There are Minimum Wages, Why Not a Maximum Wage?

Is it because the people that we need to worry about don't get paid massive wages? Instead they leverage their massive stock ownership as collateral for loans. And stock bonuses are not regulated or taxed in the same way as real wages.
- I'd be fully supportive of a "maximum wealth" limit.
  
  What we need to do is implement "prestige wealth". Once you hit, say, 100m you get your assets sold in order to fund a UBI, but you get a nice pin that marks your achievement.
  Every time you prestige, you get a new pin, but the color of the pin changes.
  
  Yeah, we can also make it fun. Once someone has amassed a certain quantity of wealth, make a big ceremony, where the guy is given a trophy that says "I won capitalism". After that, every dollar he makes past the limit is taxed 100%
  
  How does that work though? Let’s say the maximum wealth limit is one billion dollars and you own $750M of stock in the company you founded. Your wealth could go above and below that $1B limit multiple times in a day as the stock price goes up and down. What happens then?
  
  Absolutely, even at something like 100 * min wage. Still a hell of a lot less than what's happening today.
- They borrow against their stocks tax free. The system they have created is perverse and should be illegal.

Because making 400k/yr by sitting on a pile of assets and living a low-cost life in a paid-off small-town cottage is not the same as making 400k/yr as a debt-saddled surgeon renting in a high-cost city center, so targeting income instead of wealth gets us farther from a fairer economy.
Next question.
- Next question, why did you immediately go to 400k? Why not 1 million? If you make a million dollars then you've made half the average lifetime earnings of a worker. Double question, if we capped earnings at 400k, would school lenders not take that into account?
  I think a maximum yearly income, including any money you could conceivably spend for personal use, would be a wonderful idea. It would certainly put a damper on being a billionaire if you know you could never actually get more than about a hundred million dollars in your life. Just literally running the score up at that point.
- Ok sure, but if you frame the conversation to mean the limit would be set at $400k/year then you're missing the point. We're talking billionaires not single digit millionaires. Despite how those numbers sound to the average person there's several orders of magnitude between them.
  
  i couldnt read the article (paywall) but is that applicable when billionaires often get paid significantly less than $400k/yr?
- Lets put that maximum at $10M/month (or year). Now your counter argument doesn't work any more.
  
  The people who make that kind of money don't make it through wages but other compensation.
  
  I think we should be setting these max/min wages as relative values, not absolute values. Otherwise we have to pass laws every time the min wage needs to be adjusted. And we'll end up with stagnation.
  For example, a person's wage can only be X% higher than the lowest wage of someone a step below them in hierarchy. Including contractors and suppliers so they can't skirt or find loopholes.
  There still might be some haywire incentives that require more thought, but it should hopefully encourage labor to be valued at an appropriate proportion of value. Either everyone makes good money, or nobody does.
  Should also probably deincentivize layoffs, stock buybacks, etc. at the cost of shareholder earnings / value.
  
  but then businesses couldn't run properly right? idk for sure but I feel like smaller businesses would be paid to a person and distrubuted to the company

Just tax any income above $10,000,000 per year at 90%. There really isn’t a need for more than that.
- Billionaires have very little taxable income. We need a wealth tax.
  
  Billionaires don't have taxable income because they've successfully lobbied for carve outs that exempt them from taxation.
  That's what makes a wealth tax impractical. How do you pass it through a Congress that's been wholely co-opted by a billionaire friendly caucus?
  Chuck Schumer, the senior senator from Wall Street, isn't going to author a wealth tax. Kamala Harris, the former Senator from Silicon Valley isn't going to sign it. And the SCOTUS majority that's on the Harlan Crow payroll isn't going to uphold it.
  
  Many also don't truly "pay" for things. They leverage debt against their assets, essentially like a fancy credit card that says "I own MegaCorp, you know I'm good for it, just send the bills to this wealth management firm".
  So it's not out of the realms of possibility to say that a billionaire is actually spending very little money, ever. What they have is essentially gifts from whoever manages their assets, and that company just skims whatever things "cost".
  IMO taxing wealth is what's needed, but it needs to be framed in a way that makes a billionaire want to invest in their country through high taxes. Make it a privilege that is praised, and ostracise those business that excuse themselves from contributing.
  
