It's not simply about redistributing wealth, it's mostly about making sure everyone plays by the same rules. The CEO's have the power to bend the rules. That has to stop because in the process of bending the rules the CEO's are hurting the overall economy by focusing on accounting gimics rather than real increases in productivity and keeping any benefits to growth in a small section of the population. Another tenant of capitalism is that the freedom of the masses to purchase what they want leads to an economy that is best for everyone. That becomes less and less true as wealth gets concentrated in a smaller and smaller portion of the population. I firmly believe that a distribution of wealth is a good thing for all the reasons you argue against me with. However, I do not believe changing the distribution of wealth beyond historic norms is a good thing, because I frimly believe that power tends to corrupt and it is obvious how much money has corrupted the democratic and legal process in this country. We certainly don't need even more of that.

I've been around millionaires and their families all my life Tom due to my family's involvement with antique cars and my daughter's social skills. They are not godlike beings deserving far more than anyone else although I can say most of the ones I know earned it and only 1 or 2 like Bill Harrah might have been a billionaire. Their kids are often spoiled slackers. Bill Gates is a very smart and hard working man who earned what he has to some extent but was also in the right place at the right time. Why do you think Gates and Buffet are giving most of their fortunes away rather than leaving it to their kids? I've also been around poor people and seen that their situation is often of their own making so I'm a long way from a socialist. The thing is I don't see much differece between welfare Mom's getting what they can get from government and CEO's getting as much as they can out of their companies because they control the boards. How anyone can justify multiple milions in pay for loosing money is beyond me. Neither is earning what they're getting.

I believe in equality of opportunity and believe that the greater the income gap in a country is the less equality of opportunity there is. I don't know where he optimum distribution is, but making 20 to 40 times the pay of an average worker seems like a pretty good incentive to hang on to a CEO post to me. You have yet to explain why this historical norm should be ripped to shreds in recent history. If the US rose to the hights of economic power with that kind of income distribution why should it have changed?

I'm not sure how CEO pay should be limited, but I wish that was the discussion this country was having. I think the starting point should be a basic limit in the 20 to 40 times average pay range with some variation based on employee number. Twice as many employees should carry a similar weight to twice the average pay at least in smaller companies so CEO's are potentially rewarded for more employees or higher employee pay rather than just ruthless cost cutting which often cuts to the bone for short term profit. We're talking about an upper limit too so a CEO can be payed for solely based on performance until hitting that cap. Of course the job of a CEO is to make money not pay employees so I'm fine with stock options as bonuses based on performance alone. I think those stock options should have to be held 5 to 10 years to make sure they are taking the long view. Those bonuses should be approved by the stock holders from a range of options not just a yes or no vote. If that were the case I wouldn't care how big they were, because at least the shareholders would have a clear say and the CEOs would be forced to manage the company for the long term rather than a short term sale. I'm not for taking away the profit motive, just making sure that employee and stock holder interest cary more weight than they seem to have recently. Above all else, not profit no bonus or at least only a very small one for nonfinacial goals.

Regards,
Mark