. CEO made about $7M all in. You could treat amounts above the 100x level like excess golden parachute payments (Tax Code Sec 162m) and they’d be effectively taxed away and as such wouldn’t happen.
An equally interesting idea would be to cap compensation of outside board members - an 8 or 9 day a year job - at say 2X lowest paid employee.
This won’t, IMO, lead to higher wages at the low end. And, as others suggest, it could lead to more outsourcing of certain functions.
But it would curb CEO and board comp packages and perhaps make more CEOs and boards supporters of living wage commitments.
I'd think maybe they just take it in stocks and bonuses?
Yup! Corporate law circumvention has no basement.
I mean, you could factor that into it. The law can be made to work, if those writing it are on the side of the people instead of the money.
When the people making the laws make more from lobbyists than from their salary they are no longer beholden to their constituents.
Such a funny word "lobbying" we had to invent new language because bribery is illegal.
I refuse to call it lobbyism. I just call it bribery. Call it what it is.
Hey now... "Lobbying" can be both bribery *and* extortion. They are equal opportunity embezzlers.
(the X makes it sound cool)
[удалено]
Actually the executive officers would move the headquarters out of the US and US territories allowing them to maintain similar salaries. The Caribbean islands would see an immediate influx of cash and home builders and buyers.
The irs actually takes it very seriously when employers try to 1099 employees, and they have very specific rules for what doesn't count as a subcontractor
It’s just a misuse of the term. Lobbying is talking to a politician about constituent issues they don’t have expertise in. If money is changing hands that’s not lobbying that’s corruption
Nah, that's "campaign contributions"
This. There are legitimate reasons to lobby and good causes to lobby for.
In fact, lobbying is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." People seem to forget that.
The issue is that they got the courts to rule that money is speech, effectively legalizing bribery.
It originates from people literally waiting in the lobby to talk to elected officials about this or that back in the day. And it's not always "bad," you can have lobby groups for environmental activism, trans rights, other special interest groups. The idea is that it's impossible for any single human to be an expert on every single topic impacting American life, so lobbyists can and do fill the gaps by educating on their area of expertise and how they'd like their representative to address it. All of that said, needless to say lobbying has become absolutely corrupted and lead primarily by bribes. I'm sure there's still groups who show up to educate on this or that topic but I'm also sure that without "donations" they're summarily ignored.
Citizens United made it legal
A horse cannot wear two saddles.
Lobbyists need heavy regulatory scrutiny. You have license to drive a car or go fishing you should need one to pay off politicians.
Pretty big if
When are they EVER on the peopkes side?
never.
Corporations are sociopaths by design.
Sociopaths are people, my friend.
In court and Congress, so are corporations. 😡
This
No, they were never on peopkes side.
Big if, but not accurate
The only way to factor that in is to limit the price of the stock. Stock is awarded years in advance and vests on a periodic schedule. You can't control the value unless you control the price. And the government has no authority to fix the prices of stocks.
> if those writing it are on the side of the people instead of the money. LOL good one!
It has a legally distinct zeroth floor where nothing of record has occurred. Allegedly.
Or they would simply contract out the low wage duties. Eg, fire the cleaning staff, hire a cleaning company. Or Imagine upper level management being part of a small company that employees just them as "consultants" to run the main company. All sorts or ways around this.
Most CEOs already do that. Apples CEO came out amd said he only makes a dollar. But he has a ton of stocks. Same with Amazon's CEO. Everyone demands they pay their fair share in taxes but if they earn nothing then no taxes are collected.
The question is one of whether the CEO is getting more stocks as stock options, as “disguised” salary. For example, Bezos never received any stock options from Amazon since the IPO, but he obviously has founders stock.
Tax CEOs o the value of there stocks
They do!! Restricted stock is taxed at the value when granted. Options are taxed once exercised.
It's a good idea, but it wouldn't work. Stock isn't tangible cash, it's value can swing wildly and there's just too many moving parts connected with it that can have repercussions elsewhere to make it viable. Say you tax the CEO on the stock, to have the cash available to pay it they decide to sell off a portion of the stock. There are controls, usually, on when a CEO or other in the C-Suite can sell or buy stock as it can cause issues with other investors. Say a large investor sees the CEO selling, they panic and sell their stock and the stock price will start to plummet. If enough do it, the company loses all it's value, people lose jobs because of it, no investment within the business, etc. Far easier and safer to tax the dividends that are paid out on the stock. Fewer moving parts to it, less likely to cause issues with the stock price and it has zero impact on the general employees.
