As a general rule, when trillion-dollar companies don’t like regulation, it simply means they’re admitting the rules are good for their customers.

  • verdare [he/him]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’ve considered this myself. A sort of “maximum allowable wealth disparity” limit. The only trouble is enforcing it. There are all sorts of ways to shuffle wealth around that might not count as “pay.” You’d need to plug all of those loopholes.

    • Pete Hahnloser@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yep, make it 10x salary, they can pay everyone in the company half as much, and the C-suite gets the difference in options or straight-out vesting.

    • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      The quickest and simplest way of doing it is to simply regulate for all assets to be valued/revalued and tax paid appropriately any time it changes ownership, and “changes of ownership” is given a definition that includes a corporation giving it to the CEO, a CEO moving it to a trust or holding company, etc. It would do away with the bullshit “our CEO doesn’t get paid” when really he got millions in stock options instead. The stock options changed hands, therefore they have to be professionally and independently valued, and then taxed.