CEO pay has increased dramatically over the past thirty years. In the early 1980's, the average CEO earned 42 times that of the average employee. Today, depending on the timeframe of the study, CEO's "now" earn 280 to 400 times as much. This is both a cause and symptom of the concentration of wealth, which, when excessive, has been clearly linked to numerous societal ills affecting all, even the rich themselves. Think of a banana Republic and the issues readily come to mind.
The IRS corporate tax code must be adjusted to reward companies that maintain equitable executive compensation. Conversely, penalties must apply to the most egregious efforts to hoard financial credit at the top of the organization. I recommend a formula such as a write-off of .1% of taxable income per 1X multiple of CEO (or highest paid employee, all forms of compensation combined) pay over average employee pay below a multiple of 100. For example, if the CEO pay is 50X the average, then the deduction would be 50 x .1 or 5%. Multiples above 100 would result in penalties derived using the same formula. In addition, companies whose top paid executive earns 200X or more of the average employee should forfeit any applicable corporate tax reimbursements.
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).