Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Old and busted: Minimum wage laws. New socialist hotness: Maximum wage laws   (theguardian.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Corbyn, European Union, maximum wage, bargain basement economy, Jeremy Corbyn, United Kingdom, Neil Kinnock, Corbyn's stance  
•       •       •

1203 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2017 at 11:00 AM (6 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
vpb [TotalFark]
6 days ago  
It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.
 
6 days ago  

vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.


Even that has its problems if taken too far.  They did that before in the UK, to the point where the top earners could only keep 5% of their income*.  That's what led George Harrison to write the Beatles song "Taxman", and it's why many UK performers and other high earners fled the UK to establish homes in countries with relatively sane tax rates.


*And that's not the worst:  During WWII, top earners in the UK could only keep 2% of the income, the rest went to taxes.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
6 days ago  

dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.


What doesn't?
 
6 days ago  

vpb: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.

What doesn't?


Hedonistic frivolity involving a harem of female Japanese 20-somethings?
 
6 days ago  

UberDave: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.

What doesn't?

Hedonistic frivolity involving a harem of female Japanese 20-somethings?


I don't even know how one would take that too far.
 
6 days ago  

palelizard: UberDave: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.

What doesn't?

Hedonistic frivolity involving a harem of female Japanese 20-somethings?

I don't even know how one would take that too far.


Death by SNU-SNU
 
6 days ago  

palelizard: UberDave: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.

What doesn't?

Hedonistic frivolity involving a harem of female Japanese 20-somethings?

I don't even know how one would take that too far.


'Too far'? I think we need to perform empirical research into whether that is indeed a possibility within that sort of framework.
 
6 days ago  

dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.  They did that before in the UK, to the point where the top earners could only keep 5% of their income*.  That's what led George Harrison to write the Beatles song "Taxman", and it's why many UK performers and other high earners fled the UK to establish homes in countries with relatively sane tax rates.


*And that's not the worst:  During WWII, top earners in the UK could only keep 2% of the income, the rest went to taxes.


(presuming your 2 and 5% numbers are true) With progressive taxes, wouldn't it be that they keep only 5% above a certain amount?  So if George Harrison earns $10 million this year, he isn't taxed 95%.  He's taxed 95% above $5 million? (or what ever their numbers are).
 
6 days ago  
Scream about socialism out of your round red faces all you want.  The US has a problem.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sears-failing-stores-closing-edward-la​m​pert-bankruptcy-chances-2017-1

This story is about Edward Lampert, CEO of Sears.  While that company crashes and burns like the Hindenberg, he doesn't even go to his company headquarters.  He has all his meetings via teleconference from his $38 million Florida estate. 

We have a new ruling class in the us.  There is *no* CEO that is worth tens of thousands of dollars more than any regular worker.  And then half of them sit and play the fiddle like Nero as things burn around them.  When the fire is over they aren't the ones getting hurt, either.
 
6 days ago  

wood0366: palelizard: UberDave: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.

What doesn't?

Hedonistic frivolity involving a harem of female Japanese 20-somethings?

I don't even know how one would take that too far.

'Too far'? I think we need to perform empirical research into whether that is indeed a possibility within that sort of framework.


img.fark.net
 
6 days ago  

dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.  They did that before in the UK, to the point where the top earners could only keep 5% of their income*.  That's what led George Harrison to write the Beatles song "Taxman", and it's why many UK performers and other high earners fled the UK to establish homes in countries with relatively sane tax rates.


*And that's not the worst:  During WWII, top earners in the UK could only keep 2% of the income, the rest went to taxes.


That's not how progressive taxes work.  It was a 98% marginal rate.  The only way that equates to taking 98 percent of your money is if you earned infinite money.
 
6 days ago  

BeesNuts: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.  They did that before in the UK, to the point where the top earners could only keep 5% of their income*.  That's what led George Harrison to write the Beatles song "Taxman", and it's why many UK performers and other high earners fled the UK to establish homes in countries with relatively sane tax rates.


*And that's not the worst:  During WWII, top earners in the UK could only keep 2% of the income, the rest went to taxes.

That's not how progressive taxes work.  It was a 98% marginal rate.  The only way that equates to taking 98 percent of your money is if you earned infinite money.


And while we are at it, the 98% marginal rate only applies to investment (unearned) income.  The money the beatles made from touring was marginally taxed at 83%.

So... hurray for lying.
 
6 days ago  
I am all for this and it should be indexed to one dollar above my wage.
 
6 days ago  
 
6 days ago  

Beerguy: [iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/BxO6ExXdDqY - 480x360]


Why is the cast of Predator somehow more in touch with the country's issues than the actual government?
 
