Your two scenarios don’t have the same overall income, so your example doesn’t make any sense…
Mattan Ingram

The point is that I gave you an example that breaks the theory that focusing on income inequality provides for a better life for more people. In real life the overall income (or GDP) of any particular tax base is actually not constant. Companies and people move to get better tax treatment. The example of the CEO salary having a cap again achieves a different goal. Would I rather be at a company where CEO makes $1M and I make $50K or would I rather be at a company where CEO makes $10M and I make $100K? I choose $100K… so the point is that capping things or redistributing income doesn’t necessarily achieve the goal of giving workers more income. What I suggest is that we optimize for growth along with competitive tax policies so that the total tax revenue increases and we can do more for our society. Hope this nuance makes sense.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.