Why did Roosevelt decide to implement a maximum wage through taxation rather than a simple ceiling? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Why do unstable countries prefer a black market for currency to exist, rather than accepting the real exchange rate?Why do some countries forbid working on Sunday rather than strictly regulating it?Why is donation related taxation significantly smaller than inheritance taxation?Why was Switzerland’s maximum wage proposal defeated?
Is it possible for SQL statements to execute concurrently within a single session in SQL Server?
Tannaka duality for semisimple groups
Why weren't discrete x86 CPUs ever used in game hardware?
How many time has Arya actually used Needle?
Co-worker has annoying ringtone
The Nth Gryphon Number
Does silver oxide react with hydrogen sulfide?
Is there any word for a place full of confusion?
Asymptotics question
Found this skink in my tomato plant bucket. Is he trapped? Or could he leave if he wanted?
Is multiple magic items in one inherently imbalanced?
A proverb that is used to imply that you have unexpectedly faced a big problem
Can you force honesty by using the Speak with Dead and Zone of Truth spells together?
Why BitLocker does not use RSA
How often does castling occur in grandmaster games?
Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple,reliability and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?
Simple HTTP Server
Sally's older brother
What is the difference between a "ranged attack" and a "ranged weapon attack"?
malloc in main() or malloc in another function: allocating memory for a struct and its members
Did Mueller's report provide an evidentiary basis for the claim of Russian govt election interference via social media?
i2c bus hangs in master RPi access to MSP430G uC ~1 in 1000 accesses
One-one communication
What would you call this weird metallic apparatus that allows you to lift people?
Why did Roosevelt decide to implement a maximum wage through taxation rather than a simple ceiling?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Why do unstable countries prefer a black market for currency to exist, rather than accepting the real exchange rate?Why do some countries forbid working on Sunday rather than strictly regulating it?Why is donation related taxation significantly smaller than inheritance taxation?Why was Switzerland’s maximum wage proposal defeated?
In 1942, FDR asked Congress to implement a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000 (around $375,000 today). This was backed by the unions and a clear majority of the voting public.
In fact, such a tax was not wholly implemented. It reached a maximum of 94% in 1944 and hovered around 90% for the next two decades!
This suggests it was a popular measure.
This, in essence, is a proposal for a maximum wage. Why was it implemented through the tax code rather than simply stipulating a simple ceiling?
economy
add a comment |
In 1942, FDR asked Congress to implement a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000 (around $375,000 today). This was backed by the unions and a clear majority of the voting public.
In fact, such a tax was not wholly implemented. It reached a maximum of 94% in 1944 and hovered around 90% for the next two decades!
This suggests it was a popular measure.
This, in essence, is a proposal for a maximum wage. Why was it implemented through the tax code rather than simply stipulating a simple ceiling?
economy
10
Not mentioned in this question are the crazy loopholes that people could exploit. In reality, the effective rate was something like 38% (varied, but you get it) which is only a few points higher than what we have today. The idea that the US had a real, practical, effective rate of 90% is absurd. Sure, there was a 90% bracket but nobody actually paid that.
– acpilot
Apr 18 at 4:43
What was the objective behind having a 90% tax bracket if there were loopholes to get around it? Were these loopholes known/were there attempts to close them?
– Chris Fernandez
2 days ago
taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high
– acpilot
2 days ago
add a comment |
In 1942, FDR asked Congress to implement a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000 (around $375,000 today). This was backed by the unions and a clear majority of the voting public.
In fact, such a tax was not wholly implemented. It reached a maximum of 94% in 1944 and hovered around 90% for the next two decades!
This suggests it was a popular measure.
This, in essence, is a proposal for a maximum wage. Why was it implemented through the tax code rather than simply stipulating a simple ceiling?
economy
In 1942, FDR asked Congress to implement a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000 (around $375,000 today). This was backed by the unions and a clear majority of the voting public.
In fact, such a tax was not wholly implemented. It reached a maximum of 94% in 1944 and hovered around 90% for the next two decades!
This suggests it was a popular measure.
This, in essence, is a proposal for a maximum wage. Why was it implemented through the tax code rather than simply stipulating a simple ceiling?
economy
economy
asked Apr 18 at 2:22
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
1,993820
1,993820
10
Not mentioned in this question are the crazy loopholes that people could exploit. In reality, the effective rate was something like 38% (varied, but you get it) which is only a few points higher than what we have today. The idea that the US had a real, practical, effective rate of 90% is absurd. Sure, there was a 90% bracket but nobody actually paid that.