6 days ago  
I like it. Best of luck UK.
It would never happen in the United States. You can't expect the rich and powerful to vote against the things they possess.
 
6 days ago  
Jeremy Corbyn is such an embarrassment to the left. Right now there are three issues in the UK, in rough order of importance:

1. Brexit. 52% voted for it, but 48% voted against, and of the 52 many wanted a Norway-style arrangement, and some were just hoping it would be used as leverage for further concessions, and some were just expressing a protest against the system, and very few wanted the hard Brexit that May is careening towards. Corbyn is capitalizing on this opportunity by agreeing entirely with everything the Tories say on immigration, because he would rather chase the angry old white working class than do anything for the young multiethnic vote that propelled him into power.

2. The NHS funding crisis. The Tories haven't let funding keep pace with population and costs, so now the system is straining under the weight. The Tory/Brexiteer promise of 350 million per week in funding has evaporated. Corbyn has addressed this political opportunity by changing the subject to how much he dislikes immigration, and how we might want to try limiting the amount of money people can have.

3. The transit strikes. London is being thrown into misery by striking railway workers. Corbyn at least is willing to address this one, as it's some good old fashioned industrial action, and has proposed solving the problem by legalising sympathy strikes, so that perhaps the entire national rail service could be shut down too.

Meanwhile, he's got Labour polling at only 28%, per the most recent national polls. The Tories are at 42%.

The Tories have accidentally the entire EU, and six months in they still have absolutely zero idea what they're going to do about it, and have squeezed the NHS until it's nearly come apart at the seams, and they've still got a double digit lead on Jeremy F*cking Corbyn.
 
6 days ago  

Stoker: I like it. Best of luck UK.
It would never happen in the United States. You can't expect the rich and powerful to vote against the things they possess.


Corbyn usually pulls only around a quarter of the vote in opinion polling, and he's trending downwards. He's turning Labour into a fringe party. Neither this nor any of his other ideas have any chance of ever being enacted.
 
6 days ago  

vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.


Portland combined the two concepts.

If your CEO makes more than 100 times what the average employee makes, they impose a large surtax on your company.
 
6 days ago  
FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.
 
6 days ago  

vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.


They both have their reasons. Australia, in the 80s, asked everybody to not take raises in order to prevent inflation.
Most labor did. Guess who didn't?

I think there's something to be said for tying the highest pay to the lowest pay of even the contracts you hire. The law should be 20x the lowest pay of the foreign worker. If Tim Cook wanted to make $2m in total compensation (including profit shares, health insurance and other back end benefits), then the factory workers at Foxconn should make $100k.

This anchor would pull the whole country up without an artificial salary cap.
 
6 days ago  

SpectroBoy: FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.


Whatever will we do without sportsball players?!!?
 
6 days ago  
Wouldn't a maximum wage law just increase corporate profits?
 
6 days ago  

machoprogrammer: Wouldn't a maximum wage law just increase corporate profits?


Profit isn't bad by itself. Un-reinvested profit is.
 
6 days ago  

machoprogrammer: Wouldn't a maximum wage law just increase corporate profits?


If wages are capped for the execs, where would the surplus money go to: the workers or investments in automation and production equipment?
 
6 days ago  

misanthropicsob: SpectroBoy: FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.

Whatever will we do without sportsball players?!!?


And what will God do with all the spare time usually dedicated to helping sports figures?

Idle hands are the Devil's workshop....
 
6 days ago  

misanthropicsob: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

They both have their reasons. Australia, in the 80s, asked everybody to not take raises in order to prevent inflation.
Most labor did. Guess who didn't?

I think there's something to be said for tying the highest pay to the lowest pay of even the contracts you hire. The law should be 20x the lowest pay of the foreign worker. If Tim Cook wanted to make $2m in total compensation (including profit shares, health insurance and other back end benefits), then the factory workers at Foxconn should make $100k.

This anchor would pull the whole country up without an artificial salary cap.


But those factory workers don't come anywhere near the 1/20th of work that Tim Cook does. That's not very fair.
 
6 days ago  

weddingsinger: (presuming your 2 and 5% numbers are true) With progressive taxes, wouldn't it be that they keep only 5% above a certain amount? So if George Harrison earns $10 million this year, he isn't taxed 95%. He's taxed 95% above $5 million? (or what ever their numbers are).


That's indeed how progressive income tax works, but I doubt they have one in heaven.
 
6 days ago  

Lenny_da_Hog: misanthropicsob: SpectroBoy: FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.

