As a general rule, when trillion-dollar companies don’t like regulation, it simply means they’re admitting the rules are good for their customers.
As a general rule, when trillion-dollar companies don’t like regulation, it simply means they’re admitting the rules are good for their customers.
I feel like only being able to pay say 10 times the lowest paid employee or contractor would be more effective. If the janitor makes 40k, the boss can make up to 400k. That way you wouldn’t have situations where there is a high average pay, but that’s all in the highest levels of management and maybe a few key personnel while everyone else struggles to make rent.
Using average comes with the trouble that if Jeff Bezos walks into the room, everyone in that room is on average a billionaire even if all by one is hundreds of thousands in dept.
I’ve considered this myself. A sort of “maximum allowable wealth disparity” limit. The only trouble is enforcing it. There are all sorts of ways to shuffle wealth around that might not count as “pay.” You’d need to plug all of those loopholes.
Yep, make it 10x salary, they can pay everyone in the company half as much, and the C-suite gets the difference in options or straight-out vesting.
The quickest and simplest way of doing it is to simply regulate for all assets to be valued/revalued and tax paid appropriately any time it changes ownership, and “changes of ownership” is given a definition that includes a corporation giving it to the CEO, a CEO moving it to a trust or holding company, etc. It would do away with the bullshit “our CEO doesn’t get paid” when really he got millions in stock options instead. The stock options changed hands, therefore they have to be professionally and independently valued, and then taxed.
I agree, your proposal is better