Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Wealth distribution.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Wealth distribution. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 2:27:45 PM   
flcouple2009


Posts: 2784
Joined: 1/8/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
If a CEO doubles my company profits from 2 million to 4 million shouldn't I be able to pay him Half a million bonus?


Here is the monkey wrench on that statement.  CEO and corporate bonuses and stock options for performance were also what led to the manipulation of company profits and value such as Enron.  There were many corporations at that time suddenly revising their profit statements and corporate books.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 2:54:36 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

NO NO NO NO NO A VAT in addition to an income tax is suicide for productivity and competitive markets.

If they ever get over half the population out of the income tax then they will be able to do the class warfare thing entirely without fear.
Eat the Rich works only so long as there are the rich to eat. Eventually the rich will either leave or be made poor.

Nice try with the any real conservative would agree, but I'm calling you on the BS aspect of while conservatives will agree we have huge bills to pay and we need to cover them we have to attack the spending side of the equation first. Once you (generic you) have shown a REAL commitment to cutting spending I'm willing to discuss how to increase revenue through taxes as necessary.

However the Fair Tax eliminates the Income Tax, Social Security Tax, and Medicare Tax and covers them all with the consumption tax rate set at 23% (inclussive). (pre Healthcare bill spending levels, I have not seen what the rate required will be to cover the monstrosity that is the new healthcare laws cost.)

DomKen requires progressive well consumption of new goods and services is certainly progressive, with "the rich" spending alot more money above and beyond the poverty level of spending in new goods and services. Additionally the removal of those regressive social security and medicare taxes also levels the field a bit for the poor. Lets them have their whole paycheck every month.

Also the benefits of a consumption tax allow for alot of liberal behavior goals to come into play to modify behavior and reduce conspicous consumption of many resources.
The new way to avoid taxation would be to reduce your consumption of new goods and services, thus a smaller footprint in general. Skills that the poor have already would make them practically untaxed.


I've done a fair amount of research on the misnamed fair tax and the numbers are clear. It soaks the poor and the rich come out way way ahead. Everyone making between 24k and 200k would pay more in federal taxes than they do now, primarily to offset the lost income from the people who make over 200k.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html


(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 5:59:00 PM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Wealth disparity and income disparity are two different things.



You're right, Archer.  I made an error with the title.  It should have been Income Distribution.


_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 7:51:50 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Why would hard working entrepreneurs consider starting a company in the U.S. under such laws, or work their ass off to get ahead in a U.S. company under such laws. It seems like your ideas are the opposite of whats needed to attract and keep top employers and the best and brightest businessmen.

If they were the best and the brightest, we wouldn't seen Wall Street crash.  No company would ever go down the tubes.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 8:55:45 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


I've done a fair amount of research on the misnamed fair tax and the numbers are clear. It soaks the poor and the rich come out way way ahead. Everyone making between 24k and 200k would pay more in federal taxes than they do now, primarily to offset the lost income from the people who make over 200k.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html




It would be simple enough to tweak the prebate and tax percentage to alleviate that. As in the larger the prebate the more beneficial to the lower brackets, with a corresponding bump in the percentage (adverse to those that spend the most). Looking at the article it wouldn't need to be adjusted all that much.

Also, I'm under the assumption used goods wouldn't be taxed, which the poorer one is the more likely one is to purchase, so the prebate benefit is greater than perceived, as they won't be spending the same proportion on taxable items.



What I found most interesting in that article was that the current tax structure is equivalent to a tax between 31 and 39 percent on all purchases depending on who is doing the numbers. So, if anything the article shows just how crazy taxed we are.

IMO.

But the good thing about the fair tax, is we could fire a good number of accountants and shouldn't need so many IRS agents, as they would just be monitoring businesses.

Anyway, still sounds better than the current system.




(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 9:05:16 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Why would hard working entrepreneurs consider starting a company in the U.S. under such laws, or work their ass off to get ahead in a U.S. company under such laws. It seems like your ideas are the opposite of whats needed to attract and keep top employers and the best and brightest businessmen.

