A loud yes from me because greed creates need .

enforced with a 90% tax rate after it hit. Bonuses and benefits included.

between the years of 1933 and 1980.

You wouldn't have much incentive to make over a million dollars a year if every dollar after that $1 million was taxed at 91%.

JFK dropped the top rate from 91% of everything over somewheres about $250,000 to 70% (and dropped the bottom rate from 20% to 14%). His rationale was that the 91% rate was responsible for the Eisenhower recessions of the 50s.

Carter dropped the top rate from 70% to 50% for "earned income" while keeping the 70% top rate for "unearned income".

Reagan made it 50% for all income early in his term..

The 1986 income tax reform "love in" dropped the top rate into the 33% range.

United Health CEO made a bundle last year (including stock options). That must be because he saved so many lives.

http://m.startribune.com/business/298924971.html

My step and column pay scale includes a minimum, starting salary, with increases each year and every 15 graduate level credits until a maximum is reached, increasing salary with experience and further education.

I'd love to see a base living wage and a maximum wage.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Let say you cannot pay your lowest paid employee less than 1/25* of your highest paid executive?

It would decrease overpaid executive salaries and increase your average working person's salary at the same time that way.

Since the money for the bottom comes from the top I would imagine it would do that without needing to pass the cost of higher employee salaries to the customers.




*I say 1/25 because it is my understanding that is what executives make in European countries in comparison to their average employee.[/font]

There should be no limit to the success you can achieve with a company but tying max pay to lowest paid employee ensures the benefits are shared more equitably.

Would love to see this happen.