Whatever will we do without sportsball players?!!?

And what will God do with all the spare time usually dedicated to helping sports figures?

Idle hands are the Devil's workshop....


But, seriously, where do they think they're going to go to get paid as exorbitantly as they do in the UK or US? Canada maybe? Australia? Um...?
 
6 days ago  
Corbyn, who earns about £138,000 a year, later told Sky News he anticipated any maximum wage would be "somewhat higher than that".

Of course it would.

Nobody every thinks of their own lifestyle as excessive or unacceptable.  It's always those rich bastards further up the ladder that need to get taken down a peg.

Look, I'm as left-leaning as your average Farker, but this idea is terrible on so many levels.

And honestly, I'm not even sure whether it is a societal problem to have some people who are super-rich, so long as there is a strong social safety net for those at the bottom, adequate educational and employment opportunities for those at all levels, universal access to affordable health care and housing, and the opportunity for upward economic mobility.  Those are the things that we should be aiming for, and if we have those, then let the rich be rich, who cares.  Tax their income at a higher rate, and close loopholes that let them dodge taxes, but that's it.
 
6 days ago  

BeesNuts: BeesNuts: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.  They did that before in the UK, to the point where the top earners could only keep 5% of their income*.  That's what led George Harrison to write the Beatles song "Taxman", and it's why many UK performers and other high earners fled the UK to establish homes in countries with relatively sane tax rates.


*And that's not the worst:  During WWII, top earners in the UK could only keep 2% of the income, the rest went to taxes.

That's not how progressive taxes work.  It was a 98% marginal rate.  The only way that equates to taking 98 percent of your money is if you earned infinite money.

And while we are at it, the 98% marginal rate only applies to investment (unearned) income.  The money the beatles made from touring was marginally taxed at 83%.

So... hurray for lying.


Either 98% or 83% is too high, IMHO.  I would say a net rate (including all state and local taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc., but also including deductions) should never exceed 40% or so.

As for this specific policy, it's why the Torries have near total control, because Corbyn really is a crazy socialist.
 
6 days ago  

BeesNuts: BeesNuts: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.  They did that before in the UK, to the point where the top earners could only keep 5% of their income*.  That's what led George Harrison to write the Beatles song "Taxman", and it's why many UK performers and other high earners fled the UK to establish homes in countries with relatively sane tax rates.


*And that's not the worst:  During WWII, top earners in the UK could only keep 2% of the income, the rest went to taxes.

That's not how progressive taxes work.  It was a 98% marginal rate.  The only way that equates to taking 98 percent of your money is if you earned infinite money.

And while we are at it, the 98% marginal rate only applies to investment (unearned) income.  The money the beatles made from touring was marginally taxed at 83%.

So... hurray for lying.


Maybe not lying.  I know a lot of people are legitimately ignorant of what a progressive tax plan really is, or how to calculate brackets, or marginal rates.
 
6 days ago  

Lenny_da_Hog: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Portland combined the two concepts.

If your CEO makes more than 100 times what the average employee makes, they impose a large surtax on your company.


was that Measure 97?
 
6 days ago  

Geotpf: BeesNuts: BeesNuts: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.  They did that before in the UK, to the point where the top earners could only keep 5% of their income*.  That's what led George Harrison to write the Beatles song "Taxman", and it's why many UK performers and other high earners fled the UK to establish homes in countries with relatively sane tax rates.


*And that's not the worst:  During WWII, top earners in the UK could only keep 2% of the income, the rest went to taxes.

That's not how progressive taxes work.  It was a 98% marginal rate.  The only way that equates to taking 98 percent of your money is if you earned infinite money.

And while we are at it, the 98% marginal rate only applies to investment (unearned) income.  The money the beatles made from touring was marginally taxed at 83%.

So... hurray for lying.

Either 98% or 83% is too high, IMHO.  I would say a net rate (including all state and local taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc., but also including deductions) should never exceed 40% or so.

As for this specific policy, it's why the Torries have near total control, because Corbyn really is a crazy socialist.


But you repeat yourself
 
6 days ago  

dumbobruni: Lenny_da_Hog: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Portland combined the two concepts.

If your CEO makes more than 100 times what the average employee makes, they impose a large surtax on your company.

was that Measure 97?


IIRC, it was imposed by the city council.
 
6 days ago  

harleyquinnical: machoprogrammer: Wouldn't a maximum wage law just increase corporate profits?

If wages are capped for the execs, where would the surplus money go to: the workers or investments in automation and production equipment?


And then they can fire the low wage earners and give themselves a raise.   Brilliant.
 