If they were the best and the brightest, we wouldn't seen Wall Street crash.  No company would ever go down the tubes.



You can have the "best" and the "brightest" in any field {including education, medicine, law, etc.}, BUT if the "system" itself is flawed, corrupted, not what it should be, repressive, outdated, etc. it often will not matter, IMHO.

A lot of time, it is the "system" itself that is not working, at least not working anywhere NEAR as well as it could/or should be!

Like the fact that America, is headed for a 21st century D E P R E S S I O N.
It has nothing to do with the fact, that we have many people that are the "best" and very "bright", in positions of power.

When the ship starts to sink, sometimes the best Captain in the world, can't stop it from sinking. In that case, hopefully we have enough lifeboats.


Man can't stop or "control" everything, no matter how hard he tries.
I just hope, what comes NEXT, is better than what we have now.

< Message edited by Marini -- 8/3/2010 9:18:09 PM >

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 9:11:35 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

NO NO NO NO NO A VAT in addition to an income tax is suicide for productivity and competitive markets.

If they ever get over half the population out of the income tax then they will be able to do the class warfare thing entirely without fear.
Eat the Rich works only so long as there are the rich to eat. Eventually the rich will either leave or be made poor.

Nice try with the any real conservative would agree, but I'm calling you on the BS aspect of while conservatives will agree we have huge bills to pay and we need to cover them we have to attack the spending side of the equation first. Once you (generic you) have shown a REAL commitment to cutting spending I'm willing to discuss how to increase revenue through taxes as necessary.

However the Fair Tax eliminates the Income Tax, Social Security Tax, and Medicare Tax and covers them all with the consumption tax rate set at 23% (inclussive). (pre Healthcare bill spending levels, I have not seen what the rate required will be to cover the monstrosity that is the new healthcare laws cost.)

DomKen requires progressive well consumption of new goods and services is certainly progressive, with "the rich" spending alot more money above and beyond the poverty level of spending in new goods and services. Additionally the removal of those regressive social security and medicare taxes also levels the field a bit for the poor. Lets them have their whole paycheck every month.

Also the benefits of a consumption tax allow for alot of liberal behavior goals to come into play to modify behavior and reduce conspicous consumption of many resources.
The new way to avoid taxation would be to reduce your consumption of new goods and services, thus a smaller footprint in general. Skills that the poor have already would make them practically untaxed.



I have no problem with the FAIR TAX, as long as it retains the mortgage deduction. That is the about the only tax provision that favors the middle class. If carrying costs on mortgages are no longer subsidized, you will see 20-30% drops in housing values which is still a huge proportion of the net worth of the middle class. Make them feel that much poorer and the economy will NEVER recover.

Im not that familiar with the details of FAIR, since I dont think it has a chance in hell of gaining traction, but for it to approach the progressivity of the current system there would have to be massive rebates for the bottom 40% or so that currently pays no income tax.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 11:35:50 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
NO NO NO NO NO A VAT in addition to an income tax is suicide for productivity and competitive markets.

If they ever get over half the population out of the income tax then they will be able to do the class warfare thing entirely without fear.
Eat the Rich works only so long as there are the rich to eat. Eventually the rich will either leave or be made poor.

Nice try with the any real conservative would agree, but I'm calling you on the BS aspect of while conservatives will agree we have huge bills to pay and we need to cover them we have to attack the spending side of the equation first. Once you (generic you) have shown a REAL commitment to cutting spending I'm willing to discuss how to increase revenue through taxes as necessary.

However the Fair Tax eliminates the Income Tax, Social Security Tax, and Medicare Tax and covers them all with the consumption tax rate set at 23% (inclussive). (pre Healthcare bill spending levels, I have not seen what the rate required will be to cover the monstrosity that is the new healthcare laws cost.)

DomKen requires progressive well consumption of new goods and services is certainly progressive, with "the rich" spending alot more money above and beyond the poverty level of spending in new goods and services. Additionally the removal of those regressive social security and medicare taxes also levels the field a bit for the poor. Lets them have their whole paycheck every month.

