patrick.net

Sniper says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.

Oh PLEASE don't tell us it's a meritocracy. There are plenty of people who work their tails off but are not rich, and also some idiots who work 2 or 3 jobs and are dirt poor.
But according to your narrative all these people had to do was to work a 4th job, or maybe they should have been born with a better brain (so just bad luck hey?).

Heraclitusstudent says

Do you think that if the rich owned only 35% of the world, the goose that lays the golden eggs would be dead?
How about 20%?

I don't know if the goose would die. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.

Strategist says

I don't know if the goose would die. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.

Why? This seems a gratuitous assertion.
Do you think someone is less motivated if they are paid $50 millions instead of $100 millions?
Would the CEOs work less hard if they earned only 100 times more than the lowest salary in their companies instead of 400 times more?
When wealth was spread more evenly in the US in the 50s, was the goose laying less eggs?

As long as there is a sufficient level of inequality, capitalism will work well.
And past experiences show the necessary level is much less than it is now.

Sniper says

Exactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".

So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?

Sniper says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage.

How many? What percentage? .

Strategist says

. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.

How are you sure?

Heraclitusstudent says

Do you think someone is less motivated if they are paid $50 millions instead of $100 millions?

I think the CEO's would even take $5 million if he had no other choice. His goal is to get the maximum possible. In today's competitive world he would end up in a different country, where someone offered him $80 million.
Lets face it, humans are incentive driven. Even animals are given incentives while training. You take away the incentives, you end up with nothing. Our problem is, we give too much incentives to the wrong people. Instead of giving more incentives to those who can produce, we give incentives to welfare queens to not work. If the welfare queens choose to live on welfare, they are obviously getting paid too much.

Strategist says

I think the CEO's would even take $5 million if he had no other choice. His goal is to get the maximum possible. In today's competitive world he would end up in a different country, where someone offered him $80 million.

No, you assume there is a job market for CEOs where this is the pay level. This is not how it works.
Employees are in a job market where the market decides the normal wages.
But there are tons of smart people that could do most CEOs jobs. CEOs have unique positions where they arrange pay packages in one-off deals with a board often made of their buddies. There are no rules and no market. In fact shareholders activists often argue that pay packages are totally disconnected from performance and abusive.
It's a pick-a-number system. And again, given to people who are probably not the best, but happen to be here. And there is no evidence that these people could get a better deal somewhere else.

Strategist says

You take away the incentives

Again, going from $100 billions to $50 billions, there is no loss of incentives.

Strategist says

Our problem is, we give too much incentives to the wrong people.

When you talk about wrong incentives in the current world, these wrong incentives are not due to not enough inequality. Often they are basically welfare, or unions, which are justified by too much inequality.
So from any angle you look at it, less inequality would be better.

Heraclitusstudent says

No, you assume there is a job market for CEOs where this is the pay level. This is not how it works.
Employees are in a job market where the market decides the normal wages.
But there are tons of smart people that could do most CEOs jobs. CEOs have unique positions where they arrange pay packages in one-off deals with a board often made of their buddies. There are no rules and no market. In fact shareholders activists often argue that pay packages are totally disconnected from performance and abusive.
It's a pick-a-number system. And again, given to people who are probably not the best, but happen to be here. And there is no evidence that these people could get a better deal somewhere else.

What people in top management get is entirely up to the board. It's their company and their money. I'm OK with whatever the two sides end up negotiating.

Heraclitusstudent says

When you talk about wrong incentives in the current world, these wrong incentives are not due to not enough inequality. Often they are basically welfare, or unions, which are justified by too much inequality.
So from any angle you look at it, less inequality would be better.

Less inequality would be better for society, but not by removing incentives for the producers. We can have less inequality by turning losers into producers by cutting off their welfare. I only mean cutting off benefits of the able bodied who refuse to work.

What no one ever points out is that both the richest and the poorest generally live off of the labor of others.

The very rich do it by economic rent extraction, enforced at gunpoint. The very poor do it by social programs, also enforced at gunpoint.

The solution is to stop taxing labor completely and get serious about taxing land and capital gains instead.

Then everyone will have an incentive to work.

Patrick says

What no one ever points out is that both the richest and the poorest generally live off of the labor of others.

The very rich do it by economic rent extraction, enforced at gunpoint. The very poor do it by social programs, also enforced at gunpoint.

The solution is to stop taxing labor completely and get serious about taxing land and capital gains instead.

Then everyone will have an incentive to work.

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

Strategist says

Less inequality would be better for society, but not by removing incentives for the producers.

Agreed. This means we have a huge leeway to increase taxes by a lot on rich people.

Strategist says

We can have less inequality by turning losers into producers by cutting off their welfare.

Nope. We live in a "winner take all" world, and therefore there gonna be a lot of losers. You can't change this by more people working harder.

Then there are the rentiers type which have no incentive to work because of capitalism.
Too many of those, and the normal way to rid the world of them is to have a good depression and then euthanize them.
But the power that be won't let this happen.
Capitalism without depressions is not capitalism. It's socialism for the rich.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

Less inequality would be better for society, but not by removing incentives for the producers.

Agreed. This means we have a huge leeway to increase taxes by a lot on rich people.

Bad idea. I would rather have a billionaire death tax. The dead don't need incentives.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

We can have less inequality by turning losers into producers by cutting off their welfare.

Nope. We live in a "winner take all" world, and therefore there gonna be a lot of losers. You can't change this by more people working harder.

We can change this by making it more easy for losers to be winners. I have always believed ALL education should be free, because education is an investment, not an expense. When you give more opportunities for losers to be winners, and less opportunities for losers to remain losers, something good will happen.

anon_fd7ee says

Heraclitusstudent says

Sniper says

Exactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".

So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?

If you're dumb it must be bad luck. All humans are not born with the same intelligence or talents.

Strategist.

Strategist says

What people in top management get is entirely up to the board. It's their company and their money. I'm OK with whatever the two sides end up negotiating.

It's the shareholders company and the shareholders money not the board. The board are hired guns. elected by the shareholders but nominated by the CEO or in some corporations by a search firm. Boards are packed with CEO's from other firms. .

Heraclitusstudent says

Sniper says

Exactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".

So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?

If you're dumb it must be bad luck. All humans are not born with the same intelligence or talents.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.

How are you sure?

Common sense.

Sniper says

bob2356 says

Sniper says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage.

How many? What percentage? .

Did they all start out rich at 16 years old?

You mean like trump and the Koch bros? Did they all start out poor? You said many, how many? Run and hide.

bob2356 says

You said many, how many? Run and hide.

Silly question.

Strategist says

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

Stocks and real estate would be more tied to their fundamental income-producing values, which is a good thing.

There would be no need for a 401k, since all income from actual labor would be untaxed. People would save anyway. I know I would. And my savings would be larger because of the reduced tax on it.

OK, some poor people will never work. Not saying they should get anything special.

New investment in companies would likely go way up, because it's the ordinary people who spend the money who keep corporate investments profitable. The rich mostly hoard their wealth and do not spend it, destroying the demand side. Giving more to them does nothing for the demand side. But not taxing the labor of ordinary workers would give them more cash to spend, and therefore increase corporate profits.

The main source of taxes should be land values. But capital gains seems like a good source as well.

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.

Hey, I was about to mention most of them. I guess Bob has a little difficulty understanding the obvious.

Sniper says

Why do you keep spewing this crap. The facts are, there are multi THOUSANDS of CEOs that have small businesses and have a handful of employees.

Small business with a handful of employees are almost always partnerships or llc's which don't have CEO's for the most part. Llc's can have a CEO but it's not very common. Usually the title is president for a hired manager.

Want to show how many multi thousands of small business CEO[s are out there? That will never happen. It's true because I say it's true.

Heraclitusstudent says

There are plenty of people who work their tails off but are not rich

Engineers: their jobs get shorter and shorter the more long week they devote to their employers who make their demands unreasonable and harp on outsourcing etc to make wages cheaper.

The entire Republican philosophy boils down to tyrannical use of government to create lower wages for all, and less alternatives so people work for ever lower wages, they all are absolutely obsessed with it but preach a lot of horse shit to try not to look like the pigs they are. If you are right wing and you are not a pig then you are placing yourself on the menu. LOL

Patrick says

Strategist says

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

Stocks and real estate would be more tied to their fundamental income-producing values, which is a good thing.

They already are. PE ratios, interest rates, and expectations are all factored in.

Patrick says

There would be no need for a 401k, since all income from actual labor would be untaxed. People would save anyway. I know I would. And my savings would be larger because of the reduced tax on it.

You would save, but most Americans won't. They don't even save now.

Patrick says

OK, some poor people will never work. Not saying they should get anything special.

OK agreed. Lets take away the benefits of the able bodied who refuse to work.

Patrick says

New investment in companies would likely go way up, because it's the ordinary people who spend the money who keep corporate investments profitable. The rich mostly hoard their wealth and do not spend it, destroying the demand side. Giving more to them does nothing for the demand side. But not taxing the labor of ordinary workers would give them more cash to spend, and therefore increase corporate profits.

New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.
The rich invest their wealth, not hoard it, because there is nothing for them to buy. What can can Jeff Bezos buy for a $100 billion? They may as well give it away upon their death like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

The last thing cheap-labor conservatives want is prosperity.

Defenders of corporate greed - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you.

If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

And that is all there is to Republicans: Work cheaper or starve.

Sniper says

In 2010 there were 27.9 million small businesses, and 18,500 firms with 500 employees or more.
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

Is multi MILLIONS enough for you, or do you need more?

Sorry you can't remember what you posted. The senility thing again. You said small business with a handful of employees, 500 is not a handful and is not a small business. How many of 27.9 million small businesses (under 500 employees by definition) have a handful of employees (which like everything you post has no definition) and a CEO?

Strategist says

New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.

Forbes doesn't agree with you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/#290f03f41e2e

There is never a statistically significant relationship

But what would Forbes know, it's not like they write about business and the economy or anything. Plus they aren't patnet just make shit up experts.

Strategist says

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.

Hey, I was about to mention most of them. I guess Bob has a little difficulty understanding the obvious.

According to forbes of the forbes 400 richest only 30% started as middle class or below, 30% started wealthy, 40% started upper class of which 90% received as "substantial inheritance". But what would forbes know? They aren't just make shit up I have an anecdote so it's true because I say it's true masters of the obvious experts like on patnet.

Strategist says

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.

Hey, I was about to mention most of them. I guess Bob has a little difficulty understanding the obvious.

According to Forbes of the forbes 400 only 30% started middle class or lower, 30% started wealthy, 40% was upper class of which 30% of those received a "substantial inheritance". But what would Forbes know? They aren't the just make shit up I have an anecdote so it's true because I say it's true masters of the obvious experts like here on patnet.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.

Forbes doesn't agree with you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/#290f03f41e2e

There is never a statistically significant relationship

But what would Forbes know, it's not like they write about business and the economy or anything. Plus they aren't patnet just make shit up experts.

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

bob2356 says

Hey, I was about to mention most of them. I guess Bob has a little difficulty understanding the obvious.

According to forbes of the forbes 400 richest only 30% started as middle class or below, 30% started wealthy, 40% started upper class of which 90% received as "substantial inheritance". But what would forbes know? They aren't just make shit up I have an anecdote so it's true because I say it's true masters of the obvious experts like on patnet.

I'm not surprised. Most wealth is inherited. Not all billionaires have the foresight and wisdom to give away their wealth like Gates and Buffet.
The best lifestyle you can give your children is an upper middle class, well educated lifestyle.

anon_4460e says

The last thing cheap-labor conservatives want is prosperity.

Defenders of corporate greed - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you.

If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

And that is all there is to Republicans: Work cheaper or starve.

Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

Strategist says

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

Higher cap gains = MORE investment. It discourages dividends and stock buyback nonsense and encourages investing in the future.

Strategist says

Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

That's right, concentration of wealth at the top is yugly devastating for the economy.

That's why the rich should be taxed heavily. Giving them tax breaks and hoping they do the right thing hasn't worked in the past

If you don't agree then tell us how do we keep from concentrating the wealth at the top?

Strategist says

If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

Thank you.
That's why inequalities are bad.
This is why no one should be ok with the rich owning more and more.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Strategist says

New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.

Forbes doesn't agree with you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/#290f03f41e2e

There is never a statistically significant relationship

But what would Forbes know, it's not like they write about business and the economy or anything. Plus they aren't patnet just make shit up experts.

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

Now you are really grasping for straws. Forbes exists to be the mouthpiece of the ultra rich libertarian set.

Why don't you provide something showing the long term effect capital gains has on investment. Back to it's true because I say it's true. But that's all you post anyway.

Sniper says

bob2356 says

Sorry you can't remember what you posted.

No, I remember, YOU were the one to run away when I answered your question.

You didn't answer any question. You threw out something that had nothing to do with what you posted. Try again. How many small businesses with a handful of employees have a CEO. It's really a simple question, but maybe you should define what you consider a handful since it's obviously confusing to you.

Sniper says

Bobby boy says

You mean like trump and the Koch bros? Did they all start out poor? You said many, how many? Run and hide.

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.

Hey Bobby, want to try again?

Try again at what? The question still stands. How many of the rich started out poor. The question will probably stand forever.