– acpilot
Apr 18 at 4:43
What was the objective behind having a 90% tax bracket if there were loopholes to get around it? Were these loopholes known/were there attempts to close them?
– Chris Fernandez
2 days ago
taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high
– acpilot
2 days ago
add a comment |
10
Not mentioned in this question are the crazy loopholes that people could exploit. In reality, the effective rate was something like 38% (varied, but you get it) which is only a few points higher than what we have today. The idea that the US had a real, practical, effective rate of 90% is absurd. Sure, there was a 90% bracket but nobody actually paid that.
– acpilot
Apr 18 at 4:43
What was the objective behind having a 90% tax bracket if there were loopholes to get around it? Were these loopholes known/were there attempts to close them?
– Chris Fernandez
2 days ago
taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high
– acpilot
2 days ago
10
10
Not mentioned in this question are the crazy loopholes that people could exploit. In reality, the effective rate was something like 38% (varied, but you get it) which is only a few points higher than what we have today. The idea that the US had a real, practical, effective rate of 90% is absurd. Sure, there was a 90% bracket but nobody actually paid that.
– acpilot
Apr 18 at 4:43
Not mentioned in this question are the crazy loopholes that people could exploit. In reality, the effective rate was something like 38% (varied, but you get it) which is only a few points higher than what we have today. The idea that the US had a real, practical, effective rate of 90% is absurd. Sure, there was a 90% bracket but nobody actually paid that.
– acpilot
Apr 18 at 4:43
What was the objective behind having a 90% tax bracket if there were loopholes to get around it? Were these loopholes known/were there attempts to close them?
– Chris Fernandez
2 days ago
What was the objective behind having a 90% tax bracket if there were loopholes to get around it? Were these loopholes known/were there attempts to close them?
– Chris Fernandez
2 days ago
taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high
– acpilot
2 days ago
taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high
– acpilot
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Federal spending
Obviously, a tax has the significant advantage of providing money to the government, something that a ceiling simply does not do. Unsuprisingly, many presidents would prefer to have more money to allocate to their preferred budgetary purposes. In Roosevelt's case, this was World War II. Roosevelt all but said this explicitly in his April 27, 1942 fireside chat:
Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation?
Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level
by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in
these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I
do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in
excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes.
As always with politicians, it's difficult to say what his true motivations were. However, though Roosevelt is largely remembered for his social programs, he also was very dedicated to the American war effort, so this wouldn't have been out of character for him.
Inflation was also a concern. Roosevelt's treasury used this as an argument for the tax:
In late 1943, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau asked Congress for
another tax increase. He framed his appeal, in large part, as an
anti-inflation effort. The new act, he argued must help stop
inflation. "[N]othing in the economic field can interfere with the war
effort as much as an uncontrolled rise in prices," he told the House
Ways and Means Committee. "An inflationary price rise is a source of
grave social injustice. It undermines morale and impedes war
production. It strikes at random without consideration of equity or
ability to bear the hardships which it imposes. Once it has acquired
momentum, inflation is extremely difficult to control, and leaves a
heritage of post-war stresses and strains that will haunt us for
decades."
Now, if a direct wage ceiling were imposed, companies, unable to spend that money on attracting more highly-paid CEOs, might spend it on competing for labor lower on the company totem pole. This would lead to more money in the pockets of somewhat lower-paid workers, which might be a nice thing for income inequality, but could lead to excessive spending and spur on inflation. I'm not sure how plausible this justification is, though: since the taxes were intended to be put back into the economy through military spending, it's possible they could have had the same effect.
If there's anything wrong with the economics, please tell me so I can correct it.
– Obie 2.0
Apr 18 at 6:07
This is a good answer because it highlights FDR’s publicly stated justifications. The possible benefits of a ceiling seem dubious however; companies would more likely switch to non-monetary compensation for their CEOs instead of pay more on low wage workers. A ceiling doesn’t change the relative scarcity of the skills possessed by CEOs and low wage workers, and pay is largely determined by that scarcity.
– Joe
2 days ago
@Joe - That's true, if CEO and other salaries are being set by fair market competition. If, on the other hand, CEOs are being overpaid, and this prevents companies from having enough money to pay non-CEOs whatever market supply and demand would otherwise determine, then a CEO pay cap might free up money to pay non-CEOs closer to the market rate.