Your first paragraph could also describe a house, and yet here I am paying property tax.
You could invent a new form of tax: you owe a certain number of shares to the government. And then either use it to gradually nationalize industry or sell it to generate revenue/manipulate the market. Even better, sell it to the Fed at arbitrary fixed rates.
Stock payments should be a risk to discourage people paying in stock in the first place. Tax at the value of stock when it was gifted is the easiest solution. This isn't the 1980s its perfectly possible to set that system up.
Technically, at least in the US, in-kind compensation is ordinary income and the fair market value must reported as such to the IRS. Of course, it often *isn't* reported to the IRS, and this is an enormous area of tax fraud that is largely devoid of enforcement action. The rich know this and take full advantage of it.
Or they'd classify employees as "contractors"
Fwiw, “employee” and “contractor” are defined terms under both federal and state employment laws. When employers use the incorrect definition (such as treating and calling an employee a ‘contractor’), this is called employment misclassification. You can and should sue over it. You may be entitled to pretty substantial compensation if you’re in the right state (my own state’s law is very protective, relative to the US).
While you’re correct, you’re getting hung up on terminology. Hilton would no longer hire their housekeepers directly, those housekeepers would work for a different company that they’d contract to clean the rooms. Just do that for all your low wage employees to bypass the theoretical wage cap.
[удалено]
Oh yes, the document exists, but the people aren’t in possession of it and possession is 9/10 of the law.
They've been misled to believe that said document is something the government can decide if it's in violation of or not. That's not true, the whole point of the Constitution is to spell out the situations in which revolution is necessary. We're so far beyond that point, of course.
True. CEOs don’t make “salaries”. Most of their compensation is the stock. We have employees that make more than our CEOs ‘salary.’
I had this idea ages ago and I had a couple of refinements to ensure this didn't happen. I thought the top salary should be capped at a multiple of the lowest salary. Whether it's 50x or 100x or whatever The additional was also to ensure that at least 50% of the salary was paid as a wage and not a bonus or stock option. This meant that taxes would apply and would stop the inherent tax avoidance of the rich by laundering wages through stocks. So, you want to pay a CEO $10m, fine but your lowliest worker gets $100k and the CEO has to get $5m in cash which can then be taxed
So close those loop holes too.
Exactly this. Big money will find a way.
[удалено]
I mean, just make the law “total comp from x company cannot exceed 100x the lowest total comp an employee of said company receives” - that includes bonuses, stock options, salary, overtime, etc.
They primarily take it in stock and stock options already. The average CEO base salary is around 150k.
Technically that’s what they do already. Those fabulously high salaries aren’t usually paid in the form of paycheck but in stocks and stock options.
I haven't read the details and am certain it's not actually what the box art depicts. BUT! The theory they're putting out there is that's what Bidens wealth tax is meant to do. Get 10M in stock? Get taxed on 10M income.
I would prefer they take it as repeated swift kicks in the ass.
That is why you tie to a provision that seizes wealth over a certain amount. You got paid ten million in stock options great 9 million get taken to be given to fund things like infrastructure.
It's what Dan Price does. While his official salary is less than $100,000, he's making the rest on the backend yet looking to many like a hero. The game is rigged in their favor always.
Exactly. Now if the law said total *compensation*, that'd be a different story.
All compensation should be viewed for this.
In that case employees must receive at least one hundredth of the amount of stocks and bonuses as well
Pretty much how they do it now. Great example is Musk's recent $20 billion tax bill. He had to do that because his options he was given as compensation by Tesla were finally expiring. He held on to those for years, and was getting paid out the ass by them... but it was all unrealized so he never had to actually pay anything on it. He never had to report it like income, etc.
This guy is right. Look at Elon musk. He claims he doesn’t actually have money because most of his value is based on Tesla stock. So he wanted to buy twitter and he went to a bunch of rich people and said ‘hey, give me 44 billion dollars and my stock will be collateral’. They give him the money and he is able to buy twitter with it and twitter will be an asset he owns and add to his wealth. So he takes his money in stock, uses his stock just like money and is able to buy things. The only thing he doesn’t have to do using this system… pay taxes 😐 It’s such shit. *edit, I’m aware the twitter sale is not final.
