andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2012-02-09 01:22 pm
andrewducker) wrote2012-02-09 01:22 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Ha, so far this is the least controversial poll I've ever seen on your journal!
As far as I'm concerned, everyone from CEOs to drug addicts deserves to make enough money to pay for a modest apartment and decent food.
Anything above that should be performance based and subject to a maximum cap. The maximum should be fairly high, but really some salaries are so obscene that that they cannot be justified by any performance.
Yeah, I'm a socialist.
Anything above that should be performance based and subject to a maximum cap. The maximum should be fairly high, but really some salaries are so obscene that that they cannot be justified by any performance.
Yeah, I'm a socialist.
I wouldn't talk in terms of a maximum amount people are allowed to earn, but I am very sympathetic to the idea that there should be a maximum-wage-earnt-in-company to minimum-wage-earnt-in-company cap. Although how you stop people outsourcing all their cleaners etc / playing silly buggers is quite a hefty exercise for the reader.
"There should be a maximum amount that people are allowed to earn in a year" - NO.
In your enthusiasm to clamp down on executive pay you basically ignore the existence of the self-employed. Go back to the drawing board.
As for why I'm opposed to a cap -- consider for example a self-employed musician who manages to somehow achieve a once-in-a-lifetime #1 hit. Are you going to cap their income for that year, when it's around 30% of their lifetime income and their entire pension and is achieved after years of struggle and penury?
Yes, it's an extreme case. But those of us who are self-employed go through good years and bad years, and there's nobody around to carry us when things are bad. (Just try claiming social security benefits of any kind if you're self-employed!)
In your enthusiasm to clamp down on executive pay you basically ignore the existence of the self-employed. Go back to the drawing board.
As for why I'm opposed to a cap -- consider for example a self-employed musician who manages to somehow achieve a once-in-a-lifetime #1 hit. Are you going to cap their income for that year, when it's around 30% of their lifetime income and their entire pension and is achieved after years of struggle and penury?
Yes, it's an extreme case. But those of us who are self-employed go through good years and bad years, and there's nobody around to carry us when things are bad. (Just try claiming social security benefits of any kind if you're self-employed!)
I think you mistyped.
"There should be a maximum amount that other people are allowed to earn in a year."
There. Fixed that for you.
"There should be a maximum amount that other people are allowed to earn in a year."
There. Fixed that for you.
I don't have any enthusiasm to clamp down on executive pay.
And I absolutely agree that the self-employed (or those who own their companies) are not covered by this at all, which is a massive hole in any kind of maximum pay.
Just look at Mark Zuckerberg for a topical example.
And I absolutely agree that the self-employed (or those who own their companies) are not covered by this at all, which is a massive hole in any kind of maximum pay.
Just look at Mark Zuckerberg for a topical example.
Or, indeed, outsourcing their management to "Great Big Co Management Inc".
I am somewhat in favour of a maximum "share" of earnings someone is allowed to take home from a company (in the sense of, is a CEO really contributing 200x as much to the company as Joe Lunchpail?) but not of an absolute cap.
-- Steve thinks that somethings are indeed best left up to the market, even with the absurdities that sometimes arise.
-- Steve thinks that somethings are indeed best left up to the market, even with the absurdities that sometimes arise.
This argument is commonly made in talk of pay caps: "What about a sportsman/artist/musician who does something brilliant once..." Well, what about them? What on earth makes a single year where you do something really great worth a lifetime of pay? Why does a self-employed musician *deserve* to be paid for a lifetime for a year of work? It seems utterly bizarre to me as an argument.
Why is the self-employed sportsman/artists/musician any more entitled than a scientist/banker/grocer to be paid for an entire lifetime for only a short period of effort?
I appreciate your point about "good years"/"bad years" but frankly all jobs have that. It's a bad year to be a public sector worker right now. You'd think I was a loony if I claimed "I've done such good research this year I should be paid for 40 years in case I don't do anything worthwhile again."
When musicians are being interviewed about how they're not making money for something they did 30 years ago... well, let's just say I'm not overwhelmed with sympathy.
Why is the self-employed sportsman/artists/musician any more entitled than a scientist/banker/grocer to be paid for an entire lifetime for only a short period of effort?
I appreciate your point about "good years"/"bad years" but frankly all jobs have that. It's a bad year to be a public sector worker right now. You'd think I was a loony if I claimed "I've done such good research this year I should be paid for 40 years in case I don't do anything worthwhile again."
When musicians are being interviewed about how they're not making money for something they did 30 years ago... well, let's just say I'm not overwhelmed with sympathy.
I think any cap on pay would have to be per hour worked.
I think policing maximum pay would be very difficult.