  All countries would need to adopt it because now they can just register their company and summer resort under various identities in [insert tax haven here].
  
  1% tax on all registered securities, payable in shares of those securities. First $10,000,000 owned by a natural person is exempted.
  All securities collected in tax are resold by IRS liquidators in small lots over time, constituting no more than 1% of total traded volume of each security.
- That wouldn't catch the people who are the real problem, billionaires, who report something like $1 per year in income.
  When you have billions in shares, you can use that as collateral to borrow money from the bank, and then you just spend that money. That's not "income" so it isn't taxed.
  What's needed is a 90% tax on people reporting high incomes as a start. But, then you need to close loopholes. The carried interest loophole for a start, which would nail most of the hedge fund crowd. Then, tax unrealized gains when they're in the tens of millions range. Then prevent billionaires from handing billions to their children tax free by preventing the "stepping up" of capital gains for their heirs.
  
  If I have $250k in shares I can also use that as collateral for a mortgage to buy a house. It would be pretty odd and problematic to be taxed on that like it's income when it's not, despite me spending it on a house..because I need to pay it back.
  I agree with the rest though. And definitely would love to see 90% for anyone reporting extremely high incomes.

I've often said we don't need billionaires. That when one reaches that milestone anything above $999,999,999 should be taken as taxes from that person.
When I say this people often become defensive saying that the government shouldn't be able to dictate how much wealth one person can accumulate. (It also happens that many of these people are prolife but that's neither here nor there.) Often times comparing this action to communism which of course it isn't.
The issue of course is that many people don't understand what a billion of anything is. The human brain can't comprehend such massive numbers. But nevertheless, there are people that are approaching the trillion dollar mark a number even further removed from a billion by several magnitudes.
Should there be billionaires. Probably not... What do you think?
- I was thinking about this the other day, one of my favorite analogies is seconds.
  A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is ............ 31,688 years.
  The analogy already breaks down, because while most people could understand 12 days and a lot of adults can understand 31 years for having lived it (some even twice or more!), 31,688 years is completely incomprehensible again. How many human generations is that? All of recorded human history is only like 5,000 years. It's utterly, mind-numbingly insane. No trillionaires, ever! No billionaires!!!
  https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/business/elon-musk-richest-person-trillionaire/index.html
  This was published on September 17th of this year, after most of the nonsense of Twitter and utter things. He's still on track, by 2027 no less. There's no telling how directly and flagrantly he'll benefit from a Trump win, either.
  
  My favorite is "do you know the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? About a billion dollars"
  Like, being a millionaire is a pretty sweet spot to be in if you're lucky enough. Not quite like a millionaire of decades ago but still good. But if you're a billionaire, a million dollars is basically a rounding error.
  
  I think the best way I've seen to illustrate it is the stories of immortals earning incredible amounts of money every day who still can't reach the wealth of Elon Musk.
  Like, you're an immortal born during the ice age 80,000 years ago. You are somehow making $5000 per day (or its equivalent in gold for the 79,700 years before dollars are invented, and you save all of it. You're not as rich as Elon Musk.
  
  Use milliseconds instead: a million milliseconds is 17 minutes, a billion milliseconds is 12 days, a trillion is 31 years.
- I think all the talk about billionaires is using a completely arbitrary number and subject to inflation. Wealth inequality is the big problem, it doesn't matter what number on their bank account is.
- people often become defensive saying that the government shouldn’t be able to dictate how much wealth one person can accumulate
  Of course it should. If we're expecting to live in a democracy, then people need to have equal voices. If you're a billionaire you have a megaphone, as Elon Musk has shown. Democracy can't work if some people have far more power than others.
- The problem is that they have enough independence to just cross borders and easily pay for new citizenship if it suits them. It would have to be a world wide movement. It's impossible, or at least would only be possible within some mythical completely self-sufficient country that could withstand their meddling.
  
  My solution:
  Your tax burden is your tax burden. If it's 15% and you run off to a country where it's 5% to avoid taxes, that's fine. You can pay them 5%.
  But you're still on the hook for the remaining 10%.
  If the 5% country tries to act as a tax haven and refuses to enforce the remaining 10%, they get a national embargo until they get in line.
  
