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?

How can I introduce the names of fantasy creatures to the reader?

Why does BitLocker not use RSA?

Will I be more secure with my own router behind my ISP's router?

Why these surprising proportionalities of integrals involving odd zeta values?

When speaking, how do you change your mind mid-sentence?

Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department

A German immigrant ancestor has a "Registration Affidavit of Alien Enemy" on file. What does that mean exactly?

Does the Pact of the Blade warlock feature allow me to customize the properties of the pact weapon I create?

What helicopter has the most rotor blades?

Marquee sign letters

Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba?

Can the van der Waals coefficients be negative in the van der Waals equation for real gases?

Is my guitar’s action too high?

Has a Nobel Peace laureate ever been accused of war crimes?

What came first? Venom as the movie or as the song?

Married in secret, can marital status in passport be changed at a later date?

How to produce a PS1 prompt in bash or ksh93 similar to tcsh

What's the connection between Mr. Nancy and fried chicken?

Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?

What were wait-states, and why was it only an issue for PCs?

Recursive calls to a function - why is the address of the parameter passed to it lowering with each call?

Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll?

Determine the generator of an ideal of ring of integers

lm and glm function in R



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?










7















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?










share|improve this question

















  • 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
    Apr 18 at 16:34











  • taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high

    – acpilot
    Apr 18 at 19:40















7















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?










share|improve this question

















  • 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
    Apr 18 at 16:34











  • taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high

    – acpilot
    Apr 18 at 19:40













7












7








7


1






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?










share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Apr 18 at 2:22









Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah

2,008820




2,008820







  • 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
    Apr 18 at 16:34











  • taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high

    – acpilot
    Apr 18 at 19:40












  • 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
    Apr 18 at 16:34











  • taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high

    – acpilot
    Apr 18 at 19:40







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
Apr 18 at 16:34





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
Apr 18 at 16:34













taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high

– acpilot
Apr 18 at 19:40





taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high

– acpilot
Apr 18 at 19:40










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















10














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.






share|improve this answer























  • 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
    Apr 18 at 10:46











  • @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
    Apr 18 at 15:41



















5














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.






share|improve this answer






























    -1














    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.






    share|improve this answer























      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
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      10














      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.






      share|improve this answer























      • 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
        Apr 18 at 10:46











      • @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
        Apr 18 at 15:41
















      10














      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.






      share|improve this answer























      • 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
        Apr 18 at 10:46











      • @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
        Apr 18 at 15:41














      10












      10








      10







      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.






      share|improve this answer













      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Apr 18 at 6:07









      Obie 2.0Obie 2.0

      2,837925




      2,837925












      • 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
        Apr 18 at 10:46











      • @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
        Apr 18 at 15:41


















      • 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
        Apr 18 at 10:46











      • @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
        Apr 18 at 15:41

















      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
      Apr 18 at 10:46





      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
      Apr 18 at 10:46













      @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
      Apr 18 at 15:41






      @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
      Apr 18 at 15:41












      5














      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.






      share|improve this answer



























        5














        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.






        share|improve this answer

























          5












          5








          5







          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.






          share|improve this answer













          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Apr 18 at 8:57









          JesseJesse

          54515




          54515





















              -1














              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.






              share|improve this answer



























                -1














                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.






                share|improve this answer

























                  -1












                  -1








                  -1







                  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.






                  share|improve this answer













                  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.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 18 at 11:48









                  Dohn JoeDohn Joe

                  1,794215




                  1,794215



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

                      419 nièngy_Soadمي 19bal1.5o_g

                      Queiggey Chernihivv 9NnOo i Zw X QqKk LpB