Also the benefits of a consumption tax allow for alot of liberal behavior goals to come into play to modify behavior and reduce conspicous consumption of many resources.
The new way to avoid taxation would be to reduce your consumption of new goods and services, thus a smaller footprint in general. Skills that the poor have already would make them practically untaxed.

I have no problem with the FAIR TAX, as long as it retains the mortgage deduction. That is the about the only tax provision that favors the middle class. If carrying costs on mortgages are no longer subsidized, you will see 20-30% drops in housing values which is still a huge proportion of the net worth of the middle class. Make them feel that much poorer and the economy will NEVER recover.

Im not that familiar with the details of FAIR, since I dont think it has a chance in hell of gaining traction, but for it to approach the progressivity of the current system there would have to be massive rebates for the bottom 40% or so that currently pays no income tax.

Not quite right, I don't think. The only way a so-called fair tax or VAT tax would pass or should pass is if the income tax is almost completely removed. Yes, it is regressive but as I said a slight increase in the EITC would compensate and there would I am sure food stamps and free school lunches.

The mortgage deduction should stop at the median home price level. Prices on houses are already down and their no more consumer borring their. Govt. guarantees are of limited value now. So it wouldn't hurt that much plus most of the housing coming on the market are cheaper townhouses and apts. reducing the tax benefits. The balance would be bought more on market conditions rather than govt. help.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 12:18:19 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I have no problem with the FAIR TAX, as long as it retains the mortgage deduction. That is the about the only tax provision that favors the middle class. If carrying costs on mortgages are no longer subsidized, you will see 20-30% drops in housing values which is still a huge proportion of the net worth of the middle class. Make them feel that much poorer and the economy will NEVER recover.

One aspect of the Fair Tax proposal is that it would only cover new items. Therefore you would pay sales tax only on a purchase of a new home. Which would discourage new construction, which would be a good thing as it would discourage sprawl but would be a massive blow to the construction industry which I'm confident would result in a lengthy recession while the economy shifted.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 2:59:48 AM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Progressive taxation works quite well in reality. It built the US economy. If someone wants to move to a tax haven fine but they should be required to pay taxes on money made in the US or where ever their money is made.


BINGO! Any company who's headquarters or primary source of labor is from outside of the country, should suffer HUGE tax increases, above and beyond that of any tax associated with operating businesses inside of the country. It's the ONLY way to overcome the issue of outsourcing.

Fuck NAFTA.



Wall-Mart would cease to exist, about 80 to 90% of their products are imported from cheap labor countries...

On top of that you increase the costs for all drugs that are not manufactured in the country and put a huge burden on the health system.

Why on earth punish people who work hard and earn more money? They should pay tax according to their income but I always regarded the fact that if you earn more, you should pay a higher percentage of tax as absolutely unfair because it works against a free market and stops people from trying to move on, to get a better education and higher paying jobs. I got a job where I sometimes work 14 to 18 hours a lot of irregular hours due to international travel, sometimes down times, I love my job but I doubt I would do it if due to taxation I would earn the same as the secretary who's doing 9 to 5? I don't mind paying taxes, after all I like clean roads, hospitals, cops being around when needed, a functioning public transportation, schools, help for people who do need help, etc., but I seriously have an issue with my tax money subsidizing people who decide they only want to do the bare minimum or not work at all.

I have no issue with supporting handy capped people, I have no issue with people who lost their jobs getting support as long as they are actively looking for jobs, I have every issue with supporting people who didn't bother to get an education or training and rather produce a lot of kids, so they can get free housing and lot of benefits, especially not when I see them spending the money on cigs and booze. Why should somebody who works hard pay a higher percentage of tax to keep them cosy?

There have to be benefits for working hard, not punishment through taxation because people who earn more will spend more and keep the economy going, if your efforts are punished, nobody would be willing to do much and the economy takes an even quicker tumble. In case you tax people who actually earn comparatively well more, they'll spend a lot less, which will lead to a reduction of jobs - if I can't afford to go out for dinner, so can't others, I might stay at home and cook myself, but restaurants will close down, that means, at least one cook, waiters, cleaning lady will be out of work, plus their suppliers... All the people out of work will have less money to spend...

