State Tries to Tax the Rich

 

The SF Business Times reports that the state legislature is making at attempt to tax corporations that pay their top executives 100 percent or more than the company’s average employee.

Despite a high-profile backing by former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who joined lawmakers in Sacramento on Thursday to promote the bill, passage will require support from both the governor and some Republicans to garner a supermajority.

Gov. Jerry Brown has not taken a position on the bill, and support from even Democrats may be challenged during this election year. Meanwhile, pro-business groups have already lined up in opposition. The California Chamber of Commerce has labeled  Senate Bill 1372 a “job killer.” READ MORE.

Share!FacebookGoogle+PinterestRedditLinkedInEmail

Filed under: Mobile, Today's Mission

19 Comments

  1. John

    I seriously doubt such an ideologicaly founded approach to taxation will fly with our elected representatives. We Americans are naturally suspicious of any interference with a business owners right to set compensation levels, and a tax like this appears as undue meddling to most people.

    It would also have a fairly obvious effect of driving the domicile of publicly-traded corporations to a tax-friendly State like Nevada or Delaware, or even further afield.

    Top executives get paid a lot because they are capable of creating huge amounts of wealth and prosperity. Inhibiting that is bad in any event, but especially when the real aim isn’t revenue generation but social engineering and the propagation of envy.

    • Russo

      “Top executives get paid a lot because they are capable of creating huge amounts of wealth and prosperity.”

      Finish the sentence, JJ: “…which they send to offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes.”

      • John

        Wrong, because most of that wealth accrues to the shareholders.

        And that is your and my pension funds.

    • marcos

      Americans overwhelmingly support a minimum wage and have no compunctions about legislating compensation levels.

      • John

        Sure, because most people are poor and so vote for laws that take money from others and give to them. Don’t make it right.

        But more generally voters seem very comfortable with annual pay for executives in the tens of millions, and net worth in the billions.

        I’ve heard it described as the American Dream.

        • marcos

          So you admit that you just lied. Americans do support laws that control corporate compensation.

          Money is a lot like manure, it only works well when it is spread around.

          • marcos

            It shows that the rich have corrupted and control the political system and cut themselves special deals.

          • marcos

            Tax cuts for the rich are the natural inclination of the elites and are fought against by most people.

            Minimum wages are opposed by the elites and must be fought for by most people.

          • marcos

            Hijack the thread. Change the subject. Joust against that. And retreat when confronted.

          • marcos

            John is wrong and John lies. He said that Americans oppose laws that set corporate compensation when it is clear that Americans support laws that control corporate compensation, both at the bottom and at the top.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/majority-of-americans-want-minimum-wage-to-be-increased-poll-finds/2013/12/17/b6724bb0-6743-11e3-ae56-22de072140a2_story.html

            ‘As a growing share of the country’s income flows to the very wealthiest, the poll found that 57 percent of Americans say lawmakers should pursue policies aimed at balancing an economic system they think is out of whack. Nearly two in three say federal policy is tilted toward helping the rich over Americans who are less well-off, according to the survey. ‘

            Since John hates people and by extension hates democracy, he really does not care what people think but will trot out false claims to bolster his shaky case.

          • two beers

            Elitist landlord 1%-er John speaks for the American people!

            What a frickin’ clown.

          • marcos

            Did you know that Ed Lee only got 374 more votes than people who voted against Prop C in 2013?

            Did you know that Ed Lee only got 4719 more votes than people who voted against Prop B in 2013?

            Ed Lee is a minority mayor who governs as if he won by a landslide.

          • John

            It’s always possible to find a statistical expression of an electoral result that makes it look like the victory somehow was not legitimate.

            But Lee was always 50% ahead of the next-placed candidate and that is as close to a landslide as makes no difference.

            You lost the election, big-time, just like you have lost every mayoral election for the last thirty years. I’m just trying to help you understand why you lose so regularly and comprehensively when it really counts.

          • marcos

            About as many people who supported Lee oppose Lee’s development policies. After three years of corrupt governance, he has to have taken a further hit. Ed Lee is sinking like a stone.

          • John

            Lee’s approval polls have all been positive and show majority support. The voters want to see more new homes and jobs. Your kneejerk mindless regressive NIMBYism have lost and you have descended from political oddity into political irrelevancy.

            Game over.

          • marcos

            All of those polls were conducted by the same cheaters who supported cheater Lee in the first case. I bet you believe everything you read in the Chronicle as well.

          • John

            LOL. so when 8-Wash goes down it’s a great victory for democracy. But when you lose every mayoral race for 30 years with much higher turnovers, it’s all cheating!

            And you wonder why people find you to be hilarious?

          • marcos

            What this says is that the professional progressives are incapable of fielding citywide candidates due to the fact that they’re beholden to the nonprofits and unions which allows corporate swill like Lee to cheat their way to slim victory while simultaneously demonstrating that most San Franciscans oppose Lee’s policies.

          • John

            Whatever you need to tell yourself, dude.

Comments are closed.