We already have a minimum wage. What we also need is a maximum wage.

[SheilaT]

I can think of several ways to do it. Perhaps an absolute dollar amount, say $100/hour. Or that the best paid person on a company cannot earn more than some multiple of the lowest paid. All bonuses are paid to all workers, at some kind of proportional rate. And so on.

Considering that too many conservatives think that the current minimum wage is too high as it is, (and of course none of them have ever tried living on minimum, I'm sure) you'd think they'd all be quite gung-ho for a maximum wage.

[MH1]

1. I like the "multiple of the lowest paid" idea

but really, having a very high rate at the top income tax bracket would achieve almost the same thing, assuming the taxes are turned around into infrastructure (jobs) and social services.

[cpamomfromtexas]

9. You are correct in your thoughts.

[cali]

2. impossible to legislate.

[abumbyanyothername]

25. We used to have something similar

With confiscatory top tax rates.

Taking the top brackets down from 75%+ really f'd up society. IMO.

It turned us from a community into a dog eat dog battlefield.

[cali]

29. not the same thing. proposing a tax on such things as an hourly wage is

not even close to the same thing as confiscatory tax rates.

[dipsydoodle]

3. In a lot of instances

you could find that those you are targeting would find alternative ways of paying themselves / being paid by way of interest on amounts unpaid, dividends , whatever.

[gopiscrap]

4. I disagree

not only should we have a max wage, but we should have a much higher min wage say 18.00 per hour would be more fair and max wage 360K per year

[dkf]

5. So how much does a recording artist make if it took 3 hours to record a song?

[bluestateguy]

6. Misguided

Just restore Clinton era tax rates on incomes from 250,000-1,000,000. Raise the top marginal rate to 50% for incomes above that. Lift the earnings cap on Social Security taxes.

Restore Glass-Steagall, impose a small tax on stock transactions, raise the minimum wage by $3 and hour and tie it permanently to inflation.

A maximum wage will not work because it will encourage a black market of millionaires and billionaires making secret under the table money, most of which will go into overseas accounts. And then the feds will have to play cat and mouse to hunt it all down.

[pinto]

7. Disagree. I'll go for a liveable minimum wage in real, current terms.

Would raise many a family's standard of living. That's basic and needed.

Would stimulate the economy, overall. An overlooked secondary benefit.

Would support health and nutrition among minimum wage families. Basic and an overlooked benefit.

Would afford some families to do more family stuff, beyond juggling a number of low wage jobs. Basic with a long term benefit to the country.

Would free up some time for more participation in public / social involvement. Much needed in our political / social climate.

[Cleita]

8. I couldn't agree with you more.

So does radio host Thom Hartmann. He has suggested in the past that once a person reaches a billion in assets, then he shouldn't have anymore. Any excess of that should be taxed 100% with no tax loopholes. Five or six members of the Walton family should not possess 40% of the assets of this country.

[cali]

11. could you post links to your claim about the Walton family?

[tammywammy]

12. Here's one

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/

[cali]

14. you got confused. that doesn't back up your claim

I understand why you did though, and that it's obscene that so few people control that much wealth.

[tammywammy]

15. Not my claim, just pointing out where it came from.

It's easy to see how people confuse wealth vs assets.

[Cleita]

18. Bernie is your senator.

You can call his office and ask what his sources are. From what I have seen he does use some solid sources for his facts and stats.

[cali]

20. you are misquoting what Bernie said.

there's this HUGE frickin' difference between what you claim and what bernie claims. You claim that these members of the Walton family control 40% of the wealth in this country, that is most decidedly NOT what Bernie claims. He claims that they control as much wealth as the bottom 40% in this country. Surely you now see the difference?

[Cleita]

22. If I am, then call his office and find out what he means?

He's your senator, not mine. Then you can post and gloat.

[cali]

26. I don't have to call his office

You said in your post that these members of the Walton family control 40% of the wealth in this country. Bernie said they controlled as much wealth as the bottom 40% of the population.

[Cleita]

27. Forbes says it's 30% of net assets, meaning gross assets are much, much higher.

They still own 48% of Wal-Mart, WORLDWIDE? But since you don't have to call Bernie to get what he really means, I don't have to give you a link to that.

