Daryl wrote:I wasn't seriously suggesting that government dictate salary caps, in that while I deplore the social injustice of people who don't really contribute anything useful (light entertainment for the masses isn't high on my preferences), the cure would be worse than the disease. Possibly what has been suggested in France of having a very high tax rate that cuts in at say $5M a year would do it, and have the benefit of preventing CEOs making short term decisions to maximise their bonus.
I'm curious as to why government jobs would alone benefit from a salary cap? Many bureaucrats work very hard and do good things for the community, do you want second raters in those positions?
The reason I am for salary caps on government jobs who pays the salary. With a normal business, it's the employer/company that has to meet payroll and such. As such if the business fails, the employees find other work, and if the employees demand too much money, the business looses profitability. With a government, all of that is thrown out the window. Governments get most of their money from taxation. Governments also don't have to and in fact aside from a very few select agencies, don't ever show a profit. They operate at a loss every year. So any increase in salaries has to come from taxpayers.
It is highly notable that a President that supported unions and social programs, FDR, specifically stated he was against public sector unions because they would be demanding higher wages and benefits at the cost of the taxpayer's pocketbook. Who they would be getting their pay and bennies from was important. Businesses =/= government in how and why they pay employees. A business that can't meet payroll increases might go out of business or be sold off. A government that can't meet payroll increases can just raise taxes or skim off other revenue sources and raise taxes later to compensate.