Should There be a Limit on CEO Pay

Its getting so tense in here.

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

Its getting so tense in here.

oceanhawk wrote:

Do you deny that tax revenue nearly doubled in the 80s even with huge tax cuts

heritage.org/~/media/images/re…996/bg1086/bg1086c10.ashx

oceanhawk wrote:

have it right here, but first answer the question

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Do you deny that tax revenue nearly doubled in the 80s even with huge tax cuts

heritage.org/~/media/images/re…996/bg1086/bg1086c10.ashx

Are you a fool? No one asked about this and it is irrelevant. I don't care. You brought this crap up, so stick back in your head where it belongs.

oceanhawk wrote:

have it right here, but first answer the question

You've been asked four or five times, stop bloody stalling.

that is the point, limiting their pay is counter productive, as tax revenue will fall....

Again, are you going to accept or deny, that tax revenue nearly doubled in the 80s even with huge tax cuts

heritage.org/~/media/images/re…996/bg1086/bg1086c10.ashx

And if you have any evidence to suggest that "soaking the rich" actually works, pls be sure to share it. As I have been looking around the web, and am struggling to find any actually evidence

oceanhawk wrote:

see you are wrong, it is important. Keeping taxes low for the rich works,

that is the point, limiting their pay is counter productive, as tax revenue will fall....

Again, are you going to accept or deny, that tax revenue nearly doubled in the 80s even with huge tax cuts

heritage.org/~/media/images/re…996/bg1086/bg1086c10.ashx

And if you have any evidence to suggest that "soaking the rich" actually works, pls be sure to share it. As I have been looking around the web, and am struggling to find any actually evidence

Lets get back on topic folks.

Limiting a CEO's pay is probably not counter tax productive, I think it works out better if the tax comes from many individual lower income earners that end up paying a higher tax rate than the rich people do anyway. Again, I'm not saying so much as to limit the CEO's pay, I'm saying to limit the difference between the high and low.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

see you are wrong, it is important. Keeping taxes low for the rich works,

that is the point, limiting their pay is counter productive, as tax revenue will fall....

Again, are you going to accept or deny, that tax revenue nearly doubled in the 80s even with huge tax cuts

heritage.org/~/media/images/re…996/bg1086/bg1086c10.ashx

And if you have any evidence to suggest that "soaking the rich" actually works, pls be sure to share it. As I have been looking around the web, and am struggling to find any actually evidence

You're too dumb to argue with, you can't even understand the phrase "provide a source". I'm done with you, your skull is too thick and ears too full of wax.

And you dont understand the phrase, answer the Question.......

Actually give me one example of socialism or communism working in full, and I will drop out of every single argument, and admit defeat... go on....

ATownGtr wrote:

Limiting a CEO's pay is probably not counter tax productive, I think it works out better if the tax comes from many individual lower income earners that end up paying a higher tax rate than the rich people do anyway. Again, I'm not saying so much as to limit the CEO's pay, I'm saying to limit the difference between the high and low.

Firstly, It cannot be implemented, for example you limit a Ceo's pay at 100,0000$. Before the limitations there were earning 1.5Million.

So now the company cant pay them the ceo that much more. So A what they do is, the Ceo's "New car" That he was planning on buying before the limits. Now the company buys it with the extra cash that they cannot pay the Ceo by law...

And it becomes a "Work Perk

Like I can go on for hours, but this is honestly one of the worst Ideas I have ever heard off. Im sorry. Im not trying to be hurtful, but I outta tell ya, that it is really really really bad idea.

It is very counter productive, as it is the rich pay more tax revenue when there is a lower tax rate, as I have proved. But limiting their income will be counter productive, and the poor will lose out just as much.

So you are talking about shrinking the "wage gap" rather, am I correct?

Cos I have lots of goody figures ans stats to prove that wrong lol, meanwhile the socialists be sittin there " It will work this time"

Limiting a CEO's pay is bad because it removes incentives, and the more you get of them the better.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Limiting a CEO's pay is bad because it removes incentives, and the more you get of them the better.