  The US has exit taxes, as do many countries. If you try to renounce your US citizenship, you can be taxed based on the value of unsold assets.
  I hate that the US is one of the few countries in the world that has citizenship-based taxation. It's awful and stupid. But, in theory, it does mean that an American couldn't just avoid taxes by moving to another country.
- There really isn't much difference in lifestyles between billionaires and people with 100 mil. No one needs that much money. Anyone who has made more than 100 million has done something truly heinous to do so. I feel we should set our sights at a much lower tax bracket to cut down any potential antisocial oligarchs.
- Show them the money visualizer website https://alteredqualia.com/xg/examples/money.html#s[orders_of_magnitude]
- Considering there's no fully legal and definitely no moral way to get that kind of money, they should all be behinds bars. As for kids that inherit such wealth, shame on them for accepting blood money and doing literally nothing with it, besides make the world around them even worse.
- if you exceed $999,999,999 it should reset, giving people a motivation to keep things well under the cap. like exceeding the high score registers in a game, let it roll over.
- What would be the point in amassing more wealth when its capped? At that wealth no matter what you do, its not gonna get less really if you invested into things. How does that solve any of the problems we have in society?
  
  There wouldn't be a point aside from maybe philanthropy. That these powerful Rich individuals will continue in Mass more wealth above the $1 billion cap specifically so others can benefit from it. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything like that.

Oddly enough, the same people that wouldn’t want a maximum wage also don’t want a minimum wage. Go figure!

If the minimum wage was a comfortable living wage --- like it should be, in my and many other folks' opinion --- then it wouldn't matter. One person's excess isn't a problem, unless it's at the expense of someone else (which, you know, is kinda the case...).
- Even if it’s not at the expense of someone else, too much wealth in the hands of one person is still harmful. It gives one person too much power over others, allows for people to buy their way out of legal trouble, buy politicians, etc.
- A handful of people’s excess is exactly the problem.

Of course there is a Maximum wage. According to my employers I am making it,.

because the people in the top end are paid via stocks and not actual hard currency.

Maximum wage only makes sense as a percentage of other people in the company. Ie. The maximum allowed is 10x more than the minimum wage paid in the company
Anything else means the money would just go to shareholders
And obviously, a minimum wage permitted too by amount
- C-suite compensation is already largely handled by share offers - which get further pumped/paid for by share buyback schemes.
  This would just further exacerbate it, unless we first re-ban buybacks.
  Honestly, we should just ban them regardless.
  
  I think we can do better: nobody who doesn’t work X nunber of hours per week can own stock. That’s how law firms organized as S-Corps do it. Even if the decisionmakers hardly do real work, they have to be at work to gain on their investment. But also, no golden parachutes and executives should be legally responsible for suffering and death from their policies.

To read this article, log in
I'm good, random website. I'm good.

Tax rates used to extend over 100% in the USA. The IRS lost the case. They were limited to all of the money earned, not more.
So there used to ba maximum wage.

In the mean time, decorate some pikes with billionaire noggins. The problem might fix itself if extreme wealth becomes a mortal liability.
Trickle-down economics works like a piñata - you gotta crack it open before anything starts to trickle.

Jello Biafra proposed this as a policy when he ran for mayor of SF in 1980 and has been humping this idea ever since. It wouldn'f fly legally but as someone else here noted, you can tax at 90% above a threshold and do it that way.

Most of the super rich don't make their Monday through wages.
- Most of the super rich don't make their Monday through wages.
  Certainly they must make their Tuesday through wages?
  
  You'd think so, but they don't even make their Wednesday through wages, let alone Tuesday.
- well most of us super poor can't even make an afternoon, much less an entire day. jfc the entitlement of these assholes

Not even on the table whole inflationary spending is allowed. Maximum currency issuance first, then lets talk. Otherwise you just have a time bomb.

The Hamster from The Hamster Dance 2.0 makes maximum wage
My favourite line from the song.

