So mathematically that serves as a pay cap, because once you get to 100x you are taxed 100%. Some countries do have compensation caps for CEOs that are a multiple of the lowest paid employee, and I tend to like the model because it incentives increasing pay of employees who aren't generally considered competitive or in high demand, and those are the folks that need market intervention most.
In this exact formula, I suspect it would underwhelm. Someone who earned the federal minimum wage, $7.25/hour working full time would get a paltry $15,080 per year. Someone making $250k/year would only pay 16% income tax, a meet decrease. Now, maybe it is good to shift the cost burden more to the ultra wealthy giving relief to even those making good money. But that would require some data crunching to see where the breakpoint is.
Under that plan, the maximum net income would come from a gross income of 50x minimum wage. Above that, taxes rise faster than pay.
Any minimum raise hike would automatically cut income tax rates across the board.
What would likely happen is the same thing that happened when we had a 91% top-tier tax rate: People with gross earnings above that rate would figure out how to turn everything they bought into a deductible business expense, and spend until they were under the line. Which isn’t really a problem, IMO, as that spending turns into worker compensation, rather than a stock portfolio.
Under this plan, executive compensation would still come primarily in the form of stock rather than pay. That’s already a problem, and this would compound it. Stock needs to be easy and cheap for the working class. It needs to be supremely expensive for the ultra rich to acquire and hold. We need cap gains taxes that start lower but progress much faster and higher than income taxes.
That pay cap would hit at about $1.5m. I think that’s okay. I did some napkin math and eyeballed it to graph the proposed tax rates vs 2018’s marginal and effective (because that’s what was available): lemmy.zip/…/61835557-1968-4d28-be95-493de6de6900.…
It’s not the worst idea I’ve heard, but I’d want to scale by the number of taxpayers in each bracket to find out how much tax revenue we’d win or lose. A real congressional study would also consider what is considered “income” for tax purposes, and whether this would cause anyone to get creative with their compensation to avoid paying more tax (well, even more than they already do).
krellor@fedia.io 21 hours ago
So mathematically that serves as a pay cap, because once you get to 100x you are taxed 100%. Some countries do have compensation caps for CEOs that are a multiple of the lowest paid employee, and I tend to like the model because it incentives increasing pay of employees who aren't generally considered competitive or in high demand, and those are the folks that need market intervention most.
In this exact formula, I suspect it would underwhelm. Someone who earned the federal minimum wage, $7.25/hour working full time would get a paltry $15,080 per year. Someone making $250k/year would only pay 16% income tax, a meet decrease. Now, maybe it is good to shift the cost burden more to the ultra wealthy giving relief to even those making good money. But that would require some data crunching to see where the breakpoint is.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 18 hours ago
Under that plan, the maximum net income would come from a gross income of 50x minimum wage. Above that, taxes rise faster than pay.
Any minimum raise hike would automatically cut income tax rates across the board.
What would likely happen is the same thing that happened when we had a 91% top-tier tax rate: People with gross earnings above that rate would figure out how to turn everything they bought into a deductible business expense, and spend until they were under the line. Which isn’t really a problem, IMO, as that spending turns into worker compensation, rather than a stock portfolio.
Under this plan, executive compensation would still come primarily in the form of stock rather than pay. That’s already a problem, and this would compound it. Stock needs to be easy and cheap for the working class. It needs to be supremely expensive for the ultra rich to acquire and hold. We need cap gains taxes that start lower but progress much faster and higher than income taxes.
frongt@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
That pay cap would hit at about $1.5m. I think that’s okay. I did some napkin math and eyeballed it to graph the proposed tax rates vs 2018’s marginal and effective (because that’s what was available): lemmy.zip/…/61835557-1968-4d28-be95-493de6de6900.…
It’s not the worst idea I’ve heard, but I’d want to scale by the number of taxpayers in each bracket to find out how much tax revenue we’d win or lose. A real congressional study would also consider what is considered “income” for tax purposes, and whether this would cause anyone to get creative with their compensation to avoid paying more tax (well, even more than they already do).