Corporations Are Not Humans : Not Even Close --- Episode 65

                                                 AGENDUM FOR CHANGE 
                                               (continued)

                                 GUARANTEED INCOME 

   An idea long popular with both conservative and progressive economists, a guaranteed income merits serious consideration. It involves guaranteeing every person an income adequate to meet his or her basic needs. The amount would be lower for children than for adults but would be unaffected by a person's other income, wealth, work, gender, or marital status. It would replace social security and existing welfare programs. Since earned income would not reduce the guaranteed payment, there would be little disincentive to work for pay, though employers might have to pay more to attract workers to unpleasant, menial tasks. If some choose not to work, this should not be considered a problem in a labor surplus world. 
   Such a scheme would be expensive but could be supported in most high-income countries by reducing military spending, corporate welfare,and existing entitlement programs and increasing taxes on unearned income and luxuries and user fees on pollution, resource extraction, and other activities a sustainable society seeks to discourage. Combined with an adequate program of universal publicly funded health insurance and merit-based public fellowships for higher education, a guaranteed income would greatly increase the personal financial  security afforded by more modest incomes and provide greater scope for those who wish to do unpaid work in the social economy. In low-income countries, agrarian reform and other measures to assure equitable access to productive natural resources for livelihood production might appropriately substitute for a guaranteed income. 

   PROGRESSIVE INCOME AND CONSUMPTION TAXES

Taxes on incomes up to the level required to meet basic needs in a comfortable, satisfying, and responsible way should be eliminated, as should sales or Value-added taxes on basic food, clothing, shelter, health, personal hygiene, educational, and entertainment or recreational expenditures needed to sustain good living. There should, however, be a sharply graduated tax on incomes above the guaranteed minimum---going as high as 90 percent on top income brackets. In addition to a tax of at least 50 percent on estates over a million dollars, inheritance or trust income should be taxed to the receiving individual the same as any other personal income. Appropriate exceptions may be provided for family farms and businesses. 
   There should be a substantial luxury tax on nonessential consumption items that are socially harmful or environmentally wasteful or destructive. Personal charitable contributions, including family foundations, should be fully tax exempt, thus providing a substantial incentive for individuals with excess incomes to support a strong independent sector as a counter to the power of the state and the corporation. Such measures would move us toward more equitable and sustainable societies while maintaining incentives to do socially useful work. 

                                        PAY EQUITY 

    The performance of an effective organization depends on the productive contribution of all its members. It is perfectly reasonable that those who carry more responsibility and bring more to the organization be compensated accordingly. But how much more ? What is a proper ratio between the compensation of the highest and lowest paid worker in an organization ? Two to one ? Ten to one ? A hundred to one ? A thousand to one ? Ratios of well over a thousand to one are common in U.S. corporations, even if we limit the comparison to U.S workers and CEOs. A healthy society must establish a reasonable balance between economic incentive and economic justice. Public policy should provide incentives to keep the ratios within a reasonable limit, say a ratio 
of no more than fifteen to one. If a company considers its lowest paid worker is worth $10,000, then it could pay its CEO $150,000. If it raised the lowest paid worker to $20,000 then the CEO's pay could go up to $300,000. If the top jobs in a corporation or other organization are so difficult or distasteful that qualified applicants cannot be attracted for such a sum, then perhaps the job needs to be restructured. If the job is too demanding because the corporation is simply too big, then perhaps the corporation should be broken up to make it more manageable. Society can easily learn to do without the services of those who require compensation packages in the millions of dollars to motivate them to perform their jobs effectively.