Should the government enforce a cap on CEO pay relative to the pay of their employees?

No

No, but raise the income tax rate and remove all existing tax loopholes for CEO's' large corporations

Yes for Corporations and Government Organizations, no for Non-Profit Organizations. Also is dependent on how high/low the cap is itself.

Yes, around 15-20 times their lowest-paid employee (and lowest-paid employee of any company contracted to perform a service at their establishments on a regular basis).

Some CEOs should make less money, but there shouldn't be government intervention at that level for it.

Although many CEOs are drastically overpaid, the government should not be allowed to meddle in the legal affairs of businesses

I feel as everyone should be able to be well emersed in a job, so it is ether equal or at least so the CEO is not money hording

they should get a tax break relative to their percentage cap and all employees should be invested a total of 50% in the company

Yes, and require businesses to pay at least 1% of the CEOs salary (including bonuses and stocks) to employees with lowest salary in the company. So a CEO making $7.5 million means the lowest salary of any worker at the company is $75,000

Gov't should not enforce a cap , but should publicly spotlight and inform the public about excessive CEO compensation.

All individuals should recieve equal pay, a cap on CEO pay relative to the pay of their employees is required.

No because if we shoot enough CEOs eventually they'll get the message the government doesn't need to fix this problem we do.

No but close the loopholes that allow them to hide assets in foreign lands to avoid paying their fair share

yes, make it so the CEO can only earn till 10x the salary of the lowest paid employee. Want more money? increase salaries

CEOs shouldn't exist, or at least, business owners/managers should be elected among the workers of said business; they should fundamentally be paid relatively the same in terms of how their employees are paid.

Instead increase income taxes on disproportionately paid CEOs, but impeach Trump for gutting social welfare to cut taxes for the billionaires

Not a political issue I think businesses should pay an equal amount to all employees including the top executives

A CEO is still an employee to some degree, the government shouldn't step into something as private as that

Yes, Incentivize fairer pay scales by giving tax cuts based on how well the employees are paid compared to companies with similar structures

There are arguments for and against the government enforcing caps on CEO pay relative to employee pay, with proponents citing potential benefits like reduced income inequality and increased employee wages, while opponents express concerns about hindering executive talent retention, potential for unintended negative economic consequences, and government overreach. While supporters argue caps would create a fairer distribution of wealth and boost morale, critics question the government's role in private compensation and suggest market-based solutions are more appropriate.
Arguments in fav…  Read moreor of CEO pay caps:
Reduced Income Inequality:
.
Capping CEO pay could help narrow the gap between the highest and lowest earners, creating a more equitable distribution of wealth within organizations and society.
Increased Employee Wages:
.
With more funds available after capping executive compensation, companies could increase wages for lower-level employees, helping to lift people out of poverty.
Improved Employee Morale and Productivity:
.
A more equitable pay structure could foster better job satisfaction, leading to higher productivity and reduced employee turnover.
Societal Benefit:
.
Supporters argue that extreme CEO pay contributes to social unrest and hampers economic mobility for lower and middle classes.
Arguments against CEO pay caps:
Executive Talent Retention:
Government-imposed limits could make it difficult for companies to attract and retain top-quality executives, potentially harming business performance.
Market Interference:
Opponents argue that compensation is a private contractual agreement between an employer and employee, and government intervention constitutes overreach and disrupts the free market.
Unintended Consequences:
Capping pay might lead to companies finding other ways to compensate executives or shift jobs to regions with lower costs, negating the intended effect.
Focus on Actions, Not Pay:
Some argue that if high CEO pay leads to negative societal impacts, the focus

No, but only if the CEO provides employees outstanding benefits such as healthcare, dental, life, 401k, etc.

Yes, and make sure they only get paid enough that it is enough money for them to have some expensive things, like 1 million per year but nowhere above that and the extra made should be put into a special tax so the rich do not get powerful.

companies percentage of difference between the lowest paid worker and the ceo should eb used to determine their tax rate

Yes, but if the CEO is actually there and doing real work with employees and goes over what their salary says. They should get overtime pay for it.

Not unless there is evidence of serious corruption and severely disproportionate CEO earnings. This will protect workers while still allowing a free market.

Yes. A CEO is like a 'brain' and the employees are other organ systems. While the brain is the epicenter and 'runs the operation' without the other 'systems'(employees) the 'body'(company/business) will not operate well or even shut down. The CEO has a right to their earnings but that does not mean they have the right to deprive their employees in order to maintain their own wealth.

Instead increase income taxes on disproportionately paid CEOs and impeach Trump for gutting social welfare programs to fund huge tax cuts for billionaires

Yes, CEO's should receive pay and compensation on par with the companies currently lowest paid employee.

Yes, to an extent. CEOs should not be making too much money when their employees are struggling with the pay that they get

Yes but a very light cap. the CEO has worked their way up the ranks and deserves to be paid fairly for that. just not at the price of their employees being payed unfairly.

