RE: Should Income be capped?

RE: Should Income be capped? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

bipolarber -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/8/2008 6:41:08 PM)
Incomes should not be capped. However, neither should incomes be enhanced by fucking over the little guy. How many CEOs earned HUGE bonuses by laying off half their workforce or more? Or by moving the production overseas? No, let's keep the capitalist sytem intact, but let's put the rewards of that system on an anchor to the country that give people their opportunity to be rich. 1) all corperate heads MUST reside in the US, and be subject to our tax laws. 2) any product sold by a company in the US MUST employ at least 50% of all their personel via US citizenry. 3) Executive bonuses contracted to increase via layoffs, would be illegal, triggering a 100% tax on the executives responsible for initiating such an action. Effective for 4 years. Repeat offenders are to be considered unemployable by US companies, or multi-nationals that wish to remain in the American Market without paying huge penalties. Let them try to make their millions elsewhere, in some other, lesser market. I know these sound like crackpot ideas, but from what I gather, Japan already has something similar in place.

Griswold -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/8/2008 6:48:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I was talking to a friend yesterday. She thought that the rick make to much money and that the poor get screwed. I would agree that the poor get screwed but disagree that the rich make to much money. So anyway, her concept was to set an income cap, She watned to set it at $100,000 limit gross. But if it were set at $100K or $1 Million. The concept she was expousing was that any income in excess of that would be taxed at the rate of 100%, thus sending it to the public coffers. The source of the income being irrelivant and deductions not allowed for anything over the set point. Although it would pay off the national debt pretty quickly that way, I personally think it is crazy? What do you think? I think I don't have a clue what you're saying (or attempting to).

KenDckey -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/8/2008 7:12:55 PM)
Gris I was just relaying what a friend said. There is no convincing her that people who make more than $100K are legit and should be allowed to. So I thought I would get others opinions. Personally I think my friend is nuts, but she also lives on social security and raises a grandson. She doesn't get much social security either, mostly cause she didn't pay much into it in past years.

Aubre -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/8/2008 7:40:06 PM)
The only people whose income should be capped are those who think incomes should be capped. There is nothing stopping them from writing a check to the government for the difference now. It's amazing how generous people can be when it isn't coming out of their pocket.

