For instance, if a CEO is paid $10 million a year but the lowest worker is only making $9 an hour, is the government obliged to erase the inequity by reducing the CEO's salary and mandating a much higher wage for the said worker?
Yes. Income inequality is damaging to any existing democracy. Capitalism wants to have access to the cheapest labor possible and is happy to use it's financial clout to wrangle lower and lower wages if allowed to. But if a product cannot be produced and marketed while paying workers a living wage, that product isn't needed and production of it should not survive. So determine a living wage and make it the minimum wage. Corporate wealth is so extreme today, due to neglected controls by a bought-off government, that corporate campaign contributions cannot possibly be matched by the public with half of them struggling to pay bills. Income taxes should have never been dropped by Reagan or anyone else. A 70% top-dollar tax rate is the minimal needed to control worsening income inequality. At some level tax rates must be confiscatory. History shows such high taxation ensures corporate investment in workers, the business, production, and the middle class standard of living.
No. I almost can't think of a worse thing for government to be involved in. What makes you think they know anything about wages when law makers get to set their own wages and benefits and give themselves ridiculous pension plans. The same people that are swimming in corruption.
So you agree that serious reforms are needed, like economic advisors on relevant committees and a ban on lawmakers' ability to set their own pay and benefits. Maybe a ban on stock ownership too? Instead, allow them to invest only in a list of publicly-available, recognized mutual funds but no individual stocks. And no other types of investments that might, if carefully selected, motivate a politician to vote his pocketbook.
I have long believed there needs to be reform in the political system. One of Trump's best ideas was to set term limits on politicians but he did not possess the political capital or will to make it happen. We also need age limits but if we had term limits this would be less of an issue. I don't think they should be able to determine their own wages and benefits. I have no problems with stock ownership as long as the investments are handled by a professional investment broker. The only feedback from the politicians should be risk and investment objectives. They should not be calling up a broker to buy/sell X stock. I would also like to eliminate all private campaign donations. Elections should be publicly funded. The extra cost of taxpayers paying for elections would easily be made up from the elimination of corruption and the swamp.
So a managed fund like Fisher Investments. But since every business including Fisher Investments want favorable policies from government, that introduces a potential loophole or an invitation for the company to find a way to be corrupt about it. I think it's better to take that chance away from everyone by nailing down exclusions and bans by law. Agreed. And not only that, but I think a tax of about $10/year on every taxpayer would be more than enough to cover all campaign costs. And ban EVERY OTHER source of campaign spending. It all has to come from tax dollars to candidates' war chests. No more dialing for dollars; no more sucking up to corporations; no more PACs.
No. There is no "income inequality." That's just Orwellian nonsense manufactured by Liberals. There is no evidence that this manufactured "income inequality" has ever damage any democracy or non-democracy. Both of you use fallacies to beat a dead horse that doesn't even exist. It is an undisputed fact that the average CEO wage is $248,610/annually. Only 3% of US businesses are publicly-traded corporations. What Liberal Göbbels worshipers do is take that 3%, which is ~690,000 companies, and then cherry-pick 500 companies out of that. Note that 500 companies is 0.072% of all publicly-traded corporations and 0.0022% of all companies, corporations or not. Then the Liberal Göbbels worshippers cherry-pick 20 CEOs out of those 500. That's 4.0% of the 500, 0.0029% of all publicly-traded corporations and 0.000087% of all companies, corporations or not not. The Göbblers hold out that teeny tiny fraction of CEOs as being 100% representative of all CEOs. And the lying doesn't end there. Federal law requires corporate CEO compensation to be reported in totality. When someone says the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross-Blue Shield made $23 Million, they're lying. $23 Million is the total compensation. The cash compensation was actually $7 Million and the non-cash compensation was $16 Million. Which brings us to another deception in the Liberal lies. If you're gonna compare total cash and non-cash compensation for CEOs with employees, then you must compare it against the total cash and non-cash compensation for the employee.
