2019 September

Sanders Proposes Corporate Tax to Address Pay Gap at Big Companies – The New York Times

There is something here?

I didn’t read the article but enclosed it as the trigger.

Now, I will concede that assumptions I have made over time about BS are at the root so if you can’t go there, you won’t go here;)

Take two people:

One born into mode 4, another mode 6 (Jaquesian terms).

The rock they are pushing is the same rock?

A mode 4 rock vs the mode 6 rock, ceteris parabis?

Should the mode 6 be paid more than the mode 6…or each to his own?

This is generally based on assumptions where the argument lies.

But this is the area where the debate has to go,

You didn’t build that?

You didn’t work for that?

Lately as I’ve had these questions dumped in my lap by experience, I can readily see how the arguments form and are supported and in reality it’s all about values…as if they are learned vs discovered?

I’ll stop there, but I do get where Bernie et al are coming from…even if it’s not the same place I’m from;)

We might arrive at the same place for different reasons;)

How can a conservative arrive at liberal?

Sanders Proposes Corporate Tax to Address Pay Gap at Big Companies

By Matt Stevens

Sept. 24, 2019

Senator Bernie Sanders said, “It is time to send a message to corporate America: If you do not end your greed and corruption, we will end it for you.”Hilary Swift for The New York Times

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed a new corporate tax on Monday that would penalize some of the country’s largest companies if they did not narrow the gap between what they pay their chief executives and what they pay their workers.

The proposal is the latest measure from Mr. Sanders aimed at reducing income equality — a pillar of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president.

It is also the latest example of the commitment by Mr. Sanders and his leading progressive rival, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, to use America’s tax system to address the wide gulf between ordinary Americans and the rich.

“The American people are sick and tired of corporate C.E.O.s who now make 300 times more than their average employees, while they give themselves huge bonuses and cut back on the health care and pension benefits of their employees,” Mr. Sanders said in a statement. “They want corporations to invest in their workers, not just dividends, stock buybacks and outrageous compensation packages to their executives.”

Mr. Sanders’s proposal would impose tax rate increases on companies whose chief executives make at least 50 times what their typical workers earn. The tax would apply to all private and publicly held corporations with annual revenue of more than $100 million, the Sanders campaign said.

The tax penalties would begin at half a percentage point for companies that compensate their highest-paid employees between 50 and 100 times as much as their typical workers, then escalate as the pay gap increases. The biggest penalty — 5 percentage points — would apply to companies that pay their top executives more than 500 times what they pay a typical worker.

Mr. Sanders’s campaign said that if current pay patterns continued, the plan would raise about $150 billion over the next decade; the revenue would be used to pay for a plan he released earlier this month to eliminate an estimated $81 billion in existing medical debt. He followed that three days later by proposing an annual tax on the fortunes of the richest Americans, an idea that Ms. Warren has made a centerpiece of her presidential bid.

The tax plans the two candidates have proposed would need to be passed by Congress to become law, an unlikely scenario if Republicans retain control of the Senate.

Together, Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders have used the 2020 Democratic primary to offer up a substantial rethinking of the federal government’s approach to taxation that would shift more of the burden of paying for government toward the wealthy.

“At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are demanding that large, profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes,” Mr. Sanders said in his statement on his corporate tax proposal. “It is time to send a message to corporate America: If you do not end your greed and corruption, we will end it for you.”

Ms. Warren also wants to change how the country’s most profitable corporations are taxed in order to ensure that they are paying their “fair share.” In April, she proposed a new tax on corporations that report more than $100 million in profits.

Ms. Warren has another proposal about big corporations, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that addresses executive compensation. The proposal would restrict when top executives can sell company shares, and it would require that workers elect at least 40 percent of a company’s board of directors.

Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.

More on the Wealth Tax Proposals

Bernie Sanders Proposes a Wealth Tax: ‘I Don’t Think That Billionaires Should Exist’


Democrats Want to Tax the Wealthy. Many Voters Agree.

Feb. 19, 2019

Elizabeth Warren Wants a Wealth Tax. How Would That Even Work?

Feb. 18, 2019




10 replies on “Sanders Proposes Corporate Tax to Address Pay Gap at Big Companies – The New York Times”

I have heard that Jaques was a democratic socialist. His felt fair pay scale does espouse paying the stratum 7 capable person significantly more than the person in a strat one role – but its no where near what the CEOs Bernie is talking about are paid. What they are making is not felt as fair.