[cali]

28. here's the link. this is getting rather sad.

Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-//

Do you truly not grasp the difference between your claim that these Walton family members control 40% of the wealth in this country, and Bernie's statement that these people own more wealth than the bottom 40%? Do you not get that the two statements are FAR from synonymous?

This isn't some arcane concept in high finance.

[Cleita]

31. Apparently, if I don't grasp it to your satisfaction, you are going to grind this into

hell until the cows come home. So 40% of people own the same as another 6 people own? Since, you are soooo good at high finance put up the figures actual figures in dollars.

[cali]

32. yes. that's it. I apologize for grinding at it

but I know you're a smart person and I was frustrated by your not getting the difference. and yes, the difference is huge.

I put up the figures in another post.

And by the way, I suck at economics and high finance, but I do possess common sense and that's what this was about.

[Cleita]

13. Bernie Sanders, your senator, talks about it all the time.

I'm sure he has something on his website. Since I heard him on Thom Hartmann's show talking about it, I don't have a link to that, but here's something:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/

There aren't that many Waltons, only five or six. I can't remember the exact number.

[cali]

21. yes, he does. He talks ACCURATELY about it.

You are not emulating him.

[Cleita]

24. Call him up and get the straight poop from him and post it.

Since you are a know-it-all, then you can gloat all about it instead of picking a fight with me.

[madville]

16. No way

The Walton family combined is worth about 100 billion, that would run the federal government for about two weeks. Hardly 40% of the assets in this country, not even 1%.

We are so far in the hole now, I doubt we will climb out. The liabilities and debt are just too large to recover from and will continue increasing. We could seize everything from the wealthy and it wouldn't make much of a dent plus the government would spend us right back into a hole anyway.

I really fear our current economic system is unsustainable and I haven't seen any politicians on either side that would be capable of correcting it.

[Cleita]

17. Where are your sources for that claim?

If they are from some RWing think tank like the Heritage Foundation they won't be accepted on this message board as factual.

[cali]

30. it's just common sense. but here:

Total revenue $2.381 trillion (requested)
$2.165 trillion (enacted)[1]
Total expenditures $3.552 trillion (requested)
$3.721 trillion (enacted)[1]
Deficit $1.171 trillion (requested)
$1.267 trillion (enacted)[1]
Debt $14.078 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Collectively, the Waltons control over 48% of the company, and are worth a combined total of $102.7 billion (as of 2012).[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family

[Cleita]

33. Revenue has nothing to do with this. Assets are what is in question.

I mean these are assets, not revenue, a different horse. So that means the other sixty percent have 300 billion to divvy up among them of which the Waltons get 102 billion? I doubt it. That's really not a whole lot of assets for a country of our supposed wealth.

[cali]

23. the poster misquoted Bernie

What he said was that these members of the Walton family control as much or more wealth than do the bottom 40% of the population.

[pampango]

10. I don't want there to be a maximum wage as long as the rich person pays 70%-90% of each extra dollar

in taxes to fund a progressive government. (If that high tax bracket discourages some rich from working, then I guess it would effectively be a maximum wage.)

Progressive countries like Sweden and Germany don't have a maximum wage but they have high and progressive taxes that fund a generous safety net and level of public services.

[Cleita]

19. That kind of works the same way, however, any one person owning more

than a billion in assets should be outlawed.

[hughee99]

34. The repukes always complain about the high taxes because

they don't realize that ALL money belongs to the government. Whatever you have after taxes is what the government decides to let you keep, and as such, they are completely justified in taking whatever they choose to in taxes, not because the government needs it, or even because it's "your fair share" but simply because someone has arbitrarily decide you have too much.

[Prophet 451]

35. I've been proposing a maximum wage for CEOs for years

What I proposed was that a CEO could not be paid more than fifty times the wage of the company's lowest paid workers. That encourages the raising of all wages and channels more money to the people who actually own the company, the stockholders. Obviously, that wouldn't work for every industry (for example, authors and musicians get paid on royalties) but it's a basic starting point. In addition to that, the minimum wage needs to go up.