100
4 votes
Apr 19, 2015

I cannot say at this time if I think it is a good thing to impose, but I do say that it is a fair proposition.

  1. High salary / comp packages can be disbursed in such a way that just-taxation is tricky
  2. Such a ratio is indicative of significant profits (i.e. such salaries are global market-rate, not subjective)
  3. Corporations acting at this scale can be difficult to regulate or otherwise control, when their acts begin to exceed the history of legal contemplation.
These factors together frame the notion of a tax-based means of creating social good (balance).

Since these corporations are globally-impacting, their top-earners can domicile elsewhere, or can relocate their base of operations elsewhere... regardless of where top executives live.

Such a law cannot effectively be enacted without national or global transparency on changes in corporate structure, salaries, etc, that would happen after the effective-date of such legislation. At this time I would not be sure of the benefit of such legislation without also including such reporting / transparency mechanisms.

The responsibility of such reporting would fall to a California government office, since the corporate filings of those natures are already regulated by law under the SEC.

Also, this vote and discussion should link to the text of the bill, not to an opinion-piece article.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-2
main reply
2 votes,
Apr 19, 2015

State-supported capitalism? Hmmm. Sounds like that word that starts with "S" everyone keeps denying it is but consistently acts that way! Here's an idea: get government out of the way! THAT would result in everyone getting more of a "fair share" since the best way to "share the wealth" is to have a JOB to begin with!

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
4 votes,
Apr 19, 2015

If you "get government" out of the way by for example, removing the minimum wage, what you would see is a drop in wages with a resulting increase in people that need government assistance to survive.

All of the 'get government out of the way' arguments are about increasing profits by ignoring moral, ethical, and / or environmental responsibility because it costs money. These increased profits go to a select few at a corporation and would not help the economy at all because the money doesn't get into the hands of people who will spend it.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Jul 24, 2015

The system you describe with minimal or zero governmental oversight has been used before, and it inevitably leads to oligarchy and massive impoverishment of the underclass. Granting unfettered authority and power to the unelected results in an aristocracy and subjugation of those who don't have access to money.

The best tool against that happening is a government that ensures corporate entities play by the rules and that everybody has a fair shot. If an organisation is so big that it can't be effectively regulated, it is too big, and should be removed.

I would rather have politicians who are at least nominally responsible to their electorate in charge than unelected executives who are only responsible to the bottom like.

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: