Since we have a minimum wage, we ought to have a maximum wage.

Thank you. To reiterate, I will be taking the position that we should not adopt a maximum wage. Since this question is largely universal and largely (at least at this point) theoretical, I shall not draw reference to any country, but discuss maximum wage as a theory. 1. Maximum wage does not serve a redistributive effect It is clear that both minimum and maximum wage are instruments that can be used to correct income inequality in a country. Maximum wage does not operate the same way that minimum wage does, however. Minimum wage reduces income inequality by encouraging the unemployed (and therefore economically unproductive) sections of society to contribute to the economy and economic growth by searching for employment. The minimum wage here acts as a financial incentive. It is clear, then, that minimum wage is not simply a movement of capital from the higher echelons of a business (and by extension, society) to the lower echelons, but instead is a mechanism that concertedly encourages productivity among the less productive members of society and allows them to hence earn a decent living. Maximum wage, on the other hand, does not serve a redistributive or motivational effect. Maximum wage is literally placing a cap on the salary that an individual is legally permitted to command. To argue that maximum wage results in a reduction in income inequality presupposes that the surplus in salary would be redistributed among other salaries in the organisation. However, this argument would be flawed in itself. Salaries are dependent on demand and supply in a particular market, and since there is neither a change in demand of labour (at other levels) nor supply, it is far more probable that the business would return the surplus into its profits pool and then invest it the way it does with the rest of its profits. 3. A maximum wage would be ineffective Even assuming that the salary of the high-income earner is redistributed, it would not serve the effect expected by many. Salaries in the millions are earned primarily by executives in very large organisations, with employees in the hundreds of thousands. Even redistributing a salary of $5 million a year to a hundred thousand employees results in a paltry increase of $50 a year. That comes down to less than $5 a month. The main portion of the top 5%'s income comes from ownership of shares in very large and successful enterprises. It is from this that the billions of dollars in income and net worth arise. Clearly, maximum wage cannot touch this money, and it would serve no purpose for maximum wage to attempt to redistribute a million-dollar salary, which is menial in comparison. 2. Maximum wage does not protect low income workers Minimum wage also serves to ensure that low income workers have a salary that would be sufficient to cover the basic living expenses in a particular country or jurisdiction. Maximum wage, does not serve this purpose. As mentioned above, there is no assurance (and businesses cannot be forced) to return the surplus to other employees. It has already been established that maximum wage does not serve a redistributive function. I will now establish why it has a damaging effect on the country and economy. 3. Maximum wage appears to serve a punitive effect against some of the most economically productive members of society Being that maximum wage has minimal economic value, a maximum wage appears to serve a punitive function against some of the most economically productive members of society, namely the decision makers of the nation, or members of the quinary sector of the economy (in the five-tiered model). Firstly, the value of money is not simply monetary. In contemporary terms, money is considered synonymous with power, and an increase in salary signifies a clear rise in the pecking order of an organisation. This being the case, it is possible that businesses may respond by reducing wages at many levels, because a CEO cannot earn a salary equal to his subordinates. This cannot be a positive consequence for anyone. Given that money also serves to equate a position with status, a reduction in salary can erode the impetus to innovate in a society. Although it is said that above a certain salary, the money no longer serves as a financial incentive, that cannot be said about its role as a status symbol. Abraham Maslow, in his Hierarchy of Needs, has placed "Esteem" as one of the fundamental needs of a human. If the salary of an innovator is reduced, and his esteem needs are not met, then he would find it far more productive to retire and write a book, become a motivational speaker etc, both of which are easier ways to earn money and yet fulfil a person's esteem needs. It is clear that a maximum wage hence reduces the impetus of a person to remain in a job or a position to inspire or engage personally in innovation. This is detrimental to society as it is innovation that serves as a major driving force for economic growth, and for leverage in international politics. 5. It is morally unjust to impose a maximum wage To follow the libertarian argument, and to quote a great many democratic constitutions: Humans have an unalienable right to life, liberty and property. To impose a minimum wage against people who have earned their money through legitimate means, and thereby deprive them of this property, is to fail in our duty to accord each individual human this right. By Kantian or deontological ethics, this is a clear violation of our duty and the action is hence immoral. 6. It is practically impossible to enforce, and is discriminatory in its nature Minimum wage is easy to enforce because it simply involves transferring a certain minimum value of money to every person employed. It is not so straightforward to do the same for the higher income workers without being discriminatory. For example, how would one limit the income of musicians and singers worldwide, who earn not a fixed salary, but income based on royalties and commissions? Should the remaining money be seized by the government? This is simply one example, which I would be interested in hearing Pro's views on. For the reasons above, I conclude that not only is a maximum wage an inappropriate policy for a government to undertake, it is massively complex, ineffective and ludicrous. There is something to be said about the fact that it is not a popular economic policy in our times, clearly indicating that it is implemented in exceptional cases, rather than on a normal basis.