Share options would present a particular difficulty.
Share options would present a particular difficulty.
Patents sort of address your point on scientists.
One might argue that a research scientist working in house had exchanged the risks and rewards of patenting their once in a life time invention for the risks and rewards of being a salaried employee.
The good year for musicians or writers can often be the result of years of underpaid work - their rewards and the efforts they make don't neatly fall into years.
One might argue that a research scientist working in house had exchanged the risks and rewards of patenting their once in a life time invention for the risks and rewards of being a salaried employee.
The good year for musicians or writers can often be the result of years of underpaid work - their rewards and the efforts they make don't neatly fall into years.
The culture of people in a position of power (specifically, in this instance, bargaining power) expecting to earn something close to the amount of money they make for a company is toxic, with a range of vastly negative side-effects, and ethically questionable at best.
To put it another way, it's not a question of 'a maximum amount that people are allowed to earn in a year' - what you mean is surely 'should there be a maximum amount that people are allowed to BE PAID in a year?'
There is a maximum amount that people can EARN, in the sense of doing enough work or having enough talent to be paid that sort of quantity.
There is a maximum amount that people can EARN, in the sense of doing enough work or having enough talent to be paid that sort of quantity.
There should never be a maximum amount, just an increasing percentage of the marginal pound taxed. If you're an annual billionaire, you can still get up in the morning looking forward to a 10% raise, it's just that 99 pennies of the last pound you get are taxed. But you *will* get that last penny, and probably for doing less work than I do for my last penny. And it adds up to another million pounds for you, even if 99 million does go into the public coffers.
A hard cap is so unnecessary, that it makes me wonder who's putting it around that that and unlimited compensation with low marginal top tax rates are the only two possibilities on the table.
A hard cap is so unnecessary, that it makes me wonder who's putting it around that that and unlimited compensation with low marginal top tax rates are the only two possibilities on the table.
My problem with setting ceiling amounts is: who gets to decide? Trying to get an objective decision would be almost impossible. Though I do like the idea of fixing the relationship between the chief executives' pay and other employees...
Patents sort of do not address my issue on scientists. Patents sort of half way address my issue on engineers maybe if they want to give up actual engineering and try to invent something. Richard Feynman was undoubtedly an excellent physicist, likely one of the world's best. I think he owned one patent that was a joke and was notionally valued at one dollar (it was for the nuclear submarine IIRC).
One might argue that a research scientist working in house had exchanged the risks and rewards of patenting their once in a life time invention for the risks and rewards of being a salaried employee.
One might but what are those rewards given that "in house" means public sector with incredibly low job security.
The good year for musicians or writers can often be the result of years of underpaid work - their rewards and the efforts they make don't neatly fall into years.
Look at it this way -- if an MP said "It took me years of effort to get to be an MP. It's an extremely risky job. I can do my job to the best of my ability for years and then be voted out and never work as an MP again." he or she would be right. If he said "I therefore deserve to be paid for the rest of my life and never have to get another job again." he or she would be lynched.
Seriously, why can artists, musicians and writers get away with making the argument "what if I never do anything useful with my life ever again? How will I get paid?" and not have people laugh in their face? I actually find it hard to cope with the mindset of people who seem to genuinely believe that they should be absolutely fine being completely unproductive for many years if they did something great one year. Maybe, just maybe, it would be time to come down to earth and say gently to them: "if you've not done anything worthwhile as a musician in ten years, perhaps you should actually get a job?"
I really don't get why we accord this special status.
So yes, if someone does some amazing bit of artistic work I'm fine and happy that this can keep them in bread for five years, ten years, whatever... but the belief that somehow that should be it for their entire lives... well, I find it a bit boggling. But there you go. We live in a strange world where someone kicking a football about for a year or two could, quite happily should they choose, scratch their arse for the rest of their life and live off the interest.
One might argue that a research scientist working in house had exchanged the risks and rewards of patenting their once in a life time invention for the risks and rewards of being a salaried employee.
One might but what are those rewards given that "in house" means public sector with incredibly low job security.
The good year for musicians or writers can often be the result of years of underpaid work - their rewards and the efforts they make don't neatly fall into years.
Look at it this way -- if an MP said "It took me years of effort to get to be an MP. It's an extremely risky job. I can do my job to the best of my ability for years and then be voted out and never work as an MP again." he or she would be right. If he said "I therefore deserve to be paid for the rest of my life and never have to get another job again." he or she would be lynched.