– Obie 2.0
2 days ago
add a comment |
If he just wanted to have a maximum wage of $1,000/hr, he probably could have just passed a law stipulating it. However, FDR was trying to create a maximum income, not a maximum wage. The government liming the total of dividends from stocks, interest from bonds and appreciation on homes via a legal maximum would be confiscatory and therefore unconstitutional. However, the government does have the ability to tax due to the 16th amendment.
This is also why Obama (and the Congresspeople working with him) did not add a fine for not buying healthcare - they created a tax (the Shared Responsibility Payment).
I'll leave aside questions about whether it's prudent to have such a measure in place. If you want to discuss that (and you seem to), I recommend creating another question.
add a comment |
It was most probably easier.
Setting tax rates is something that governments do all the time.
Yet, setting a maximum limit on the wage you could be paid-out, is a very tricky proposition. Especially in the US with its traditional high evaluation of individual freedom.
I guess it would have been legally straight impossible for FDR do impose a wage cap on private businesses.
I am interested in any more in-depth views of people who actually know the US law.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40699%2fwhy-did-roosevelt-decide-to-implement-a-maximum-wage-through-taxation-rather-tha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Federal spending
Obviously, a tax has the significant advantage of providing money to the government, something that a ceiling simply does not do. Unsuprisingly, many presidents would prefer to have more money to allocate to their preferred budgetary purposes. In Roosevelt's case, this was World War II. Roosevelt all but said this explicitly in his April 27, 1942 fireside chat:
Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation?
Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level
by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in
these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I
do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in
excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes.
As always with politicians, it's difficult to say what his true motivations were. However, though Roosevelt is largely remembered for his social programs, he also was very dedicated to the American war effort, so this wouldn't have been out of character for him.
Inflation was also a concern. Roosevelt's treasury used this as an argument for the tax:
In late 1943, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau asked Congress for
another tax increase. He framed his appeal, in large part, as an
anti-inflation effort. The new act, he argued must help stop
inflation. "[N]othing in the economic field can interfere with the war
effort as much as an uncontrolled rise in prices," he told the House
Ways and Means Committee. "An inflationary price rise is a source of
grave social injustice. It undermines morale and impedes war
production. It strikes at random without consideration of equity or
ability to bear the hardships which it imposes. Once it has acquired
momentum, inflation is extremely difficult to control, and leaves a
heritage of post-war stresses and strains that will haunt us for
decades."
Now, if a direct wage ceiling were imposed, companies, unable to spend that money on attracting more highly-paid CEOs, might spend it on competing for labor lower on the company totem pole. This would lead to more money in the pockets of somewhat lower-paid workers, which might be a nice thing for income inequality, but could lead to excessive spending and spur on inflation. I'm not sure how plausible this justification is, though: since the taxes were intended to be put back into the economy through military spending, it's possible they could have had the same effect.
If there's anything wrong with the economics, please tell me so I can correct it.
– Obie 2.0
Apr 18 at 6:07
This is a good answer because it highlights FDR’s publicly stated justifications. The possible benefits of a ceiling seem dubious however; companies would more likely switch to non-monetary compensation for their CEOs instead of pay more on low wage workers. A ceiling doesn’t change the relative scarcity of the skills possessed by CEOs and low wage workers, and pay is largely determined by that scarcity.
– Joe
2 days ago
@Joe - That's true, if CEO and other salaries are being set by fair market competition. If, on the other hand, CEOs are being overpaid, and this prevents companies from having enough money to pay non-CEOs whatever market supply and demand would otherwise determine, then a CEO pay cap might free up money to pay non-CEOs closer to the market rate.
– Obie 2.0
2 days ago
add a comment |
Federal spending
Obviously, a tax has the significant advantage of providing money to the government, something that a ceiling simply does not do. Unsuprisingly, many presidents would prefer to have more money to allocate to their preferred budgetary purposes. In Roosevelt's case, this was World War II. Roosevelt all but said this explicitly in his April 27, 1942 fireside chat:
Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation?
Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level
by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in
these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I
do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in
excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes.
As always with politicians, it's difficult to say what his true motivations were. However, though Roosevelt is largely remembered for his social programs, he also was very dedicated to the American war effort, so this wouldn't have been out of character for him.
