- cross-posted to:
- workreform@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- workreform@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Because even if this was implemented, rich assholes will find ways around it.
That house? Oh it’s owned by an LLC that rents it from the company I own for $1a month, I then house sit as a second job for $1 a month.
That car? Same deal.
My internet, home phone, electricity, water, insurance and all other home expenses? Paid for by my company as part of WFH rules for executives.
I also have regular business meetings in Hawaii and other overseas locations for business purposes.
Don’t forget:
Those politicians who are in a position to pass laws with regards to my taxes, income level, and other means of hoarding power? Oh, they’re owned by me thanks to legal bribery.
And those other politicians who want to introduce a maximum wage, higher taxes, or anything remotely socialist? Oh, the media outlet/s I own, along with the politicians I’ve already paid off can easily smear them out of contention.
Both possible because the system is what it does and is designed to encourage these kinds of disparity and inequality, not combat it.
Under capitalism it would be laughably easy to circumvent, and even in premise it is flawed because it would only target the small number of top CEO’s.
The truly rich does not even recive wages.
the best way to attempt to implement a maximum wage is to tax the every loving fuck out of anyone make a certain amount ie, you make 10m/year a thats 100% progressive tax.
but it wont happen because humans are weak and the rich have bought the government.
I like corporate taxes being tied to the ratio of the highest compensated full time worker and the lowest compensated worker. Note that I specifically said compensation and not wages and full time worker and not employee.
If the highest compensation package is stock options worth 30 million and the lowest compensation is an “independent contractor”, that scrapes by on 30k a year. The ratio is 1000, some standard equation would then define the corporate tax rate. Hopefully a ratio that high would be 100%
Could they not just create separate companies to get around this?
You could apply the law across all companies in a conglomerate, forcing either competition to be more attractive than monopolizing or forcing the tax to take effect with potential harm to lower income targeted companies within the conglomerate, allowing competition at the lowest income levels to flourish while eliminating it among higher end brands.
I.e. either Yum Brands sells off taco bell in order to focus on higher end options like KFC, or taco bell essentially gets sold off to a new company without the same leadership.
It’s flawed, like all attempts to keep capitalism in check, but it’s easier to sell to a brainwashed public than any left wing option that would actually improve society instead of just slowing capitalism’s journey towards the total enshittification criticality point.
Many countries would consider companies that are created like this just to “get around” a rule or law to be the same company. They consider the “spirit of the law”, and sometimes even give fines for attempting to skirt it like this.
That’s why I said full time worker. If I work for company A, but 90% of my time is dedicated to company B. My effort primarily benefits company B, therefore my compensation counts to company B. Really causes a problem for companies that employs sweatshops.
i think if you ask that question, itll result in abolishing the minimum wage, in the usa anyway
“Let’s not play the game of five whys because the fifth why is always ‘capitalism.’” ~Stuart Langridge