Seriously, why can artists, musicians and writers get away with making the argument "what if I never do anything useful with my life ever again? How will I get paid?" and not have people laugh in their face? I actually find it hard to cope with the mindset of people who seem to genuinely believe that they should be absolutely fine being completely unproductive for many years if they did something great one year. Maybe, just maybe, it would be time to come down to earth and say gently to them: "if you've not done anything worthwhile as a musician in ten years, perhaps you should actually get a job?"
I really don't get why we accord this special status.
So yes, if someone does some amazing bit of artistic work I'm fine and happy that this can keep them in bread for five years, ten years, whatever... but the belief that somehow that should be it for their entire lives... well, I find it a bit boggling. But there you go. We live in a strange world where someone kicking a football about for a year or two could, quite happily should they choose, scratch their arse for the rest of their life and live off the interest.
that isn't socialism, it's just sensible
who gets to decide? Trying to get an objective decision would be almost impossible.
Ha, yes! Anyone you asked would give a plausible argument for choosing to set the ceiling at £X, and it would just so happen that the maximum that that particular person could reasonably expect to earn in their life was £X-1...
Ha, yes! Anyone you asked would give a plausible argument for choosing to set the ceiling at £X, and it would just so happen that the maximum that that particular person could reasonably expect to earn in their life was £X-1...
why?
we already have a system where 'putting the hours in' gets you paid, even if you do nothing remotely useful during those hours.
I have literally been hit by a truck on the way to an emergency, life-saving call [as in I actually saved someone's life] and been paid exactly the same as I would for dropping by and drinking tea. I like to think the former was probably a more valuable use of my time. It actually ended up costing me, cos I had to get my bike repaired.
there's more to work than time served.
we already have a system where 'putting the hours in' gets you paid, even if you do nothing remotely useful during those hours.
I have literally been hit by a truck on the way to an emergency, life-saving call [as in I actually saved someone's life] and been paid exactly the same as I would for dropping by and drinking tea. I like to think the former was probably a more valuable use of my time. It actually ended up costing me, cos I had to get my bike repaired.
there's more to work than time served.
If you're self-employed, do _you_ earn that in that year, or does you-as-a-company earn that in that year?
I would be quite happy for the self-employed who have an uneven income stream to make a couple million in revenue for them-as-a-company one year and pay themselves the salary cap over a couple of years to take it out of the company again.
(Or they can re-invest the bit they can't take as salary in tools etc, just as companies with more than one employee do...)
There should totally be a maximum amount that a person can earn in a year as in a maximum amount they can acquire for general unrestricted spending, whether they've had lean years before that or not.
There are undoubtedly issues around unscrupulous financial types being 'self-employed consultants' and claiming a lot of stuff as 'company expenses' to top up their capped salary, but at least having to do that slows them down a bit, rather than them actually being able to take home over a million quid free and clear every single year...
I would be quite happy for the self-employed who have an uneven income stream to make a couple million in revenue for them-as-a-company one year and pay themselves the salary cap over a couple of years to take it out of the company again.
(Or they can re-invest the bit they can't take as salary in tools etc, just as companies with more than one employee do...)
There should totally be a maximum amount that a person can earn in a year as in a maximum amount they can acquire for general unrestricted spending, whether they've had lean years before that or not.
There are undoubtedly issues around unscrupulous financial types being 'self-employed consultants' and claiming a lot of stuff as 'company expenses' to top up their capped salary, but at least having to do that slows them down a bit, rather than them actually being able to take home over a million quid free and clear every single year...
This.
I love the idea of setting maximum pay but I don't see how it could work in practice, except for public servants. Banning company execs from paying themselves hundreds of times more than they pay their junior employees seems a much more practical idea that might also improve things for those on minimum pay.
I love the idea of setting maximum pay but I don't see how it could work in practice, except for public servants. Banning company execs from paying themselves hundreds of times more than they pay their junior employees seems a much more practical idea that might also improve things for those on minimum pay.
I wouldnt set a maximum salary, but I would set a minimum tax level payable - regardless whether its from shares, income, capital gains, etc. If its your money to spend, pay tax on it.
No more tax avoidance - you earn a million quid a year, you damn well pay 40% tax on most of it.
No more tax avoidance - you earn a million quid a year, you damn well pay 40% tax on most of it.
I'm out of step on 1 because 'part' of 'some people's' is awfully vague. Which part? Whose? If an employer is doing his job he'll be selecting the most competent worker, and incentivising them with interesting/challenging work rather than money.
And where do football players stand?
I'm not in favour of blanket maximums because I know too many actors who've been assessed for taxes on high-earning years at times when they're out of work.
But it's all very difficult. *Flails*
And where do football players stand?
I'm not in favour of blanket maximums because I know too many actors who've been assessed for taxes on high-earning years at times when they're out of work.
But it's all very difficult. *Flails*
Page 1 of 3