I have to admit that you make an interesting assumption that a CEO making millions actually earns that money. Consider for now, the public policy decisions that had to have been made in order to allow wages to stagnate for 40 years while at the same allowing top 1% income to rise 900% over the same period. Who has the most influence on Congress and statehouses to allow such a thing to happen?
Judging by the compiled analysis and work of serious economists Dean Baker, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, I’d say that the wealthy have the influence they need to craft and implement a public policy that drives income *upward*. They can buy the laws they want. If ordinary people lack that sort of influence, wouldn’t that be slavery imposed on ordinary people?
This whole idea that a single man can *earn* $10 million a year is somewhat ludicrous. When that same man buys a McLaren 720S, is that an efficient allocation of resources? Probably not. When that same man *buys* beach front property in Malibu, California, is that an efficient allocation of resources? Probably not.
Everything you say assumes that the market is rational. Is it? I don’t think it was rational on September 30th, 2008, and I still don’t think it’s rational now. One of those economists I named above, didn’t miss the housing bubble. Can you name a conservative economist who caught the housing bubble before the collapse, much less propose a legislative framework for preventing that from happening again?
You assume that AOC would like to punish those who work harder, the assumption is that those who work hardest, make the most money. How puritan of you. There exist people who make $4–5 million a year and work 5 hours a week. Are those the people you speak of? How about those trust fund kiddies? Or what about the parent working 2–3 jobs just to keep the house going for his kids?
Where do you draw the line? That is what AOC’s proposal is all about.