During the 1950-60s (the best period for income inequality) CEO pay was ~30x the company average. If you want to key the limit to the company minimum as percentage of maximum, something between 1-2% would get you to a good place.
edit: A possibly better option would be to tax executive compensation in a way that you don’t tax payroll. Though I don’t know enough to suggest the details with that.
I usually go with 3% when I pitch this idea, But since ole’ Elmo the South African Goose Stepping Space Ass was an actual Trillionaire for a hot second back there, I felt a modest revision may have been more impactful.
edit: A possibly better option would be to tax executive compensation in a way that you don’t tax payroll. Though I don’t know enough to suggest the details with that.
That’s different. That’s based purely on the amount. And I’m not just talking about salary, but compensation, including stock options, expense accounts, and other benefit packages that executives get beyond salary.
That’s different. That’s based purely on the amount. And I’m not just talking about salary, but compensation, including stock options, expense accounts, and other benefit packages that executives get beyond salary.
I don’t understand what’s different then, if we both agree that the taxable base for an individual is their total compensation, not their base salary. I think we might have just talked past one another and essentially agree
During the 1950-60s (the best period for income inequality) CEO pay was ~30x the company average. If you want to key the limit to the company minimum as percentage of maximum, something between 1-2% would get you to a good place.
edit: A possibly better option would be to tax executive compensation in a way that you don’t tax payroll. Though I don’t know enough to suggest the details with that.
I usually go with 3% when I pitch this idea, But since ole’ Elmo the South African Goose Stepping Space Ass was an actual Trillionaire for a hot second back there, I felt a modest revision may have been more impactful.
Uh, that’s easy. Progressive taxation, above whatever amount the % increases drastically.
That’s different. That’s based purely on the amount. And I’m not just talking about salary, but compensation, including stock options, expense accounts, and other benefit packages that executives get beyond salary.
Yeah, and all of these have a value that can be calculated. So tax them on the sum of their compensation + the value of the perks they receive.
Yah. That’s what we’re talking about. That’s what I said. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
You said, when I talked about progressive tax:
I don’t understand what’s different then, if we both agree that the taxable base for an individual is their total compensation, not their base salary. I think we might have just talked past one another and essentially agree
Sounds like it. I assumed you were simply talking about a progressive tax for wages and salaries that we already have.