6 days ago  

Lenny_da_Hog: If your CEO makes more than 100 times what the average employee makes, they impose a large surtax on your company.


I'm alright with this.  CEO pay in the United States is out of control.  The average pay of the largest 3000 US companies is around $3.5M/yr.  In Japan, it is around $600K/yr.  The Japanese do tend to expense more than their American counterparts, but that only closes the gap so far.

I'd like to see a soft cap based on the average salary at the company and its subsidiaries, including all employees, interns, full-time vendors, and in-house contractors.  Create an incentive to bring up everyone's pay.
 
6 days ago  
No need to stop there in the quest for equality. I propose leg amputations for the tall, lobotomies for the smart, and disfigurement for the pretty.
 
6 days ago  
In 1942, FDR thought about implementing a maximum wage at $25,000 per year, which is equivalent to ~$370,200 when adjusted for inflation.
 
6 days ago  
Why would someone need to earn more than £50m a year?

Those tiny giraffes ain't cheap, yo.


fusible.com
 
6 days ago  

dumbobruni: Lenny_da_Hog: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Portland combined the two concepts.

If your CEO makes more than 100 times what the average employee makes, they impose a large surtax on your company.

was that Measure 97?


City council legislation
 
6 days ago  

SpectroBoy: FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.


I'll bite: OK, where do the sports stars go?
 
6 days ago  

jjorsett: No need to stop there in the quest for equality. I propose leg amputations for the tall, lobotomies for the smart, and disfigurement for the pretty.


Being smart in America is its own sanction.
 
6 days ago  

misanthropicsob: SpectroBoy: FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.

Whatever will we do without sportsball players?!!?


What about your favorite movies? I mean Action Movie and Romantic Movie without your top Hollywood Actors and Actresses would not be the same.

harleyquinnical: machoprogrammer: Wouldn't a maximum wage law just increase corporate profits?

If wages are capped for the execs, where would the surplus money go to: the workers or investments in automation and production equipment?


Shareholders and probably the latter.
 
6 days ago  

Lenny_da_Hog: dumbobruni: Lenny_da_Hog: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Portland combined the two concepts.

If your CEO makes more than 100 times what the average employee makes, they impose a large surtax on your company.

was that Measure 97?

City council legislation


thanks!
 
6 days ago  

misanthropicsob: SpectroBoy: FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.

Whatever will we do without sportsball players?!!?


They do pay a lot of taxes. They'll just be paying it somewhere else.
 
6 days ago  
A maximum wage law while relying on the top end of the progressive tax scheme to keep the lights on........ nope I see no problem there.
 
6 days ago  

machoprogrammer: misanthropicsob: SpectroBoy: FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.

Whatever will we do without sportsball players?!!?

What about your favorite movies? I mean Action Movie and Romantic Movie without your top Hollywood Actors and Actresses would not be the same.

harleyquinnical: machoprogrammer: Wouldn't a maximum wage law just increase corporate profits?

If wages are capped for the execs, where would the surplus money go to: the workers or investments in automation and production equipment?

Shareholders and probably the latter.


So I guess there's no point in showering them with tax cuts seeing as how they don't give a damn about anybody else. Nor is there any reason to go to bat for them on trade agreements.
 
6 days ago  

SpectroBoy: misanthropicsob: SpectroBoy: FTFA: I have a brilliant plan to drive businesses and sport figures out of our country expediting our demise.

Whatever will we do without sportsball players?!!?

They do pay a lot of taxes. They'll just be paying it somewhere else.


With a much lower income compared to the EPL.
 
6 days ago  

weddingsinger: dittybopper: vpb: It doesn't really sound feasible.  A progressive income tax is more reasonable and more practical.

Even that has its problems if taken too far.  They did that before in the UK, to the point where the top earners could only keep 5% of their income*.  That's what led George Harrison to write the Beatles song "Taxman", and it's why many UK performers and other high earners fled the UK to establish homes in countries with relatively sane tax rates.


*And that's not the worst:  During WWII, top earners in the UK could only keep 2% of the income, the rest went to taxes.

(presuming your 2 and 5% numbers are true) With progressive taxes, wouldn't it be that they keep only 5% above a certain amount?  So if George Harrison earns $10 million this year, he isn't taxed 95%.  He's taxed 95% above $5 million? (or what ever their numbers are).


Nope.  The UK had a combined income and surtax rate of 95% on the top earners, and many famous rock stars left the UK because of it.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rock-bands-taxes/

If you're earning 10 million pounds a year and are only allowed to keep 500,000, you'd move too.
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report