Inflation was also a concern. Roosevelt's treasury used this as an argument for the tax:
In late 1943, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau asked Congress for
another tax increase. He framed his appeal, in large part, as an
anti-inflation effort. The new act, he argued must help stop
inflation. "[N]othing in the economic field can interfere with the war
effort as much as an uncontrolled rise in prices," he told the House
Ways and Means Committee. "An inflationary price rise is a source of
grave social injustice. It undermines morale and impedes war
production. It strikes at random without consideration of equity or
ability to bear the hardships which it imposes. Once it has acquired
momentum, inflation is extremely difficult to control, and leaves a
heritage of post-war stresses and strains that will haunt us for
decades."
Now, if a direct wage ceiling were imposed, companies, unable to spend that money on attracting more highly-paid CEOs, might spend it on competing for labor lower on the company totem pole. This would lead to more money in the pockets of somewhat lower-paid workers, which might be a nice thing for income inequality, but could lead to excessive spending and spur on inflation. I'm not sure how plausible this justification is, though: since the taxes were intended to be put back into the economy through military spending, it's possible they could have had the same effect.
If there's anything wrong with the economics, please tell me so I can correct it.
– Obie 2.0
Apr 18 at 6:07
This is a good answer because it highlights FDR’s publicly stated justifications. The possible benefits of a ceiling seem dubious however; companies would more likely switch to non-monetary compensation for their CEOs instead of pay more on low wage workers. A ceiling doesn’t change the relative scarcity of the skills possessed by CEOs and low wage workers, and pay is largely determined by that scarcity.
– Joe
2 days ago
@Joe - That's true, if CEO and other salaries are being set by fair market competition. If, on the other hand, CEOs are being overpaid, and this prevents companies from having enough money to pay non-CEOs whatever market supply and demand would otherwise determine, then a CEO pay cap might free up money to pay non-CEOs closer to the market rate.
– Obie 2.0
2 days ago
add a comment |
Federal spending
Obviously, a tax has the significant advantage of providing money to the government, something that a ceiling simply does not do. Unsuprisingly, many presidents would prefer to have more money to allocate to their preferred budgetary purposes. In Roosevelt's case, this was World War II. Roosevelt all but said this explicitly in his April 27, 1942 fireside chat:
Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation?
Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level
by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in
these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I
do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in
excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes.
As always with politicians, it's difficult to say what his true motivations were. However, though Roosevelt is largely remembered for his social programs, he also was very dedicated to the American war effort, so this wouldn't have been out of character for him.
Inflation was also a concern. Roosevelt's treasury used this as an argument for the tax:
In late 1943, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau asked Congress for
another tax increase. He framed his appeal, in large part, as an
anti-inflation effort. The new act, he argued must help stop
inflation. "[N]othing in the economic field can interfere with the war
effort as much as an uncontrolled rise in prices," he told the House
Ways and Means Committee. "An inflationary price rise is a source of
grave social injustice. It undermines morale and impedes war
production. It strikes at random without consideration of equity or
ability to bear the hardships which it imposes. Once it has acquired
momentum, inflation is extremely difficult to control, and leaves a
heritage of post-war stresses and strains that will haunt us for
decades."
Now, if a direct wage ceiling were imposed, companies, unable to spend that money on attracting more highly-paid CEOs, might spend it on competing for labor lower on the company totem pole. This would lead to more money in the pockets of somewhat lower-paid workers, which might be a nice thing for income inequality, but could lead to excessive spending and spur on inflation. I'm not sure how plausible this justification is, though: since the taxes were intended to be put back into the economy through military spending, it's possible they could have had the same effect.
Federal spending
Obviously, a tax has the significant advantage of providing money to the government, something that a ceiling simply does not do. Unsuprisingly, many presidents would prefer to have more money to allocate to their preferred budgetary purposes. In Roosevelt's case, this was World War II. Roosevelt all but said this explicitly in his April 27, 1942 fireside chat:
Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation?
Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level
by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in
these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I
do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in
excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes.
As always with politicians, it's difficult to say what his true motivations were. However, though Roosevelt is largely remembered for his social programs, he also was very dedicated to the American war effort, so this wouldn't have been out of character for him.
Inflation was also a concern. Roosevelt's treasury used this as an argument for the tax:
In late 1943, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau asked Congress for
another tax increase. He framed his appeal, in large part, as an
anti-inflation effort. The new act, he argued must help stop
inflation. "[N]othing in the economic field can interfere with the war
effort as much as an uncontrolled rise in prices," he told the House
Ways and Means Committee. "An inflationary price rise is a source of
grave social injustice. It undermines morale and impedes war
production. It strikes at random without consideration of equity or
ability to bear the hardships which it imposes. Once it has acquired
momentum, inflation is extremely difficult to control, and leaves a
heritage of post-war stresses and strains that will haunt us for
decades."