Quasi-duck wrote:

It is not so much putting a cap on it, more like dividing the money in fairer ratios. Say there is two people at a company. Instead of the boss getting everything while the other guy scrounges off of minimum wages, the profit would be divided up into, say, a 10:1 ratio. Meaning that for every €10 the boss gets, the other guy gets €1.

Pablo22510 wrote:

I don't like it. If the worker is unhappy with his wages, he'll resign, and no one else will work for the greedy boss, so he'll be forced to lower his wages and make the worker's ones higher to be able to hire people. BY putting that ratio you're giving the workers too much power, and taking away incentives for the boss.

What you are doing is removing the wealth gap. If someone is making millions, is it fair that the people in his overseas sweatshops are working for next to nothing?

Y'know, this is basically fair trade, with a slight twist on it.

Quasi-duck wrote:

It isn't giving the workers power. I don't see what that is bad anyway.

What you are doing is removing the wealth gap. If someone is making millions, is it fair that the people in his overseas sweatshops are working for next to nothing?

Y'know, this is basically fair trade, with a slight twist on it.

Dude, no one hires people abroad to make stuff for them. They hire factories who hire people. You can't do stuff like that. Woudln't work. Plus, 200,000,000 people have left poverty in the last few years in China. Enforce that 10:1 ratio, and many factories would have gone bankrupt, and more people would be poor nowadays.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Plus, 200,000,000 people have left poverty in the last few years in China.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Enforce that 10:1 ratio, and many factories would have gone bankrupt, and more people would be poor nowadays.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Plus, 200,000,000 people have left poverty in the last few years in China.

That wasn't from companies, the govt. hired them to build things for the Olypmics.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Enforce that 10:1 ratio, and many factories would have gone bankrupt, and more people would be poor nowadays.

That was just an example. It was for a company with only two people too.

1. Nearly one billion people out of poverty. In China alone, 200 million since 1981. And last I heard, the Olympics were in 2008 only. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim
2. Yeah, there's no such thing as a company with one worker and one boss.

Quasi-duck wrote:

It is not so much putting a cap on it, more like dividing the money in fairer ratios. Say there is two people at a company. Instead of the boss getting everything while the other guy scrounges off of minimum wages, the profit would be divided up into, say, a 10:1 ratio. Meaning that for every €10 the boss gets, the other guy gets €1.

I just wanted to put this into other terms

Imagine a Tennis tournament, or a golf tournament or any sporting event with a draw....

Now, in tennis

The winner of Wimbledon gets 2million pounds. The runner up gets 1 million. Meanwhile the players that lose in the first round get 30k pounds.

The best players work really hard, and put in a lot of effort to reach the final and get the big cheque (now obviously that is not why most of the bigger players do it. The money isnt number one on their list, but they still want it)

Do you think, the tournament would be as enjoyable and of such a high standard of tennis if the total amount of prize money of 28million was divided evenly among the players? Regardless of how far into the draw they get?

Pablo22510 wrote:

rly one billion people out of poverty. In China alone, 200 million since 1981. And last I heard, the Olympics were in 2008 only. economist.com/news/leaders/215…20-years-world-should-aim

Pablo22510 wrote:

Yeah, there's no such thing as a company with one worker and one boss.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Building things for the Olympics takes years. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was an Olympic stadium with a village for athletes and updating infrastructure of a city.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Yeah, but hardly since 1981. And the figures that I quote are from 2015, btw. So even 5 years later, poverty going down thanks to TNCs.

Besides, this does ignore the fact that lots of people immigrate. Granted, not that many, but combine immigration with expansions in army etc.

Another things to note is China is big on fishing, and has one of/has the biggest fishing industry in the world, and it's growing. The government also uses fishermen to exert control over the South China.

There is also a lot of agriculture in China, growing again. I think they have the biggest/one of the biggest pig farming industries in the world.