Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
you say on one hand no limit to profits, while on the other talking about limiting salaries. you say trickle down doesn't work-so exactly what would be the point of limiting top salaries? all that money wouldn't go elsewhere, so i don't get why you're suggesting it!
like i said, the tax breaks should be to those with money who provide jobs to those who need them. not tax breaks for shelters to grow the wealth, which sits there-or pays for the likes of paris hilton. the rich are those with the means to provide jobs-the trick is to entice them to do so. cutting top salaries isn't how to do it-it's encouraging higher bottom salaries, and more of them. tax breaks for providing benefits, encouraging more employment-not making it more sensible to work the employees you have 80 hours a week to avoid paying ss, workmens comp, and other costs of hiring. it shouldnt be cheaper to pay overtime rather than to hire more, but it is. besides, i'd imagine those top salaries include stock options-start giving some of those to your employees-paying a bit more to those you have makes them happier, and more productive. congress needs to rethink job creation, and taxes.
|
I agree! Limiting top salaries is just the first step, the trick is having those savings go toward a more equatable salary structure (I mentioned increases in salaries for those involved in direct care for example). I'm not smart enough to figure out the best way to do that but merely limiting top salaries is not the total answer. Somehow, we must entice the super rich to "spread the wealth" and I have no idea how we do that unless we tax all income over a set figure at 100% which has drawbacks as well. In a capitalistic society limiting wealth effects job creation, innovation and risk taking...we don't want to do that, at the same time we want to reduce the ever growing gap between the rich and the rest of society....I see a sane salary structure as but the first step.