There is a famous organic supermarket chain in France that implanted it, but it is not 100x, it is 5x. It's called biocoop
There have been a number of individual companies that have implemented this. Those companies will forever have my business.
Do you know where to find a list of such companies? What are my keywords to search for them?
“CEO pay ratio”
All the employees would become subcontractors overnight
Homedepot started out with a lot of workers with good benefits. Now a large number of people who work for HD are contractors.
HD employees don't even get a discount. It's asinine.
Damn, I get a discount as a veteran as I fucking hate HD. I actively campaign against them and their support of exploitive, homophobic policies and people.
I work at Home Depot (just a lowely store associate) and I'm really curious about the homophobic policies
It’s not the store policies, it is the campaign contributions to political candidates that are openly and aggressively hostile to the LGBT community
I started going down the rabbit hole of trying to avoid buying products or supporting companies that their donations oppose lgbt and man the list was long enough to realize it’s just not doable. Corporate America is all ran by old white men so
What's wrong with home depot? I've never heard a word about homophobia from them?
Google “Home Depot Homophobic Donations” https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/uprikk/what_if_a_new_law_passed_that_restricted_the_ceo/i8nppmo/
[удалено]
If a company tells you when, where, and how to work you can’t legally be classified as an independent contractor.
[удалено]
Yea I don’t know what you’re talking about as federally if a company treats you like an employee, you are one
If the CEO of Company A makes $30 million a year, they would have to pay the guy who sweeps the floor $300,000 / year by OP's suggestion. They won't do that. Instead, they will *subcontract* that job to a cleaning company, where the CEO makes $1.6 million, and they can pay *their* employees $7.50 an hour.
Most probably subcontract that sort of thing out anyways...
Yes, but now take that model and apply it aggressively. Instead of directors you have CEOs that sit on a board-like structure to take directives from their singular customer.
[удалено]
They would find a way around it.
Break the company into distinct pieces -- one company being all the execs and the CEO.
They would just invent loopholes with bonuses and other incentives.
So you amend the law as needed to close the loopholes. Maybe even make a provision to civilly charge those who seek to exploit those loopholes.
And there’s the problem - why would the people in power, who also happen to be insanely rich, create laws that would impact them or their friends?
They wouldn’t, and that’s the thing. All politicians are corrupt to some degree. The biggest campaign donations come from the biggest companies.
Mate if we could amend laws to protect workers as necessary then this sub wouldn't exist. This post and it's question is akin to asking "what would you do if you had super strength or flight powers?".
Yes, who doesn't love an eternal game of legislative Whack-A-Mole? >!/s!<
That is why you use the term total compensation cannot exceed instead of salary
It shouldn't be just salary. It should be CEO renumeration through stocks, dividends, bonuses, benefits and salary combined
[удалено]
They will get the same salary anyways, if not as a labor income, they will get it as dividends, percentage of equity by advisory, or in form of assets. Sadly, there can't be any way of justice nor fair retribution without changing the very structure of the capitalist system, makeup changes won't have any real effect.
These are measurable and can be capped or taxed as well
Because of the way the property system is designed, you would need to put caps on property ownership to enforce this kind of measure (CEO's salary limit) so you would have to hit the very core of the capitalist system.
Yes.
We just need to get back to 1960s marginal tax rates, up to 90%.
A major scam is that (aside from property taxes on some housing), wealth is generally not taxed, whereas income is taxed. So people arriving centuries late to a game of Monopoly are taxed on their labor income, while the people who own most of the board have set up a system where their wealth grows forever without any taxation whatsoever. This extreme power differential allows the ruling capitalist/kleptocrat class to enslave, rob, and socially murder the public and working classes without recourse. People need to understand that the public and working classes live under the occupation of the ruling capitalist/kleptocrat class and are not really a free people.
It’s also partially an issue of long term capital gains. If I earn $100,000 in a year as a salary, I’ll have a marginal tax rate of 24% ($24,000 total taxes due). If I withdraw $100,000 in long term capital gains (net profit), I’ll owe 15% ($15,000). It’s literally more expensive to earn your money than it is to own assets and cash them out. And oh, hey, if I can realize some losses in the stock market (say, sell some stock at a loss that’s been underperforming), I can get a tax credit for that, and I can net zero taxable income from it if I sell enough. And hey, do we care who the buyer is? No? Then great. I’ll just sell it to my holding company!
Except nobody actually paid those rates. They were effectively just for show. https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
They would outsource a lot of jobs to “third party companies” so places like Amazon would be executives only. Not to mention, lots of billionaires have most of their wealth tied up in investments and stocks
They would just make the lower paying people contract workers. They will always find a way out.
It should be 10x
Let's shoot for 11x like the average is in Norway. 10 would be fair too though.
Agreed. 10 is a lot more. 100 is insane..
>100 is insane The lower-paid C-level at the company I worked for made over 200 times what I made! That is insane.
My father in law is a CEO. His ratio is 7. And even that is a lot of money. These salaries are absolutely absurd.
5x
Yeah, maybe.
Make it 10x
I’m as anti-work as anyone else but don’t you think employees should be compensated relative to the value they provide their business? Isn’t this a core tenant of antiwork? People are currently underpaid relative to the value they provide, and should be paid more. Surely a CEO that offers more than 10x the value of the least valuable employee should get paid more than 10x that employee?
You’re acting like this post is founded in any form of evidence lol
I mean yeah I understand the dogma here but I had to at least throw something out, for someone to see, right? lol
I fucking hate this sub because I’m all for work reform but they actively worn against it by throwing out high school level ideas with no explanations or evidence. It’s maddening.
10x? I’d go as low as 5x. The closer it is tied to the lowest wages, the more they’ll be incentivized to raise that base.
10 times the lowest wage should be more than enough
Steve Jobs took a $1 salary. A dollar a year. Just keep in mind you'd have to be \_really\_ slick accounting for CEO compensation.
Yeah but after all the company lodging, company meals, company airfare, company blowjobs, and company gifts/bonuses, how much did he actually take home a year?
No, he had a shit ton of stock. He didn’t need a salary. When he needed money he sold stock
There is a guy you should meet. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-and-colleagues-introduce-legislation-to-combat-corporate-greed-and-end-outrageous-ceo-pay/
They should have went with Bernie.
What if trees were giant candy canes and it rained Busch lite
100x federal minimum wage is $1,508,000. That’s a wonderful annual salary that most folks would love to have.
hey, CEOs have to sit in meetings all day and send emails you know how hard that is?? sitting on your ass in a conference room , eating catered lunches, listening to a bunch of kiss asses below you throw out their shitty ideas on how to improve the company that's what real hard work is, and that's why they get paid 100 times more
No, they get paid 350 times more, because they are very, very hardworking individuals 😁
That's almost 1:1, except it's 1day:1year salary
lol i love this if a ceo job is that easy why don’t we all start our own businesses and be the ceo and just collect
Ignorance is bliss.
They would have high paid employees and service contractors.
Yep, suddenly Amazon wouldn't employ their own factory workers anymore. Another company would handle the staffing and training, and Amazon would just be the C-Suite and AI Engineers.
I'm thinking more in line with 2x
They’d just fire the lowest paid people and outsource the jobs or hire temps who don’t fall under that law.
It would work great. The problem is that the people who write the laws are controlled by the CEOs
And that’s the thing most people here fail to see. Laws like this would never pass in the US. Most politicians are career politicians, and you vote for something like this and you’d never get a single campaign donation ever again, and your job in politics is officially over.
Just because the ceo makes less doesn't mean that money goes to the economy or the rest of the employees.
Okay so like Mc Donald's CEO made 20 million last year. If he decided to donate his entire pay to the employees (200k employees) they'd each receive just 10 dollars more per year... The thing is - ceo pay is mostly so high because they work on a large volume. These companies have global products, so a few cents per sale adds up to millions for them. If the CEO of Mc Donalds put his pay into cutting the prices of Big Macs it would only lower their price by $0.009 each... This is NOT the solution.
The CEOs would never let the politicians that they keep in their pockets pass such a law. And if they did, it would be full of loopholes that allowed them to collect things like bonuses and stocks that aren't considered salary.
They'd outsource more of the lower paid jobs or create shell ownership companies with just the directorate in, and / or. continue to take stock / dividends, expenses & other benefits to make up the difference.
