« First « Previous Comments 23 - 62 of 92 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
Strategist saysLess 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 saysWe 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.
Heraclitusstudent saysSniper saysExactly. 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.
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.
Sniper saysExactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".
So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?
Strategist says. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.
How are you sure?
bob2356 saysSniper 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?
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.
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.
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.
There are plenty of people who work their tails off but are not rich
Strategist saysHere 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.
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?
New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.
Sniper saysYou 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 saysYou 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?
If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?
bob2356 saysStrategist 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 saysSorry you can't remember what you posted.
No, I remember, YOU were the one to run away when I answered your question.
Bobby boy saysYou 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?
Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?
You mean like Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
Sniper saysYou mean like Bill Gates
Are you implying that Bill Gates was born poor? The Bill Gates who went to a private Preparatory School?
Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.
Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.
bob2356 saysGates was in the right time and place, nothing more.
But he spent his nights coding DOS...
Wait, errr.... he bought a piece of software called QDOS for "Quick and Dirty OS" for 50K from a bum and somehow IBM bought that to run its personal computers, and through an incredible act of corporate charity, let Microsoft sell it too.
So what's YOUR solution?
That's easy to do. End EBT cards, Section 8, WIC, Unemployment, Obamacare subsidies, TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, SSI, Solar Credits, Electric vehicle credits, etc., etc., etc. This would go a long way in reducing the deficit. You OK with discontinuing those programs?
who do you think is backstopping all the current college loans? The tax payers!
dept of agriculture
« First « Previous Comments 23 - 62 of 92 Next » Last » Search these comments
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth - CNBC.com
https://www.cnbc.com/.../11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.ht...
Nov 14, 2017 - The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth, according a Credit Suisse report. The total ...
http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-1-own-over-half-the-worlds-wealth-2017-11