Honsoku -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/8/2008 8:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber Incomes should not be capped. However, neither should incomes be enhanced by fucking over the little guy. How many CEOs earned HUGE bonuses by laying off half their workforce or more? Or by moving the production overseas? No, let's keep the capitalist sytem intact, but let's put the rewards of that system on an anchor to the country that give people their opportunity to be rich. 1) all corperate heads MUST reside in the US, and be subject to our tax laws. 2) any product sold by a company in the US MUST employ at least 50% of all their personel via US citizenry. 3) Executive bonuses contracted to increase via layoffs, would be illegal, triggering a 100% tax on the executives responsible for initiating such an action. Effective for 4 years. Repeat offenders are to be considered unemployable by US companies, or multi-nationals that wish to remain in the American Market without paying huge penalties. Let them try to make their millions elsewhere, in some other, lesser market. I know these sound like crackpot ideas, but from what I gather, Japan already has something similar in place. I agree they do sound a bit on the crackpot side and very protectionist. Protectionism trades a short term gain for a long term economic loss. We aren't the only market in the world, why should Toyota bother to sell us cars if they have to go through all that? If we start going protectionist, it will push other countries to stop trading with us, this will have the long term effect of cutting our purchasing power. The problem is that corporations are rewarded by the stock market for taking short-sighted approaches towards their bottom lines. Too much interest in making an extra dollar tomorrow vs. an extra ten dollars a year from now. Too much focus on meeting the quarterly expectations and not enough on what would be in the best interests of the company long term. Using Japan as an example economy ignores the social and cultural factors which make Japan a bit different. For one thing, Japan has a workaholic, xenophobic culture with a racial superiority complex. The education system helps mold the workaholism by being extremely cutthroat. There is a strong social pressure for employees to always work overtime and weekends. Their economy is also a bit strange. There was even a brief period recently where short term interest rates went negative. Yes, only in Japan could you lend money with the guarantee that you would get back less than you lent.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/8/2008 10:12:49 PM)
Keep the capitalist system but with severe handicaps eh? Have you ever seen economic models, and how what you propose can easily dump an economy into a the trash? quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber Incomes should not be capped. However, neither should incomes be enhanced by fucking over the little guy. How many CEOs earned HUGE bonuses by laying off half their workforce or more? Or by moving the production overseas? No, let's keep the capitalist sytem intact, but let's put the rewards of that system on an anchor to the country that give people their opportunity to be rich. 1) all corperate heads MUST reside in the US, and be subject to our tax laws. 2) any product sold by a company in the US MUST employ at least 50% of all their personel via US citizenry. 3) Executive bonuses contracted to increase via layoffs, would be illegal, triggering a 100% tax on the executives responsible for initiating such an action. Effective for 4 years. Repeat offenders are to be considered unemployable by US companies, or multi-nationals that wish to remain in the American Market without paying huge penalties. Let them try to make their millions elsewhere, in some other, lesser market. I know these sound like crackpot ideas, but from what I gather, Japan already has something similar in place.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 1:53:08 AM)
Why should anyone care about the corporations? I am just always stunned that people always consider these questions not as individuals but as if they were not only corporations, but multi-national corporations, at that. What the fuck do you care how they'd get along? You really think they wouldn't find a way to work with our market? Free market, market models - none of you know what would actually happen if we did X, Y or Z. There are no free markets, and market models are only as good as the way in which they were modelled - garbage in/garbage out, probably providing a result exactly as intended by the financiers of the project. Unless you have controlling interest in some corporation, you are a house nigger identifying with and confusing your interests with those of your master. Did no one here ever listen to the words of Malcolm X? Jeez, think and vote your own interests. The corporations can take care of themselves, or not - who gives a fuck?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 5:19:52 AM)
Sugar: your views are so left wing I cant believe you are American. I say that with wry amusement because I think a lot of what you say is extreme but not wholly untrue. lol For example your comment about the corp. and the house N. The question to be considered is what would the house N do had he not a job with the corp. ?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 5:43:52 AM)
Seeks: I know it's possible to work for a corporate entity and still have enough self-respect and self-interest to maintain a healthy political stance of my own and perhaps even counter to those of the corporation for which I might work. As it happens I don't work for a corporation. But I have in the past. P.S. Let's not go too far afield of the main thrust of the thread...

camille65 -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 5:48:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Why should anyone care about the corporations? I am just always stunned that people always consider these questions not as individuals but as if they were not only corporations, but multi-national corporations, at that. What the fuck do you care how they'd get along? You really think they wouldn't find a way to work with our market? Free market, market models - none of you know what would actually happen if we did X, Y or Z. There are no free markets, and market models are only as good as the way in which they were modelled - garbage in/garbage out, probably providing a result exactly as intended by the financiers of the project. Unless you have controlling interest in some corporation, you are a house nigger identifying with and confusing your interests with those of your master. Did no one here ever listen to the words of Malcolm X? Jeez, think and vote your own interests. The corporations can take care of themselves, or not - who gives a fuck? Not all corporations have thousands of workers, some don't have hundreds.. dozens or even five.Should a corporation consisting of 3 people that brings in several million a year have to follow those rules too? Not all CEO's have a lot of people relying on them, some corporations are formed for tax purposes only. SMC sorry most of this was a general reply!

RealityLicks -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 5:52:29 AM)
Current UK tax laws mean that the super-rich can often pay less tax than the average wage earner. In absolute terms. All they need do is apply for non-domicile status and spend certain days in different jurisdictions. Since Roman Abramovich and co all have Gulfstreams on standby, that isn't usually a biggie. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/27/tax quote: Tax avoidance by the super-rich costs the British taxpayer £13bn a year - enough money to increase old-age pensions by 20 per cent. Recently, we cut capital gains tax to 18%. Top rate income tax is 40%. See an opportunity?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 5:59:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 ...some corporations are formed for tax purposes only. You're a bright, lady - what tax purposes are those? Are those breaks available to you as an individual? The legal entity known as a corporation has become a joke: a tax dodger, a cheat, and to add insult to injury many have their hands out too. Fuck 'em!

