I agree with you. I have been dreaming of this for a while, and what I have decided would be fair is that no one person on the payroll should make more than 5 times the lowest wage on the payroll. This way if a CEO wants a raise he would have to give the janitor a raise, and if the janitor gets a raise his supervisor would have to get a raise, and so on...

I may go for this suggestion if you're talking about the public sector. But if this includes the private sector, the suggestion basically means is that no one will ever be able to get really rich from decent hard work. This is depressing. Here I am, working my a** off in order to get promoted to high-payed position - why should I bother? This suggestion, of course, does not apply to self-employed professionals (lawyers, doctors, etc.), which will continue to rob me of my money. Only now and in the future, I'll be making less of it. Another issue to consider is that since people will be payed less, the country will make less money from income tax with all the implications.

Shafi, your logic is flawed, probably because you are tired of working your a%% off. Everyone deserves the right to take a relaxing vacation now and then, but sadly, today only the very rich can afford to just drop everything and go. And another thing, Income taxes would remain the same, only spread around to more people.

Maximum Wage is a great idea. I'd like to see the cap as 100x the lowest paid employee. A multiplier of a hundred is high enough to prevent any argument that it takes away incentive from CEOs and other top executives while at the same time is low enough to make a difference. The CEO of the GAP made just over $5 mil in 2003. That would be allowed as long as he paid the people folding sweaters $50,000. Hourly workers would earn the pro-rated amount of $25/hour.

The left over money would most likely go to the investors -- the idle rich rather than the hard-working rich. Markets work the way that they do for a reason--this is a completely superficial hack. Look for the root cause (try usury)

I agree with Jhadary and I am very much for this idea. Considering people can't even live of min wage now a days. And I know of several people who have tried and even still try to this day (including me) to try and live off near min wage because we can't get better jobs and can't get better education. So we should limit the CEO's wage lower. I mean, most CEO's make millions and millions. We should then reallocate that money to the lower class and help them actually EAT instead of having gold plated apartments (Donald Trump has one).

Socialism - Sounds like another "ReDistribution Of Wealth" to me!

Why don't people just get the schooling and experience required to make that BIG INCOME instead of being so jealous that they try to take it from the motivated people?

WHO ARE YOU to say how much a person can earn?

That is the type of thinking that would make MORE PEOPLE want to be "HOMELESS" - Why Try IF You Can NOT Succeed?

Gee - that isn't OBVIOUS?

A lot of people do jobs they hate because of the money - take away the cashflow motivation - then the jobs fall into the hands of those who could care even less!

Sort Of Like The JOB Of Voting For The RIGHT Politician Has Become!

Check Out The "NEW" Slanted Facts Political Forum!

You are right. It is a redistribution of wealth. My exact point is that, as it is now, we punish those who lack the capacity to improve their lives. You've heard others say 'Not everyone can be a brain surgeon, because then there would be no janitor', or something of the like. What I say is if one can only strive to be the best custodian he can be how can we justify that he suffer a miserable life. So far the only justification I see is the satisfying of certain peoples greed.

Often times a person is paid a high wage because of extraordinary expenses. The CEO of Honeywell makes more than $17 million dollars a year. He also is responsible for the military weapons divisions of Honeywell. So I'm guessing he is involved with getting contracts from foreign countries to buy those weapons and parts. In other countries, it is wholely accepted and expected that the people making such decisions are paid a kickback. A company can not legally pay such a kickback, but if the CEO is willing to do it on their own, it releases the company of that liability. Ethics aside, I'm not sure as to how this would affect our economy overall.

You should get paid whatever you are worth to that company. Try to find a job elsewhere and then ask your company to pay as much. If not, leave for the higher paying job. I pay the people that work for me between $7 and $10 an hour. If there are any problems I run them off. Hundreds more are waiting for the opportunity to work. I could pay minimum wage and still get the work done, but I pay more because of empathy. I've been there too. If you want to make more, figure out a business to run. The couple of businesses will probably fail for one reason or another, but eventually you will find one that works for you. As long as you work for someone else, how will you ever be able to retire?