Now, if a direct wage ceiling were imposed, companies, unable to spend that money on attracting more highly-paid CEOs, might spend it on competing for labor lower on the company totem pole. This would lead to more money in the pockets of somewhat lower-paid workers, which might be a nice thing for income inequality, but could lead to excessive spending and spur on inflation. I'm not sure how plausible this justification is, though: since the taxes were intended to be put back into the economy through military spending, it's possible they could have had the same effect.
answered Apr 18 at 6:07
Obie 2.0Obie 2.0
2,809925
2,809925
If there's anything wrong with the economics, please tell me so I can correct it.
– Obie 2.0
Apr 18 at 6:07
This is a good answer because it highlights FDR’s publicly stated justifications. The possible benefits of a ceiling seem dubious however; companies would more likely switch to non-monetary compensation for their CEOs instead of pay more on low wage workers. A ceiling doesn’t change the relative scarcity of the skills possessed by CEOs and low wage workers, and pay is largely determined by that scarcity.
– Joe
2 days ago
@Joe - That's true, if CEO and other salaries are being set by fair market competition. If, on the other hand, CEOs are being overpaid, and this prevents companies from having enough money to pay non-CEOs whatever market supply and demand would otherwise determine, then a CEO pay cap might free up money to pay non-CEOs closer to the market rate.
– Obie 2.0
2 days ago
add a comment |
If there's anything wrong with the economics, please tell me so I can correct it.
– Obie 2.0
Apr 18 at 6:07
This is a good answer because it highlights FDR’s publicly stated justifications. The possible benefits of a ceiling seem dubious however; companies would more likely switch to non-monetary compensation for their CEOs instead of pay more on low wage workers. A ceiling doesn’t change the relative scarcity of the skills possessed by CEOs and low wage workers, and pay is largely determined by that scarcity.
– Joe
2 days ago
@Joe - That's true, if CEO and other salaries are being set by fair market competition. If, on the other hand, CEOs are being overpaid, and this prevents companies from having enough money to pay non-CEOs whatever market supply and demand would otherwise determine, then a CEO pay cap might free up money to pay non-CEOs closer to the market rate.
– Obie 2.0
2 days ago
If there's anything wrong with the economics, please tell me so I can correct it.
– Obie 2.0
Apr 18 at 6:07
If there's anything wrong with the economics, please tell me so I can correct it.
– Obie 2.0
Apr 18 at 6:07
This is a good answer because it highlights FDR’s publicly stated justifications. The possible benefits of a ceiling seem dubious however; companies would more likely switch to non-monetary compensation for their CEOs instead of pay more on low wage workers. A ceiling doesn’t change the relative scarcity of the skills possessed by CEOs and low wage workers, and pay is largely determined by that scarcity.
– Joe
2 days ago
This is a good answer because it highlights FDR’s publicly stated justifications. The possible benefits of a ceiling seem dubious however; companies would more likely switch to non-monetary compensation for their CEOs instead of pay more on low wage workers. A ceiling doesn’t change the relative scarcity of the skills possessed by CEOs and low wage workers, and pay is largely determined by that scarcity.
– Joe
2 days ago
@Joe - That's true, if CEO and other salaries are being set by fair market competition. If, on the other hand, CEOs are being overpaid, and this prevents companies from having enough money to pay non-CEOs whatever market supply and demand would otherwise determine, then a CEO pay cap might free up money to pay non-CEOs closer to the market rate.
– Obie 2.0
2 days ago
@Joe - That's true, if CEO and other salaries are being set by fair market competition. If, on the other hand, CEOs are being overpaid, and this prevents companies from having enough money to pay non-CEOs whatever market supply and demand would otherwise determine, then a CEO pay cap might free up money to pay non-CEOs closer to the market rate.
– Obie 2.0
2 days ago
add a comment |
If he just wanted to have a maximum wage of $1,000/hr, he probably could have just passed a law stipulating it. However, FDR was trying to create a maximum income, not a maximum wage. The government liming the total of dividends from stocks, interest from bonds and appreciation on homes via a legal maximum would be confiscatory and therefore unconstitutional. However, the government does have the ability to tax due to the 16th amendment.
