• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Exactly. They just pass the cost onto consumers because there’s no way they could reduce CEO pay.

    But please ignore how stock buybacks and c-suite pay was way lower when corporate taxes were high. That’s a silly correlation that has nothing to do with price inelasticity.

    • rugburn@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Reducing CEO pay is a logical fallacy. They will find a way to recoup those lost monies in another, harder to find and even harder to tax way, generally by reducing quality/ quantity of product, making cuts to workforce costs, or passing on costs to consumers in the form of increased prices. Altruism doesn’t keep the lights on.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Hence the need for minimum wage.

        Just because you have to play more layers of the game doesn’t mean the game is impossible.

        • rugburn@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          And the cost of raising the minimum wage kicks off the cycle of increasing costs, which in turn gets passed off onto the customer, or reduced compensation / hours for workers, or any number of other cost cutting measures. I’m not sticking up for them, just saying what will happen in that case. Sad, but true. They will always find a way to shift those costs or the company will likely eventually fail, in turn losing all those jobs, whether that’s due to being priced out, major drops in investors, etc. It’s a huge shit sandwich, and, unless you’re at the top, we’re all forced to take a bite.

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s not linear. Raising minimum wages by a dollar raises costs by less than a dollar because wages aren’t 100% of costs.

            • rugburn@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              …so lower income earners can get bumped up into a higher tax bracket?

              Small employer, where they will actually feel this, sure. Might work. Might put them under too, but that doesn’t matter since corporations do their best to crush the little guy. And for them, when you multiply that “just a dollar” by the number of hours worked, across all employees, and the bigger bumps that executives will then demand, that shows up as red on next year’s ledger. And once again, hours get slashed, benefits get cut, jobs get lost to automation…

              The ripple effects of taxing companies, increasing labor costs, and the costs of compliance and litigation, real or frivolous all wind up hurting the little guy. You seem to think a corporation will just take it and move along with their tail between their legs, but they don’t. They always find a way around it, through all the things I’ve already stated. And throw in legal tax loopholes, lobbying and subsidies.

              • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s not how tax brackets work. You pay a higher rate only on the amount above the bracket. You don’t pay a higher rate on the whole thing. You still end up making more money. Not understanding this should indicate to you that you really very much need to learn more on the topic.

                The rest of your point is defeatist. You think corporations are some super powerful infinitely sneaky things. They are not. We have allowed them to become so through neglect. They can easily be reined back in. They were quite functional and much more heavily taxed in the 60s, and citizens were much better off. As a start we can just go back to that.

                • rugburn@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  My point, while you could argue is defeatist, is realistic. You’ve clearly seen too many movies and TV shows where the little guy takes down the big, bad, evil corporation. There’s too much money involved and too many politicians with their hands out.

                  To your first “point”, any increase in the minimum wage will most definitely increase the amount it’s earners pay, as it’s a percentage, not a static amount, I assume you know how that works. As prices inevitably increase due to more cash chasing the same goods, the earning power of the wage increase actually decreases. This is known as “inflation”. But I’m going to go ahead an d guess you know that too, but are either purposefully being disingenuous or truly have a pollyannish utopian view of how a Keynesian economy would actually work. While I realize I’m taking a bit of a leap, the way you’re arguing that an across the board increase for entry level jobs while also placing crippling taxes on those who employ them would actually work, I think it’s a pretty safe bet.

                  The cold, hard fact that we need to come to terms with is the United Sraes economic system is based on capitalism. The money involved is incomprehensible and the power it affords those who have it is even more so. So feel free, fight your fight, I wish you luck. I’ll do my best to enjoy what happiness I’m able to find in the real world.