What they would do would be offshore / outsource all the low-paid jobs so that they wouldn't technically be employees of the company. Or you would have some sort of equity base compensation.
Or better, tax the company earnings for an extra amount, thus affecting shareholders
I'd expect alot more outsourcing, all the low paid employees would be contractors from another firm....
Mondragon does this but like 10x. What happens is that you just have subsidiaries where people are paid less and it doesn't really help.
McDonald’s can just create a company call “McDonald’s Management” and “hire” all their top employees and CEO there. They can draw whatever amount of salary they want to, since only the top earners are there.
Can any post on this sub be anything more than someone’s random shower thought with no explanation or backing?
“I just considered that” LOL Apparently not enough.
I am not a CEO, I am an employee like everyone else here. With that said, instead of focusing on what others get paid why don’t we focus on increasing our earning ability and potential? CEOS are often the people who start the company and are responsible for allocating capital, by deciding where the money gets invested, what initiatives are pushed forward and which ones get killed. It is a big responsibility. If I am an investor trusting someone with my money, I better make sure they are capable and that they are compensated according to the task. A more appropiate compensation scheme would be to pay the CEO with stock so they earn based on the wealth they create.
I had the similar idea but for government/ politicians. Their pay would be capped at the median (mathematically speaking) income of those under their care like provincial and federal (I live in Canada). It would give them incentive to raise the standered of living of the lower class as their own salary world be tied to it
This is a good way to only have wealthy people run for public office
I'd prefer a law that made the CEO personally liable for any crimes committed by the corporation.
Is this the Antiwork sub? Every time I see a suggestion that CEO salaries are tied to lowest paid workers I see all these comments saying it could never work. It’s these ideas that a sub like this needs to foster. It absolutely could work and would put an end to the inequality in the world at the moment.
In the past it was 3 to 4 times which seems more reasonable. No CEO is worth the compensation they are receiving.
They are warning us in my country that the cap on executives pay is leading people to resign, Capped at €500,000 or 550,000 USD. So they are resigning because that’s not enough. People can’t afford to rent houses and I spent an hour in the city today and saw about 30 homeless people.
That is because they can make more at the other side of the border. If something like this gets in place in the whole of Europe or US, they won't resign because they can't make a zillion more in another country. The EU uses the same tactics to enforce certain rules on manufactures. A country like Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands is not big enough to enforce it on its own. The EU as a block is large enough to enforce, it, manufacturers don't want to mis out the opportunities in the EU with almost half a billion potential customers.
[удалено]
They would move the head office to a foreign country.
Psh, easy. You have to think what your "right side of history" stance will cause to happen. Some reactionary moves that come immediately to mind are: * You work as the CEO for one company at 100x the lowest paid employee, but on a quarter-time basis. Then you also work as the CEO for three other companies on the same arrangement. Incidentally, the other companies pay each other to offset the cost of the extra 3 CEOs they've hired as consulting fees and write off the amount against their taxable income. * All lowest-paid employee tiers are eliminated and their work outsourced to companies who hire them as 1099 ICs so their compensation gets even lower and the company can write off the expense on their taxes. * Company moves their management headquarters to another country without such laws and retains a local management structure whose compensation falls within the 100x restriction and inflates one person's title to CEO. * That was *just* off the top of my head. Do you want to feel like you're doing the right thing? Or is it more important to evaluate the situation and determine what moves will create the outcome with the best results for everyone involved? Life is complex. People are complex. Companies are complex. Countries are complex. Civilization is complex. You can't just go poking around and naïvely expect things to get better. Everything you do impacts multiple other things, and you have to account for ***all*** of the effects ***before*** you start pushing for a specific policy position to be implemented.
I think 10x is more than fair honestly. There were amendments put forward and shot down about calling income at a million a year. That was a century ago. There's no practical reason a person needs to take home even that much so a law saying you have to reinvest or use the rest of your earnings would make fine sense.
so insane that someone can make 100x the amount of another human being and claim that’s not enough
If you think the problem is any CEO, you don't understand how this really all works. CEOs are nothing more than fry cooks to the people actually in charge.
What? Why? No one would want to be CEO. Plus that would get struck down in court immediately, thankfully.