_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 3:11:04 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen


SUVs take on a lower risk for permanent injury in collisions. Some of us hate the gas issue and would love to change to a smaller vehicle, but already looking at your partner needing yet ANOTHER surgery because of a car accident she didn't cause, makes you value the bigger, stronger box on wheels. While I agree that luxury should be taxed, safety should not.

boi



SUV's may feel safer, but I'm not at all sure that they actually are. It seems that a driver of an SUV is 11% more likely to be killed in a car accident. SUV's are twice as likely to kill pedestrians it seems as well.

I ought to declare that all of this "insight" has been gleaned from one source.. (http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/AreSUVsSafe.html)

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 3:39:24 AM   
ShoreBound149


Posts: 622
Joined: 7/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
I'd like to propose a ceiling on earnings as well.  Something tied to the overall health of a company.

Bad Idea.

It would simply spawn the further proliferation of alternate ways to compensate big executives.

Buying a big house and property and leasing it to the CEO for $1/year.
Paying the CEO' kids college costs directly through "Scholarship" programs.
Setting up shell companies in the Dutch Caribbean to funnel masked compensation.

How you measure the health of a company varies widely by industry.  Entrusting the government to come up with the right compensation cap fomula that's appropriate for the $20 million dollar silicon valley technology company and the $50 billion dollar global industrial giant is idealistic.

Compensation for the CEO comes under the authority of the board of directors in public companies.  If they fuck up the incentive/compensation package for the CEO they should be held accountable by the stockholders.

It's the apathy of the stockholders that allows sweetheart deals to be made between the BOD and the CEO. 

The real answer is:

Head to Chicago.

< Message edited by ShoreBound149 -- 8/4/2010 3:41:38 AM >

_____________________________

"People don't think it be like it is, but it do."

Oscar Gamble

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 5:08:39 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:


Why would hard working entrepreneurs consider starting a company in the U.S. under such laws, or work their ass off to get ahead in a U.S. company under such laws. It seems like your ideas are the opposite of whats needed to attract and keep top employers and the best and brightest businessmen.



Are you saying that the best and brightest will only work for a billion dollars a year and not a million?

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 5:28:36 AM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Why would hard working entrepreneurs consider starting a company in the U.S. under such laws, or work their ass off to get ahead in a U.S. company under such laws. It seems like your ideas are the opposite of whats needed to attract and keep top employers and the best and brightest businessmen.



Are you saying that the best and brightest will only work for a billion dollars a year and not a million?



I'd be saying that the best will want the most money, as for the billion versus a million, please show examples of that because it sounds like a bit of a fabrication. But I can tell you that if it comes down to 500K and a million a year, I'd be hightailing it to the place where I can get a million, as would almost everybody if they are honest. Why would anybody in their right mind stay in a country that punishes them for hard work instead of rewarding them? Especially since in that income class, you can damned easily change countries.

Monaco particularly likes to welcome billionaires, great idea to drive them out of the country and make them stay in another place where they pay less tax, this way you get rid of all their tax, burden everybody who's left with more tax, and all in the name of "justice". I often wonder if people who want to tax anybody who earns more than they do so much that it will drive those away aren't really interested in the economy but are just jealous because some people earn more and out of that jealousy want to punish them.

_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 5:36:33 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

I often wonder if people who want to tax anybody who earns more than they do so much that it will drive those away aren't really interested in the economy but are just jealous because some people earn more and out of that jealousy want to punish them.


Yea, I wonder that sometimes also.


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 6:00:04 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		DomKen you haven't read enough about it closely enough that you don't fall for the 23% vs 34% being a simple misdirection.

34% exclussive tax rate is = to a 23% inclussive tax rate.
Which is why I put inclussivein the rate quoted because the inclussive vs exclussive thing has been used to misdirect the public before.

New Goods and Services are the only things taxed by the Fair Tax, the idea that the poor are buying lots of "new homes" is silly, they buy used homes. new construction has been a luxury thing for a long time.