This is also why Obama (and the Congresspeople working with him) did not add a fine for not buying healthcare - they created a tax (the Shared Responsibility Payment).
I'll leave aside questions about whether it's prudent to have such a measure in place. If you want to discuss that (and you seem to), I recommend creating another question.
add a comment |
If he just wanted to have a maximum wage of $1,000/hr, he probably could have just passed a law stipulating it. However, FDR was trying to create a maximum income, not a maximum wage. The government liming the total of dividends from stocks, interest from bonds and appreciation on homes via a legal maximum would be confiscatory and therefore unconstitutional. However, the government does have the ability to tax due to the 16th amendment.
This is also why Obama (and the Congresspeople working with him) did not add a fine for not buying healthcare - they created a tax (the Shared Responsibility Payment).
I'll leave aside questions about whether it's prudent to have such a measure in place. If you want to discuss that (and you seem to), I recommend creating another question.
add a comment |
If he just wanted to have a maximum wage of $1,000/hr, he probably could have just passed a law stipulating it. However, FDR was trying to create a maximum income, not a maximum wage. The government liming the total of dividends from stocks, interest from bonds and appreciation on homes via a legal maximum would be confiscatory and therefore unconstitutional. However, the government does have the ability to tax due to the 16th amendment.
This is also why Obama (and the Congresspeople working with him) did not add a fine for not buying healthcare - they created a tax (the Shared Responsibility Payment).
I'll leave aside questions about whether it's prudent to have such a measure in place. If you want to discuss that (and you seem to), I recommend creating another question.
If he just wanted to have a maximum wage of $1,000/hr, he probably could have just passed a law stipulating it. However, FDR was trying to create a maximum income, not a maximum wage. The government liming the total of dividends from stocks, interest from bonds and appreciation on homes via a legal maximum would be confiscatory and therefore unconstitutional. However, the government does have the ability to tax due to the 16th amendment.
This is also why Obama (and the Congresspeople working with him) did not add a fine for not buying healthcare - they created a tax (the Shared Responsibility Payment).
I'll leave aside questions about whether it's prudent to have such a measure in place. If you want to discuss that (and you seem to), I recommend creating another question.
answered 2 days ago
JesseJesse
54515
54515
add a comment |
add a comment |
It was most probably easier.
Setting tax rates is something that governments do all the time.
Yet, setting a maximum limit on the wage you could be paid-out, is a very tricky proposition. Especially in the US with its traditional high evaluation of individual freedom.
I guess it would have been legally straight impossible for FDR do impose a wage cap on private businesses.
I am interested in any more in-depth views of people who actually know the US law.
add a comment |
It was most probably easier.
Setting tax rates is something that governments do all the time.
Yet, setting a maximum limit on the wage you could be paid-out, is a very tricky proposition. Especially in the US with its traditional high evaluation of individual freedom.
I guess it would have been legally straight impossible for FDR do impose a wage cap on private businesses.
I am interested in any more in-depth views of people who actually know the US law.
add a comment |
It was most probably easier.
Setting tax rates is something that governments do all the time.
Yet, setting a maximum limit on the wage you could be paid-out, is a very tricky proposition. Especially in the US with its traditional high evaluation of individual freedom.
I guess it would have been legally straight impossible for FDR do impose a wage cap on private businesses.
I am interested in any more in-depth views of people who actually know the US law.
It was most probably easier.
Setting tax rates is something that governments do all the time.
Yet, setting a maximum limit on the wage you could be paid-out, is a very tricky proposition. Especially in the US with its traditional high evaluation of individual freedom.
I guess it would have been legally straight impossible for FDR do impose a wage cap on private businesses.
I am interested in any more in-depth views of people who actually know the US law.
answered 2 days ago
Dohn JoeDohn Joe
1,794215
1,794215
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40699%2fwhy-did-roosevelt-decide-to-implement-a-maximum-wage-through-taxation-rather-tha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
10
Not mentioned in this question are the crazy loopholes that people could exploit. In reality, the effective rate was something like 38% (varied, but you get it) which is only a few points higher than what we have today. The idea that the US had a real, practical, effective rate of 90% is absurd. Sure, there was a 90% bracket but nobody actually paid that.
– acpilot
Apr 18 at 4:43
What was the objective behind having a 90% tax bracket if there were loopholes to get around it? Were these loopholes known/were there attempts to close them?
– Chris Fernandez
2 days ago
taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high
– acpilot
2 days ago