These companies paid their employees a median wage of $31,672 in 2022, while their CEOs took home an average $15.3m

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    154
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A good reason to have laws regulating the maximum pay gap between executive and the lowest paid peon. And make sure to include all types of pay like stock options so companies can’t squirm out of it.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds great, and sure might as well pass it, but there’s a lot of ways to get around it

      • Shell companies
      • TC in stock/bonuses
      • Outsourcing to contractors
      • Utilizing foreign jurisdictions
      • PunnyName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ok, let’s do it anyway and make them work for their wealth. Instead of doing nothing, and letting them also do nothing to keep their wealth.

            • solstice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              20
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              37% federal plus 5-10% state, plus additional Medicare tax and 3.8% investment income tax and a bunch of others, not good enough for you? That’s literally approaching 50% what’s your problem?

              • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I fail to see the problem with your statement.

                50% when you are Uber rich isn’t even that much. In plenty of countries you have that at a much lower level of income. Perfectly doable and fine

                  • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Why not both?

                    The problem is that once you are super rich you don’t really have an income anymore. You just expand your wealth and you end up paying way less taxes on that.

                    This is something that the common mortal can’t even think of.

              • mrnotoriousman@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                37% federal means you are in the tax bracket that makes over $578,000/year. You’ll be just fine with several more percentage points added on.

                • solstice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s literally exactly what I’m advocating for word for word. Wealth tax bad, income tax good. Income tax rate too low? Crank it up to your hearts content. Glad we agree.

                • solstice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So then add more percentage points. You don’t need a wealth tax to do that. Income tax is fine.

                  • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    A majority of wealth doesn’t come from income so would never be touched by income tax. A “wealth tax” is just a broad term meaning that they should be taxed on the wealth fairly. Like capital gains for instance is a doozy. Way less taxation than what you likely pay (percentage wise obviously).

                    So “wealth tax” would include an income tax, capital tax, estate tax etc, all just at rates that are equivalent to how well the system treats them. They get a much larger advantage off the system that is set up than most others.

                    And the ultra wealthy don’t even always have an income. You think Bezos has a salary right now that’s significantly attributing to his wealth? Or Buffet or even Zuckerberg? I forget, his his salary still $1 a year? You want to tax only that?

              • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The upper-class does not rely on income the same way the middle and lower class do. Taxing income affects us much more than it does them, that’s why you institute a wealth tax to spread the burden.

                • solstice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You simply don’t understand. All income flows into wealth. All wealth is eventually becomes, one way or another, taxable income. You can defer it for a while but it’s literally all the same thing.

                  You’re talking about legislating a massive clusterfuck, like you can’t even imagine how messy it would be, that pretty much nobody would comply with free of errors and omissions, all over a timing difference.

                  Just please, I’m fucking begging you, stop talking about a wealth tax, especially when you don’t understand how tax works to begin with.

        • whatisallthis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is that if max pay gap laws are passed, CEOs will just hide their actual pay in external resources and normal employees will still make exactly the same.

          • Shard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Good. Make them hide it. Then make it illegal to hide income(if it already isn’t). Tax agencies like the IRS are really good at catching this sort of thing.

            Make it difficult for them and their companies.

            Make them have to spend to hide it. If they get caught, the money goes back to the economy. If they don’t get caught, at least some the money they spend on law firms and accounts goes back to the economy.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m ok with this, but it’s essentially just a step toward socialism which is the better option (but will never happen). Because all this will do is make CEOs less wealthy from the company itself. The investors still make tons more than the CEOs already and they don’t do anything. You need to force revenue sharing essentially which is just socialism with extra steps. Cause CEOs will just end up investing in other companies and still be wealthy and get less compensation from the company itself.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, it’s a pretty big step. It would basically make it such that a company has to expand it’s footprint to grow revenue.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, for investors to grow revenue it would. Which was the whole initial concept of owning the means of production. You invest in what you thought would make money. You didn’t invest because you wanted to take away employee’s earned value to yourself. But that’s what it came to. A majority of inflation is profit-driven related. Not government assistance related like many corporations and conservatives want you to think. Aside from that, any overt success is shared amongst everyone and no increase would be offset by normal COLA through the supply chain. People could survive and thrive without having to gut the value of employees or those in the supply chain. The only issue would be loss of business which is always a risk. But losses can be shared equally or if it’s a large enough loss over a long enough time, it would require some folks to be laid off and depending on why, the employees could put the person running the business.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            You didn’t invest because you wanted to take away employee’s earned value to yourself.

            The fact that this ends up being the way that companies create more ‘shareholder value’ is a particular disease of modern neoliberalism. What you describe seems to me more similar to how companies in the US were run in the 1950s. More of a ‘rising tide lifts all ships’ approach that was used before management became antagonistic towards labor (viewing business units as ‘cost centers’ etc…). Its a particular framing that I think we can say does not guarantee any kind of result of profitability, but seems particularly enshrined in modern management culture.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Its a particular framing that I think we can say does not guarantee any kind of result of profitability, but seems particularly enshrined in modern management culture.

              It’s enshrined in a management culture that has largely conquered labor through a mixture of anti-union measures and taking capitalism global so that they can pay as close to zero as possible for labor in other countries.

              Sure, the products and services (and the country) all suffer, but nobody really seems to give a shit about that.

      • Wilibus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think the point is for them to be less wealthy, the point is you shouldn’t make more than 600 times what half your employees make.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know. But investors don’t care. They’re the root of the problem. CEOs are simply an employee of the company that ultimately represents the shareholders interest. Affecting their pay does not affect shareholder value that much. It just commoditizes the CEO position.

          • solstice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Seriously, I literally just posted the same comment basically. It’s really silly how fixated on CEOs people are. I guess they are an easy scapegoat example, but they’re just goons hired by the board of directors on behalf of the shareholders. It’s not like they straight up own the company. (Yeah yeah yeah, there’s stock compensation, and some founder CEOs like Zuck still own shares after IPO etc, i know.)

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. Increasing pay would be really, really nice. But we can do that and have more control over our workplaces. Worker owned companies would prevent huge disparities in pay from reoccurring, regardless of what the government does.

        Like a wise and angry man once said: “Fuck the G rides, I want the machines that are making them.”

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Socialism is the abolition of social classes. Regulating capital is usually called Social Democracy, or Marxism. Honestly, sieze the means of production.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey I said this like 6 years ago on Reddit and I got downvoted and called a fucking idiot lol

      • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because this is America and if you make rules like that you’ll crush the American Dream tm and no one will want to work at all because you’ve taken away their ability to daydream about one day being the disgustingly rich person doing the trickling instead of the disgustingly poor person waiting to be trickled on.

      • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s just bringing down the top without helping anyone. Need to lift from the bottom instead

          • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure I am. If employees made $90/hr the ratio would be significantly improved. It’s not the ratio that’s the actual problem here. You get that right?

            • Steeve@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s just bringing down the top without helping anyone. Need to lift from the bottom instead

              What in the fuck does “lifting from the bottom” mean to you if raising employee wages isn’t it.

              Lift from the bottom, pull from the top. The ratio is the actual problem here. You get that right?

              • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They were talking about reducing ceo pay, which who cares? It’s the workers that need the boost. Go back to reddit you jerk

                  • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You need some reading lessons. MAYBE THIS WILL HELP?

                    THE GUY SAID CEO PAY IS TOO HIGH. WHO GIVES A FUCK AS LONG AS WORKERS EARN ENOUGH MONEY?