Mortgage deduction????????????
The Fair Tax doesn't tax income what good is a deduction from a 0% tax on income?
The Fair Tax removes two of the heaviest regressive taxes entirely off the back of the poorest working classes.
I Note DomKen has left that aspect entirely out of his evaluation.
Payroll Taxes are the most regressive taxes we have. Social Security and Medicare taxes The Fair Tax replaces them as well as the Income Tax.
The next thing that the Fair Tax does to reduce regressiveness is the Prebate to the poverty level of spending.
That covers the poorest 100% since they lack the ability to spend past the povety level .

Spending on new goods and services is progressive as it is without any changes in the system. Thus consumption is a progressive system of taxation.

Oh and lets not forget that with corporate taxation we already have about 15%-22% imbedded taxes depending on the industry (taxes the corporations have already rolled into the price as they pass through the costs of taxes on their goods now) these imbedded taxes would be removed by the Fair Tax.





< Message edited by Archer -- 8/4/2010 6:05:14 AM >

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 6:02:27 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Why would hard working entrepreneurs consider starting a company in the U.S. under such laws, or work their ass off to get ahead in a U.S. company under such laws. It seems like your ideas are the opposite of whats needed to attract and keep top employers and the best and brightest businessmen.



Are you saying that the best and brightest will only work for a billion dollars a year and not a million?



I'd be saying that the best will want the most money,

Is it your position that money and not pride in your ethical value and sense of self worth is the determining focus of your life?


as for the billion versus a million, please show examples of that because it sounds like a bit of a fabrication.

Jack walsh, john and timothy rigas, ken lay just to name a few off the top of my head. Would you like more?

But I can tell you that if it comes down to 500K and a million a year, I'd be hightailing it to the place where I can get a million, as would almost everybody if they are honest.

Is that why some doctors who spend a fair amount of time and money to become doctors work at places like the free clinic?


Why would anybody in their right mind stay in a country that punishes them for hard work instead of rewarding them? Especially since in that income class, you can damned easily change countries.

Then by all means leave if that is your choice. If you choose to work and live here then would it not be rational to pay the taxes you are obligated to as a result?

Monaco particularly likes to welcome billionaires, great idea to drive them out of the country and make them stay in another place where they pay less tax, this way you get rid of all their tax, burden everybody who's left with more tax, and all in the name of "justice".

If one moves to manaco but still derives income from the u.s. they are still obligated to pay taxes in the u.s..
While monaco has no personal income tax they do have about a 20% sales tax. They also have a 33% tax on profits. Since monaco has virtually no manufacturing industry perhaps they are not the best example of "off shoring" one might have picked.



I often wonder if people who want to tax anybody who earns more than they do so much that it will drive those away aren't really interested in the economy but are just jealous because some people earn more and out of that jealousy want to punish them.


Is it your position that the ceo is the only one responsible for profits and that those who actually manufacture the product are not?


(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 6:04:13 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

I often wonder if people who want to tax anybody who earns more than they do so much that it will drive those away aren't really interested in the economy but are just jealous because some people earn more and out of that jealousy want to punish them.


Yea, I wonder that sometimes also.




Perhaps if you were to spend a little more time educating yourself instead of snarking you might eventually disabuse yourself of your self perpetuating ignorance.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 6:26:12 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The issue is easily resolveable right in its own framework. If you are an officer of a publically traded company, tax the shit outta you at some reasonable multiple over the average wage of the actual worker who produces.

If you own it lock stock and barrel, normal taxation.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/4/2010 6:34:24 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline 		Some quick comments:

1. The conservatives have weighed in that alleviating income disparity would eliminate the incentives to drive companies to profitability.  The last few years have shown that the execs still milk their companies, whether profitable or not.
2. I would love to see more incentive to build companies and less to drive them once built.  A Steve Jobs contributes more than a Roger Smith IMO.
3. The compensation system for banks actually drove them to make risky but profitable deals that gave million dollar bonuses when the bets paid off but had no downside once they didn't.
4. I honestly don't know what the answer should be.  I don't want to impede the economy, but the squeezing of the middle class is hurting the country very badly.


_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Wealth distribution. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109