camille65 -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 6:04:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 ...some corporations are formed for tax purposes only. You're a bright, lady - what tax purposes are those? Are those breaks available to you as an individual? The legal entity known as a corporation has become a joke: a tax dodger, a cheat, and to add insult to injury many have their hands out too. Fuck 'em! Not all do. You just cannot lump everyone or every corporation into one catagory.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 6:28:02 AM)
I am all for removing a corps rights, as if they were an individual. This is what gives them the power to pay campaign contributions and such. I am not for getting rid of those entities that create jobs. Why do you want to put so many people out of work? quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Jeez, think and vote your own interests. The corporations can take care of themselves, or not - who gives a fuck?

KenDckey -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 6:42:11 AM)
Orion Putting big business out of business means that unemployment will go up and more people will have to be on social programs which promotes some of the extreme left interests. Least I think.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 7:42:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 Not all do. You just cannot lump everyone or every corporation into one catagory. Sometimes you can. Do you realize that people can do business as themselves? What of a sole proprietorship? Seriously, there is a reason people choose to incorporate - and it's a business decision to limit liability for debt and to receive other benefits and tax breaks. In short: pork! P.S. I know you know these things...

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 10:25:29 AM)
You have no clue about what an S-Corp does for a person, other than your ranting against big business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 Not all do. You just cannot lump everyone or every corporation into one catagory. Sometimes you can. Do you realize that people can do business as themselves? What of a sole proprietorship? Seriously, there is a reason people choose to incorporate - and it's a business decision to limit liability for debt and to receive other benefits and tax breaks. In short: pork! P.S. I know you know these things...

Honsoku -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 11:25:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I am all for removing a corps rights, as if they were an individual. This is what gives them the power to pay campaign contributions and such. I am not for getting rid of those entities that create jobs. Why do you want to put so many people out of work? Without the rights of an individual, the corporation can not enter contracts and can't be sued. The owner takes full personal liability for everything. Now while the anti-corporations people probably think this is great idea, think about it for a second, this means that if anybody who is acting as an agent of the organization does something stupid or illegal (has a car wreck) the owner can be taken to court and lose not only the business, but his own personal assets as well. This would turn owning a corporation of any size into a game of russian roulette for the owner. Corporations issue stock, so the owners may be individual share holders, hundreds of them, thousands of them, millions of them. Can you imagine the nightmare of bringing that many people into court, collecting on that many, or sending that many to prison? Should all of their personal assets be liable as well? The shareholders would most likely have stock in more than one company, that means totally unrelated companies and their shareholders would be at risk. Who in their right mind would risk their money or their freedom to invest in a corporation then? Sources of capital would evaporate. This is one of the biggest reasons a company chooses to incorporate, the ability to gain easy access to capital. What would keep the owners from contributing their own money, which prior to this change, would have been the corporations money? The $5K limit only applies to contributions to individual candidates. I can give as much as I please to a party, and so can a corporation. Or an agent could do it the name of each shareholder thus crippling their own ability to choose who to support, and giving the company an incredible amount to donate. Corporations not having the legal rights of an individual would decimate the economy as it would cripple the flow of capital and still not prevent their contributory affect on politics (or it would in the sense that there would hardly be any corporations left).

domiguy -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 11:50:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Orion Putting big business out of business means that unemployment will go up and more people will have to be on social programs which promotes some of the extreme left interests. Least I think. See, you would be much better off if you simply stopped trying to do so. It doesn't work well for you. Just do what you are told. Try not to formulate any opinions on your own. You will be much happier in the long run.

pahunkboy -> RE: Should Income be capped? (2/9/2008 1:16:27 PM)
it isnt that simple. my approach- would be for corporate charters to be on renewal IF they serve public good. you see people dont earn income- legal enitites earn it. so you cant grasp this money. a dr or scientist should have the higher income- --despite this the global eleite should pay more. you can only eat so much caviar. shared sacrafice isnt- trickel down doesnt. extracting teh wealth from people or environment and damaging it gravely isnt serving humanity. it is enslavement.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625