I think the triple bottom line concept is a good starting (turning) point for business, but I don’t see how anyone below mode 5 could manage it. These CEOs likely could if they were rewarded for doing so. As long as they are rewarded for the sole purpose of returns for shareholders, we are sunk – and it won’t be long before the pitchforks come out (and then the surveillance state steps into our longing for order to create that new order).

Im just not sure we can—in present circumstances stances—future circumstances excluded, turn around the cultural inertia.

These people—like those practicing PC—are just normalised to the assumptions of our culture.

Talking with one of our mypal (successes!) about teaching school kids in China English…and she conveyed that if the students didn’t pay attention (8 pm to 11 pm)…that parents would slap them!

China’s culture is an ambitious one where it is the responsibility of the individual push hard fir relevance and position.

It will be difficult also to shift that cultural inertia…although time shows the power of water on rocks;)


“You didn’t build that?

You didn’t work for that?”

That’s not the claim. In the quotations I’ve seen of Obama and Warren, both praise the work people do to build businesses. You built your business. What you did not build are the roads you use to ship your goods. (That was the insight I had that led to our discussion 10 years ago, Mike.)

As far as I’ve seen., the research behind felt-fair pay is clear, but thin. I believe there have been 3 studies, all in Western countries. Enough and clear-enough research to establish a strong and interesting hypothesis but far from enough to establish felt-fair pay as a property of a role. I wonder how well the research would hold up in cultures far from the spiral dynamic blue that RO fits so well in.

Considerations of this issues are often muddied by morality, good vs. evil, rather than being grounded in what people want. To begin with, I’ve seen lots of support for Jaques’s compensation model on grounds that it feels fair. I’ve never seen an explanation as to why felt-fairness ought to drive compensation.

Yes the Moscow couch discussion has continuously proven fruitful…I remember standing a lot;)

What I meant was much deeper an issue.

If nature and genetics play as powerful a role as many/I think, then hard work ethic is unborn and and so is expedience, sloth and all of their cousins.

Too many people are taking too much credit and using what appears to be discretionary judgment about things like work ethic, etc.

The simple point being is that people who are more fit to the achievement model are taking credit for things which are mostly lottery…so the socialists have a point…


Herb, what feels fair may be related to the weight of responsibility carried. I don’t want that much responsibility so I’m will trade off some potential income to not have to bear that. I hear those sentiments on unionized movie sets. It may be the perception of I don’t want that (vs I can’t do that work).

But if someone gets a load of cash without having to carry a heavy load of responsibility, then “its unfair” echoes down the halls.

We have seen some rumblings with felt fair pay at stratum 1 and I have wondered if that is more related to extreme rise Stateside in cost of living with healthcare and education etc, or if the theory and calculations are wrong at stratum 1 (stratum 3 is paid x, 2 is .55 of x, 1 is .33 of x, 4 is 2x, 5 is 4x)

The issue of FFP is it breaks down outside DQ-BLUE dominance, as Herb May have noted, below that fairness is determined in a system, above that by an individual and that’s the run, IMHO.

Of course my statement is oversimplified because the dominant culture mandates what is expected…providing the basis for what’s fair.

However in the current age, what’s fair is anyone’s guess and if you have even a minority stating “that’s not fair” then nature takes over, which requisite depended upon.

Everything now IS POLITICIZED, and thus all bets are off, you get what you can and scream when u can’t…and if you can’t you leave, are washed out or silenced in a variety of ways.

The time has LONG PASSED where you would get a straight answer from anyone because of PC.

For me, FFP will not work without the culture to support it and if you have that, you don’t need FFP anyway;)

Just a musing,


How does it break down outside blue? I’m not in blue but it makes sense to me and most people I know that share my – what would you call the colors? World view? Desired social structure?

Orange – merit/achievement

Green – fairness/equality

You’re probably a lot more blue that you will own;)

what would you call the colors? World view? Desired social structure?



Maybe, I may not know enough about blue. My Dad says he prefers blue so I have that one example. As far as not admitting something to myself, it’s possible but probably not likely. I always show up as “what you see is what you get” on those personality or values tests that proclaim “you are who you say you are” vs “you aren’t really the person you project to the world.” My guess would be somewhere between orange and green. Definitely orange when I was younger if I understand it, which I probably don’t 🙂

Heidi Mehltretter

This message is intended exclusively for the individual(s) or entity to
which it is addressed. It may contain information that is proprietary,
privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.
If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read,
print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender

immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

That’s blue;)


Comments are closed.