Yes, they earned their ranking; however, their employees should be paid a respectable and living wage.

No, as this could result in gubernatorial overreach in the pay of positions that could ultimately harm smaller businesses rather than help them.

Yes, the government should enforce a cap on CEO pay relative to the average employee’s wage as long as the cap is adjusted to account for inflation and economic conditions.This would help reduce extreme income inequality, promote fairer compensation structures, and ensure that executive pay grows alongside worker pay. A flexible, inflation-indexed cap would maintain fairness without stifling innovation or talent.

No, this is a slippery slope that could lead to more government intervention in private businesses, but the government should support labor unions that address unfair CEO pay relative to the pay of their employees

No, but limit the bonus structure for the CEO to cap its value based on total bonus paid out to the rest of the companies salaried and unsalaried employees.

Yes, but it should not be relative to the average wage of the employees; rather, there should be a maximum wage that is adjusted each year for inflation. The maximum wage could start at something high like $99 million per year.

Yes there should be a cap on CEO pay, though they should not get pay relative to the typical employee pay, they should not be paid an astronomical amount.

No, so long as there is a livable minimum wage and sufficient protection of workers' rights, an arbitrary cap on CEO pay is unnecessary

No, an increased minimum wage and labor unions will help the lowest paid employees without placing an arbitrary cap on CEO pay

Instead of a payment cap, a vastly increased TAX on any form of CEO Income, Stock Options, or Benefits.

I believe as the CEO you should be payed more but proportional to the amount of work you do or provide to the company

No, as long as CEOs are taxed appropriately and tly employees are paid above the national minimum wage

No, for the sake of freedom, capitalism, fair pay, weak government, federalism, and checks and balances.

No, for the sake of fair pay, freedom, federalism, weak government, capitalism, and checks and balances.

No, but corporate regulation should be restored, as that is what largely contributed to the smallest wealth gap in US history during the 1950s to early 1970s

No but I am not a fan of CEOs making billions of dollars every year but remaining stingy within the company (but the government should not intervene).

Yes, no employee other than the owner should be making more than 4 times the pay of their lowest paid employee.

Yes; but would like to see states or other lower levels of government be the ones to adopt first, if it is adopted.

Pay should be dependent on the responsibilities of the CEO. If they are responsible for the company and are actively involved in the regular activities of said company, then their pay should reflect that.

depending on the business if its a small business then the CEO needs the money to keep the business going but in big businesses the employees aren't doing the job that requires them to be paid as much

No, as long as those in the CEO position are there out of talent at their profession rather than bias and favoritism.

There should be a workers representation board on corporations that can set a cap on their CEOs to ensure fair distribution of corporate earnings. We should also be vigilant against tax evasion.

No; however, companies should be required to publicly disclose the pay and bonuses of executive officers so the public can see potential disparity between c-suite and worker pay.

The question of whether the government should enforce caps on CEO pay relative to employee pay is a complex one, with arguments both for and against such measures, often rooted in differing perspectives on fairness, economic impact, and corporate governance.
Arguments in favor of capping CEO pay:
Reduced Inequality:
Proponents argue that extreme pay disparities between CEOs and employees contribute to social unrest and hinder economic mobility, and capping CEO pay could help address this.
Increased Morale and Trust:
Some believe that limiting CEO pay could boost employee morale and foster…  Read more a more ethical and responsible business environment, improving public trust in companies.
Encouraging Inclusive Growth:
A more equitable distribution of wealth, achieved through pay caps, could lead to a more inclusive growth model where all workers benefit from company success.
Tax Revenue:
Tax penalties for companies with excessive CEO-to-worker pay ratios could generate additional tax revenue for the government.
Arguments against capping CEO pay:
Stifled Innovation and Economic Growth:
Opponents argue that caps could stifle economic growth and innovation, as companies might be less willing to invest or take risks without the incentive of high potential rewards for CEOs.
Difficulty in Retaining Talent:
Some believe that capping CEO pay could make it harder for companies to attract and retain top-quality executives, potentially harming their competitiveness.
Market Efficiency:
Others argue that the market, not the government, should determine CEO compensation, and that government intervention could lead to inefficiencies and unintended consequences.
Complexity and Implementation Challenges:
Establishing and enforcing such caps could be complex and challenging, potentially leading to legal disputes and unintended consequences.

No, but a cap should be put on and anything paid over that cap cannot be considered a business expense. Must come direct out of profit.

Yes, the CEO's pay should be proportional to the employee's pay as it is just another position in the company.

Yes, CEO's and other higher ups in these big companies don't really know the struggles of their workers having a system that reminds them that the workers are responsible for the wealth they have should be viable

Yes, and CEOS must reduce their pay and shareholders pay anytime they reduce the pay of their workers

Depends on amounts made and disparity between CEO and lowest level workers. If disparity is above a certain threshold then I would be in favor of a cap.

