Do you want the federal government to have the power to limit your annual income?

Question

Disparity in income levels seems to be a strong theme in politics today. Many people think it's unfair that some corporate CEOs get millions in salaries and bonuses. They want limits or caps on corporate salaries.
Do we really want a government that has the power to dictate business policy? Once the federal government takes one step into HR matters, do you really think they would stop at limiting income levels just at the top of the ladder?
The private control of wealth is the basis of our liberty and freedom in the USA. Salary levels are a mtter of concern for the private individuals. In corporate America, it is decided by the stockholders and the directors, not the government.
Creating annual income caps even on a few Americans creates an income cap on all Americans. Do you want a government that dictates just how wealthy you are allowed to become?

No one in government has suggested this. But, many people on this board have.

Answer 1

No.

I can't understand why so many people whine and cry about CEO compensation. Unless they own a piece of the business (which most, I am sure don't), it is really none of their business.

Answer 2

No and I would never even suggest that we limit or cap earnings .
Lets get business men to brag about how much they pay in taxes rather then how much capital they have accumulated .

I say raise taxes to reflect the fact that without all the costs born by tax payers that many businesses would not profit so greatly .

When you ship your product from a-b consider the cost paid by everyone so you can take advantage of the national transportation system .
Take into account that your business has power lines close by because many people live in the area .
Keep in mind it is those people who will work for you and that paying low wages and maximizing profits is good for you it is bad for the community .
Look at any major city and see how what was once a thriving downtown has become nothing more then abandon buildings .
This is the result of sucking all the profit out and having it collect in the pockets of a few people .

So to correct this problem and insure that people are properly compensated and services available we should not limit the incomes of top earners but they should pay in accordance to how much they benefit from built in infrastructure of roads buildings customers and services . .
We should no longer let them operate for adecade or two sucking out profits and then moving on .
The should pay to play .

Answer 3

HECK, NO! The Federal goverment has no business dictating how much or how little a person may earn. Caps are arbitrary and the corporations will find a way around it, and the caps on income will defeat its purpose and fall upon the lower levels of income - it is a slippery slope once it is established.

That is how the burden of income tax falls upon the middle class and the poor - because the rich always find a way around the tax laws. The income tax law that was supposed to tax the rich when it was created now falls upon the shoulders of the middle class and the poor - this is what I mean by 'slippery slope'. The result is that the poor are the highest taxed people from a double whammy of income taxes plus inflation. That is why the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer - because of unwise government intervention.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
- John C. Marshall,
in the case "McCulloch v. Maryland"

"The current tax code is a daily mugging."
- Ronald Reagan

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax."
- Albert Einstein

"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery."
- Calvin Coolidge

Answer 4

you have a misconception of what they are trying to say. Let me throw one example to maybe help you understand what they are trying ot get at here...

The CEO of I think it was Home Depot, I don't remember it was awhile ago when I saw this interview. Ok he paid himself 35% of what the company profits were for that year. In turn he only allotted a 1.5% increase in overall wages for the people working in the stores etc.. Your normal average being 3% cost of living. Ok so what they are trying to say is if this guy was capped at say 5% which would have paid him around I think 8 million for the year before stock incentives, it would have forced the company to distribute the wealth across the board. The idea of capping corporate income is the idea to spread the wealth equally across the board to the workers. I mean come on a place like Home Depot isnt an Enron. This guy would have not made a penny if it weren't for the everyday hard working employees that work the stores for him and make the store what it is. Would you shop there if you walked in and there was minimal help and the help was rude and useless. You wouldn't. This in turn puts more money in a lot of peoples pockets instead of just one person. It creates a boost to the economy if done across the board. You do know that the top 5% of the wealthy in this country control 70% of the economy. That is way far off from where it should be. This is why big coroporations have started to destroy this country economically because instead of you mom and pop hardware store that rewards there everyday hard working employees with good wages, you get a corporation of bean counters that see higher profit margins to help the 1/4 of the people in the US that actually hold stock. The stock market has increasingly become more important as value in this country than the people that live here....Now you say, well how can it be doing so well but the dollar is so low....this is the reason... you can't have value on something only 5% of a country has.... If we all made a comfortable living, the dollar would be untouchable in the world market. Maybe this helped, probably not but hey I tried.

Answer 5

As far as I know, no one has suggested any such thing. What HAS been proposed is tha tCEOs and other top-level executives be forced to be honest about their compensation, so that stockholders and other stakeholders have accurate information and so that htese people can be held accountable.

Of course, since the so-called "executives" in question are dishonest to start with, they are objecting to any form of accountability--and there are always some idiots around who will believe their whining that the government is "limiting" their salaries by requiring them to be honest about what they get.

Answer 6

Free enterprize is the American way, I want congress to work on other issues and reduce goernment, if a person succeeeds why punish him