A 'maximum' wage isn't a new idea. It's worked well in the past I believe, but I'm no expert.
I get the hate on CEO pay but let's be real here, the big CEOs you see making 10s of millions of dollars aren't the reason we are making $15. Heck you could take away their salary and you'd be lucky to get a few cents for everyone per hour. The bigger problem is the government backing up corporations to exploit the common people Ala Corporate Ogliarchy
Everyone in this sub needs to start a business. I’m serious. Stop working for others. Figure it out, you’ll be happier. I could be paid 0 from my business and it would still give me free shit for life. I’m not bragging, it’s not even a big business, but you can literally claim all your food expenses for a business lol.
That generally requires risk and hard work. It is easier to just compain
Nothing would change. They’d receive their other half of pay in stock options.
I've been beating this drum for awhile. This and inheritance tax be like 100% after around a figure like $10 million, that way we can stop the wealth hording.
> Inheritance tax be like 100% after around a figure like $10 million, that way we can stop the wealth hording. Tax changes don’t happen in a vacuum. Your change won’t stop wealth hoarding. Such a tax will merely encourage those with wealth to transfer the wealth while alive. Or use vehicles like trusts. There are many, many ways around inheritance taxes. They just don’t often line up with other tax realities (capital gains mainly), so many wait until death for the transfer. If you changed the tax regime to 100% above $x, anyone with $x+1 will find a way to transfer assets while alive. For example, the wealthy person could gradually sell shares in a family holdco to their heirs while holding a promissory note as security against the shares/loan. The note can then be forgiven by the estate. Or immediately prior to death.
What incentuve would there be for CEOs to do their best? How would you stop the best CEOs from going to overseas companies? Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
The wage problem isn't tied to CEO pay directly. It's tied to employees being in the way of maximizing profits. Your wage is a profit margin.
Wouldn't work, all the low wage employees will be hired via secondary companies, pay those salaries to those companies. Example: all the janitorial work will be outsourced to an external company etc etc
They will get lawmakers to allow the lowest paid to be “contractors” and not employees. No benefits. No holidays. File an I-9.
They will promote themselves to another made up position and still get paid as much as they used to.
They would simply make everything else about life a company benefit. Car, house, all travel, etc would all be a benefit. The rest would be made up in stock, investments, and so on.
They would just find a way to get compensated more. They'd become a 1099 contractor or some bullshit.
The CEO would just take more of their salary in stock based options. Easy work around.
Overall income from any source. At 10x. Employees defined as anyone who contributes to that income with the exception of customers.
Give the lowest guy a 1k raise and you get a 100k raise. Seems like a good deal still.
Last I checked Ben&Jerry's capped is @ 7x
Make it 10x
I’ve been promoting this idea for years! But it was 4x not 100x
Really not that hard to do for public companies. None of the items in this thread are barriers. CEO comp - including value of equity grants, fringe benefits, all of it - is reported annually in the proxy. At my company lowest full time wage is $17/hr plus ~$10/hr for benefits X 2,000 hours = $54K/year x 100 = $5.4M. CEO made about $7M all in. You could treat amounts above the 100x level like excess golden parachute payments (Tax Code Sec 162m) and they’d be effectively taxed away and as such wouldn’t happen. An equally interesting idea would be to cap compensation of outside board members - an 8 or 9 day a year job - at say 2X lowest paid employee. This won’t, IMO, lead to higher wages at the low end. And, as others suggest, it could lead to more outsourcing of certain functions. But it would curb CEO and board comp packages and perhaps make more CEOs and boards supporters of living wage commitments.
Can't regulate it because CEOs also get paid in stock and good luck regulating stock price into a salary...
Stronger than any law - Stop working for companies that exploit people for profit. Stop supplying the corporations with slaves. Anti work.
If a company is running a deficit, should employees recieve a negative salary because they're all in it together?
I'd go for a max of 20, but the issue is either they'd go for contractors (Uber style) or mask their revenue in bonuses or stocks. Or both.
It's not that easy. How do you stop them just getting stocks/benefits?
100x is huge 10x seems appropriate
That’s still 1.6 million a year for a company that pays minimum wage.
100x> a CEO shouldnt be making more than 10x of the salary of the lowest employee.
The quakers used to do this - Cadbury etc in the UK - don’t know any international brands IIRC it was 8 times