If a CEO is developing a slave type wage system (they get paid way more and clearly see their workers suffering and barley getting by and don't increase wages) well then the public opinion will fix that lol.

No, but I think there should be tax benefits or other incentives if they do change their pay to be relative to their employees' pay

if they are a CEO and own the business then they might work more so they deserve more pay so if it was higher that fine plus they probably own the business so they should make more

Yes, when CEOs see record profits and despite that their pay raises come with layoffs and no raises for their employees.

Corporations should be replaced with a worker syndicate model that will determine the proper wages for executive officers.

Yes, a CEO should not make more than x amount more than the lowest paid employee, where x equals the number of "rungs" higher than they are on the corporate ladder.

Yes, the only way it would interfere with business autonomy is if the higher ups complained that they weren’t making enough money which is nonsense. As far as discouraging top executive talent, tough, who says the CEO has to make more than the workers? Why can’t we all make the same amount of money? Hierarchal structures also interfere with business autonomy and discourage the workers on the bottom

Yes but allow companies to break the cap im exchange for compensating the government and company the ceo came from

No but certain establishments with a high CEO pay should be mandatory to uphold higher wages for employees depending on positions. If companies with a small amount of employees are allowed to charge under minimum wage, corporations or any CEO companies should have a higher wage.

Regardless, this is the duty of unions, which government should support and not interfere with in unproductive manners

That depends on the CEO and their employees. If the CEO takes advantage of their employees through cheap labor, then yes.

They should not set a cap to how much a CEO can earn in order to keep encouraging top executive talent as long as the amount employees make increase as well.

Yes, it is absurd for CEOs to cut wages because it's 'too expensive', while they add another $1 billion to their salary

A CEO shouldn't have more money than what the government spends in a month. CEOs and their advisors shouldn't prioritize profit over the workers/environments.

no but no CEO should be making more then 500% more then there empolyee unless there company is paying its fair share in taxes

No; I would not be opposed to such a policy, but would like to see states or other lower levels of government be the ones to adopt this, if it is adopted.

Yes, but they should also start applying taxes to bank loans taken out by CEO’s to close the loophole and encourage liquidation of there companies stock into taxable currency

No, instead they should start applying taxes to bank loans taken out by CEO’s to close the loophole and encourage liquidation of there companies stock into taxable currency

As long as the employees are getting paid enough to live and not work a second job I am all for it, if not it’s considered immoral and selfish.

Yes, but there should not be a specific amount cap. There should be a general percentage cap instead.

"Yes, but the money should be trickled down": The government should enforce a cap on CEO pay relative to employee pay, but it’s essential that the funds redirected from high executive compensation are reinvested into the company and distributed to benefit employees. This could mean raising wages for lower-level employees, offering better benefits, improving workplace conditions, and investing in employee development. By ensuring that the money is funneled back to the workforce, companies can promote a more balanced distribution of wealth, enhance employee satisfaction and productivity, and contribute to overall economic stability.

Depends on the size of the company, bigger companies sure, but smaller companies no as it would hurt them (i.e. small family run businesses)

Yes, and no CEO or other executive should receive a high salary from a company that is either bailed out by taxpayers, goes bankrupt, or is replaced for wrong doing. There should never be a golden parachute.

No. I do think CEOs should be taxed progressively, but the priority should be ensuring decent basic pay for the workers.

No, just tax them more, require greater transparency, and give shareholders the right to veto executive pay packages

Yes.

Increase the income tax rate and remove all existing tax loopholes for large corporations.

certain establishments with a high CEO pay should be mandatory to uphold higher wages for employees depending on positions. If companies with a small amount of employees are allowed to charge under minimum wage, corporations or any CEO companies should have a higher wage.

No, but instead just INCREASE the income tax rate and remove all existing tax loopholes for large corporations

Yes, people have worked their way up to that place, and through a lot of work, expecting such a job with said pay.

Yes, but the price cap should be reasonable. As long as the workers are being paid fairly leave the CEO alone.

There shouldn't be a limit, but if they are making a lot of money they need to pay their employees more

It really depends on the CEO and their employees. If the CEO takes advantage of their employees who actually work hard and pays them too little, then yes.

Yes, it is insane and sanctimonious for CEOs to claim minimum wage increases for workers are 'too expensive' while they horde billions in stolen wages from the working class

They should be making an astronomical amount of money as they own the company however the problem is not the money they make but the lack of taxes they face on the matter that is mainly inequitable.

Probably not. A higher taxed upper income bracket may be the better way to deincentivize excessive wage gap.

i feel the ceo shouldnt earn a crazy amount more then their workers but if they built their business then they are entitled to their money

Not, but there should be some social pressures from unions or minor regulatory frameworks from the government to scrutinize excessive CEO salaries.

I think there should be a limit to their pay but I do think equalizing it would result in a lack of drive for people to excel in their careers if the financial incentive is lowered drastically.

Perhaps not a cap but a relative percentage of how much greater the CEO pay can be relative to their employee's.