[Helmet]

Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows

What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?

funneling all gains to the business owners

Yes, the accumulation of capital gains should rightly go to the owners of capital.

Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans.

Those at the bottom of the income spectrum pay virtually no taxes, so yes, tax cuts should be directed towards those that actually pay taxes (upper-middle and upper income earners), and who are, arguably, more skilled in deploying capital in ways which are productive.

I don't know how to change this realistically.

Income inequality will not be resolved through transfer payments or redistribution - it will be solved through job skills training and growth in labor production.

To put it simply: no poor person has ever gotten me a job.

[maxxxxx]

"What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?"

I have considered that. In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow. To me that would indicate a healthy and long term sustainable economy.

[Helmet]

In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow.

What does this mean? What do you mean should and who is in the "top"? By should, you mean we should peg "middle-class" wages to some index that will track the growth of "the top" - thereby forcing privately owned business owners to pay what the government tells them to? And what if they can't, they just have to close up shop? Can they fire workers?

I think you need to consider more deeply the implications of you ideas, and concepts such as what people, governments, or institutions "should" be forced to do.

Also, the "top" earners in the USA don't generate labor income, they accumulate capital. If you want to piggyback off their efforts to steer capital in a more productive manner, thereby growing it, you can open up a online brokerage account and buy some shares of any publicly traded company you want.

[gremlinsinc]

Personally, I think a max CEO pay of 200X average company salary would be a better metric... if Execs/Board members can only get so much reward and it's directly influenced by # of employees and average employee wage, -- want a pay increase... raise some wages or hire more employees.

Not sure the algorithm would be... but it needs to be tied directly to # employed and average salary to encourage growth, and discourage greed at the top.

Some CEO's do almost fraudulent things -- but get a golden parachute when they leave, this behavior needs to stop too. If a CEO fucks up - fire them, without any severance.

[maxxxxx]

You know exactly what I mean. You just want to take my point to a ridiculous level to kill the argument.

Over the last 30 years the average salary of top management has grown a lot while the salaries of most other works have stagnated. If a company is successful the salaries of all employees should grow at the same rate. The CEO is already making more money so he is already rewarded more for his role.