'To My Fellow Plutocrats: You Can Cure Trumpism'

[Landlord]

I feel completely unequipped to have any sort of good ideas related to economics, and I know that hard line anti-government conservatives would cry foul at this, but is there any obvious way that a simple law that says "CEO's can't make more than x times more than their lowest employees" wouldn't help the situation?

[Danny Bateman]

As luck would have it, I happened across a Planet Money podcast on 6 tax/economic proposals economists of many different stripes largely agreed upon... and how averse to them politicians actually are. I see a lot of overlap between that and the greed I talked about before. It is hard to affect change on this stuff because those who have do not want to chance becoming have nots... even if would benefit society as a whole. To me, on some base level, that is borne of selfish self-interest (not that I'd fault someone for feeling that way). It's just human nature to not want to give up what you already have for some theoretical future benefit, especially one that may benefit others more than yourself.

 

Well worth a listen. Here's the podcast (from back in 2012) and here's an updated story listing the proposals.

[JJ Husker]

I feel completely unequipped to have any sort of good ideas related to economics, and I know that hard line anti-government conservatives would cry foul at this, but is there any obvious way that a simple law that says "CEO's can't make more than x times more than their lowest employees" wouldn't help the situation?

I like the idea and intent but there are a myriad of problems with a law like that. CEO's aren't the only problem. There are are cfo, coo, presidents, untitled owners etc. Defining who the law would apply to could be very tricky. Plus I think there are some job killing consequences. First thing they'd do is axe a bunch of their lowest paying jobs and that may also kill entry level positions. And you would have to define exactly which jobs could be used for setting the limit. There are part time and seasonal and contract jobs that may skew things.I could see them axing many categories and shifting them to contract jobs or outsourcing them. Additionally I think arriving at that multiplier number would be extremely difficult. Is it 3x or 10x or 100x or...?

 

A better way might be a simple maximum wage. Much like a minimum wage provision but just at the other end of the spectrum.

 

I'm curious what people's thoughts are that multiplier or maximum should be?

[BigRedBuster]

I feel completely unequipped to have any sort of good ideas related to economics, and I know that hard line anti-government conservatives would cry foul at this, but is there any obvious way that a simple law that says "CEO's can't make more than x times more than their lowest employees" wouldn't help the situation?

The idea sounds good in theory, but in practice, it would have major issues.

[RedDenver]

As luck would have it, I happened across a Planet Money podcast on 6 tax/economic proposals economists of many different stripes largely agreed upon... and how averse to them politicians actually are. I see a lot of overlap between that and the greed I talked about before. It is hard to affect change on this stuff because those who have do not want to chance becoming have nots... even if would benefit society as a whole. To me, on some base level, that is borne of selfish self-interest (not that I'd fault someone for feeling that way). It's just human nature to not want to give up what you already have for some theoretical future benefit, especially one that may benefit others more than yourself.

 

Well worth a listen. Here's the podcast (from back in 2012) and here's an updated story listing the proposals.

I'm dubious of that article. Proposals 2, 3, and 4 are bad ideas IMO. For example, eliminating income tax in favor of a consumption tax is a bad idea. Here's an article that explains why in detail. Also, none of the economists making the proposals are from the left, so it shouldn't be surprising that these are essential pro-business proposal. Only proposal 5 would be against business interests, and then only fossil-fuel businesses.

[Danny Bateman]

 

As luck would have it, I happened across a Planet Money podcast on 6 tax/economic proposals economists of many different stripes largely agreed upon... and how averse to them politicians actually are. I see a lot of overlap between that and the greed I talked about before. It is hard to affect change on this stuff because those who have do not want to chance becoming have nots... even if would benefit society as a whole. To me, on some base level, that is borne of selfish self-interest (not that I'd fault someone for feeling that way). It's just human nature to not want to give up what you already have for some theoretical future benefit, especially one that may benefit others more than yourself.

 

Well worth a listen. Here's the podcast (from back in 2012) and here's an updated story listing the proposals.

I'm dubious of that article. Proposals 2, 3, and 4 are bad ideas IMO. For example, eliminating income tax in favor of a consumption tax is a bad idea. Here's an article that explains why in detail. Also, none of the economists making the proposals are from the left, so it shouldn't be surprising that these are essential pro-business proposal. Only proposal 5 would be against business interests, and then only fossil-fuel businesses.

 

 

The guy that explains #4 was a registered Dem. He starts explaining why eliminating income/payroll in favor of consumption tax could theoretically be good at about the 15 minute mark.

 

I too struggle with how to make that a progressive option. The host said immediately after that the most liberal person surveyed said they wouldn't support this because it was too hard to make work. I originally stumbled on this article/pod in a Reddit thread last night. I'm going to have to do some more reading.

 

I'll take a look at that article. Thanks! I agree that most of these seem like pro-business ideas. I wouldn't say 6 is necessarily pro-business proposal - I know lots of people who support legalization not only due to the revenue we could be making but because it's just common sense policy.

 

I guess their take overall is that the proposals would greatly aid the business environment in the US and a rising tide lifts all boats (eventually)?

[deedsker]

Eliminate changes in what income is taxed. All income is income whether you dug the hole or owned the shovel.

 

Business taxes are lowered to a nominal percentage to avoid massive growth in individual firms holding and avoiding taxation.

 

Given all income is taxed, general tax brackets can be moved to increase where income brackets begin giving poverty level incomes no taxes and then progressing from there. In general, most people see their taxes decrease.

 

Leave credits for personal exemption and standard deduction, nominal charity credit, and all health expenditures for individuals.

 

Depending on where you set those new tax barriers, I would expect this plan would still be a increase in federal income due to the elimination of income differential treatment.

[funhusker]

But isn't it our values that have allowed that negotiating power to be deprived?

 

We (society) think nothing of spending $100/$200/$300 to attend a 3 hour football game but then turn around and vote against a 0.2% tax increase for schools. We'll spend $40 to go to a 2 hour movie but balk when the price of a food item increases .20 cents at Walmart.

 

I remember getting gas about 10 years ago when the price of gas jumped around $.50/gallon. The guy filling up across from me was complaining that it cost him $5.00 more to put in 10 gallons of gas and how it was so outrageous. He was going to go broke!!!

 

He then walked into pay and came out with a bunch of bottled water and gas station snacks (well over $5.00 worth of water and crap).

 

Granted, I don't know the details of his situation, but that interaction left me shaking my head.