Remuneration with a Uniform Income for All Employees
Yes: janitors and dishwashers and CEO’s would all have the same income.
A while back I published here in Medium “To Preserve What We Have, What We Have Must Be Enough.” It is an overview of a paradigm in which all employees of any business and government would be paid the same income (using the U.S. for illustrative purposes). Other remuneration, in the form of (in-kind) benefits, would be as variable and unlimited as they are today. Being an overview, that article is pretty much bereft of specifics. Here I would like to discuss in detail a conceptual schematic for remuneration with that paradigm in place. It hasn’t been etched in stone by the Lord, but is one possible approach.
There is one rule that would govern remuneration in the paradigm: no revenue of any business that can sell its good(s)/service(s) to any entity in the economy can go to any individual. (That will get clearer if the reader keeps reading.) All employees of all businesses and government would be paid the same income ($25/hr.; $1,000/wk.: so $52,000/yr. for full-time employment — with part-time employment at that hourly wage still existing). The source of the money for that income is another subject, addressed in that aforementioned article (with links at the end of that article to more about it); here the topic is the details of possible remuneration in the U.S. with such a paradigm in place. That income as full-time employment (i.e., $52,000/yr.) will be referred to herein as “one income.” To be clear, monetary/financial bonuses would be disallowed.
There would be two exceptions to that above rule. One exception would be royalties. Individuals could be paid royalties out of the revenues of any business for their creations — which would include works of art and technological inventions. The second exception to the rule would be commissions. Just like today, people could get paid a percentage of the revenue they brought into any business via sales of its product(s). Clearly, both exceptions to the rule would be closely scrutinized to prevent fraud.
For purposes of remuneration, there would be various categories involving work. I’ll list them here before getting into the details concerning remuneration in each of them. The categories are: being singularly self-employed; being a partner in a non-business partnership; being an owner (singly or with one or more partners) of a business in a proprietorship (“limited” or “full business” — below); being an employee of a business of any kind; being a public employee (government); and being an employee of a not-for-profit organization.
As the reader will see, it is the same opportunities for employment as exist today, broken down into a few more different categories than we are accustomed to considering. This proposal is not about limiting possibilities. Rather, its concern is assuring that what we have in terms of possibilities can be preserved: environmentally and socially. (For purposes of syntactic simplicity, henceforth in this article I’ll use the present tense — but referring, unless otherwise noted, to the proposed paradigm.)
Being singularly self-employed means working completely alone: no employer, no employee(s), no partner(s). The possibilities for such employment are unlimited: a person can produce any good or service and sell it for whatever that person can get for it. To abide by the above rule, however, singularly self-employed individuals can only sell to other individuals, “limited proprietorships” (see below) and not-for-profit organizations. Sales to not to any other business or government would be prohibited. .
Non-business partnerships are two or more people working together — with no employees — to produce and sell some good(s) or service(s). By definition, all people working in the enterprise are partners with a full say in how everyone engaged in it will be remunerated. They are “non-business partnerships” because, like singularly self-employed individuals, they have no employees. They have the same limitations on sales as singularly self-employed people.
In this paradigm businesses are defined by having employees (as we normally think of that form of employment) and selling the good(s)/service(s) they produce. In the paradigm some businesses are limited to whom/what they can sell the goods/services they produce whereas others can sell the goods/services they produce to any entities in the economy. The difference has to do with how the owners get remunerated, in accordance with the above rule.
One form of business is a limited proprietorship. There can be one or more owners (as partners) of the business. It is “limited” because it can only sell its good(s) or service(s) to individuals, not-for-profits, and other limited proprietorships. It is barred from selling to other businesses or government. Like any business, its employees each receive one income. They can also receive benefits paid for out of the revenue of the business. The profits of a limited proprietorship are the income for the owner(s) of the business. It is the only form of business for which that is the case.
A full-business proprietorship has employees and it can sell its product(s) to any entity. Because a full-business proprietorship can sell its good(s)/service(s) to any entity in the economy the owner cannot receive any of its revenue. Instead, the owner collects three incomes: one income for being the owner, one income for being employed in the business, and one income in lieu of any benefits. So the total remuneration of any and every proprietor of such a business would be $156,000 (3 x $52,000). Everything regarding the remuneration of the employees is the same as for any other business. [Alternatively, an owner could be allowed to receive benefits instead of one of those three incomes. Perhaps owners of such businesses could be given the option to receive a third income or benefits.]
A full-business partnership is simply a full-business proprietorship with more than one owner. The owners each receive one income for being an owner and one income for being employed in the enterprise. If a third income were paid to owners of any such business in lieu of any benefits, each partner would also receive one income for that.
In this paradigm a corporation is exactly what one is today. Ownership is in the form of stocks. There are closely held corporations, in which a few people (often all family members) hold all of the stock and there are public corporations, in which stocks are sold to any entity.
In this paradigm remuneration in all corporations is in the same form. To receive any remuneration from a corporation a person must be an employee of it. Each employee would receive one income. Any other form of remuneration for any employee would be in the form of (in-kind) benefits, and that only. Remuneration in the form of benefits would not be limited in any way (except for the restriction that they be in-kind, not financial). The difference between a proprietorship and a closely held corporation, in particular, can have more to do with issues concerning legal liabilities than remuneration.
Every employee of government, from local to central, whether elected or not, is paid one income. Like today, they also receive benefits, which are paid for out of the money available to the specific government in which they are employed. Like today, their total remuneration is based on similar jobs in the private sector.
The final category of employment is not-for-profit organizations. The need for charities (for citizens) is (presumably) non-existent, but all other forms of not-for-profits that exist today, to include churches and political organizations, still exist. To maintain the rule against certain money going to individuals, not-for-profit organizations can only receive money in the form of donations from individuals. All individuals employed in not-for-profits are compensated with money and/or benefits out of the money collected in the form of donations, however an organization sees fit. It is presumed that such organizations are closely scrutinized by potential donors to ensure that they are legitimate (as well as being scrutinized by government as possible perpetrators of fraud).
Like today, people and the government would have to be vigilant against frauds of various kinds. The fact that fraud could possibly be perpetrated in this paradigm is hardly unique to it or a valid reason for rejecting it. Welfare, Social Security, and taxes, which are all to vulnerable fraud, would no longer exist.
The rationale for this paradigm is given in that other aforementioned article. Here the purpose has been limited to providing details regarding a possible conceptual schematic for remuneration in it (using the U.S. as an illustrative example). In short, remuneration would be as variable as it is at present. Like today, people would have to take into consideration the various kinds and amounts of remuneration that would be possible in formulating their plans for earning a living.