Call it crab bucket, but I would hate to work in a system where my labor value is capped by someone other than me, or the person I'm selling it to.
Edit love downvotes with no rebuttal. Any system where a laborer is told they cannot market services at a rate accepted by a client is an oppressive system.
- 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.
  
  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
- A cap like this would have nothing to do with labor. Nobody, laboring, is going to ever be in danger of reaching it.
  
  I believe it would be corrupted to target laborers and the hyper wealthy do not get their money from wages.
- You're never going to have to worry about it. If you won the lottery every week you wouldn't be close to what these people have.
  Your labour value is already massively capped by the super rich. You earn a fraction of what you produce for others.
  
  "these people" don't have what they have from wages. They have it from stock backed loans and similar.
  Any legislation policing what someone in my job can earn is hurtful to the worker.
- Why would you need to have total freedom there? There are plenty of rules and regulations in place for many things. If we as society can agree on a reasonable ceiling, why would that be an issue? What is your worry?
  If there would be a cap on the hourly wage or total income the chances of you ever reaching it would be slim to none, and if you did.. congrats you won capitalism, be happy.
  It feels similar to the "hate paying taxes" and "I'm self made". Paying taxes is a privilege, more is better, as it means you have more. Self made does not exist, more than half of everything anyone achieves is luck, starting with the birth lottery and going from there.
  
  The big fish to catch is untaxed earnings of the hyper wealthy. Any attacks on the potential of labor is anti worker.
  
  I think "freedom" resonates emotionally in different ways for different people. If you try to pass a law making it illegal to drink bleach, I will oppose that law. I certainly don't want to drink bleach, but right now I have the freedom to drink it and you would be trying to take away that freedom. It has value to me even though I intend never to exercise it.
  Taxes, unlike drinking bleach, are a matter of trade-offs. I'm not categorically against them. However, I don't buy into the argument that I shouldn't oppose them as long as I will never have to pay them.
- All systems are oppressive by that low bar definition ya numbnut.
  Would it be unjust for me to make a law preventing you from accumulating so much gold/wealth in one place as to cause a black hole to form? Is that oppressive? Fuck off.
  You shouldnt care about edge case scenarios where someone doesn't get to be more rich than they already are when we are talking about solutions to problems, affecting millions of people real people with real problems.
  
  Name calling?
  Edit on topic, wages are not how billionaires are made. Wages are the concern of the general public. They would be the group impacted.

personally i absolutely support billionaires if you remove the actual issues like them being able to lobby and remove legal forms of tax evasion so that the country is benefitted more, especially when they are creative(ish) like elon and do stuff actually beneficial to humanity like space programs (may be wrong but i believe hearing news abt him making that and running it), and honestly it would be great if more billionaires focused on space exploration as well as the governments, its just the next step in mankind tbh
- In a very real sense the money doesn't even exist. It's the worth of their holdings.... Which for some reason they can often borrow against... that adds the extra 2 or 3 zeros.
- Scenario: you have 10 kids. Would you rather 1 kid thrive, 4 do alright, 4 struggling to find food, and one starving, or all 10 eat well?
  The reason that kid is starving is directly tied to why the first one is thriving. It isn't because there wasn't enough food, it's because the one thriving was taking the food from the rest, and throwing away a lot of it along the way, not caring at all about his siblings
- Fuck off back to shitter Elon.
- You dropped these bootstraps, bootlicker
- I just want to start off by saying that your opinion is valid and it's not even necessarily wrong. So don't listen to anybody trying to disparage you on this.
  If we are to allow billionaires to exist, they should take considerably more responsibility for the power that they wield and they of course should be taxed fairly in accordance to their income.
  Also, lobbying should just be downright illegal. Which it is borderline is anyway.
  
  Without discussing validity of the argument, which is pointless anyway, billionaires are in many ways similar to autocrats: they have a ton of unchecked, unelected power, near zero incentives to put this power to benefit everyone except for goodness of heart (but even then they are tied by laws obligating them to give profits to public companies), and every incentive to benefit themselves.
  
  If they were taxed fairly it would be impossible to become a billionaire at this stage in our economy.
  
  Agreed except the part about lobbying. The EFF and ACLU are lobbying groups, and I don't think you want to outlaw them. Heck, signing a petition is a form of lobbying.