Wealth distribution.

Wealth distribution. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarkSteven -> Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 7:14:14 AM)
This post will give conservatives a heart attack. I'll apologize in advance. There's been a lot of fuss about income disparity of late. All proposals to deal with it invariably involve taxes. I oppose increased taxation on several grounds, but it occurs to me that taxation should be a means by which the government gets the means to run itself. Income inequality should be dealt with at its source. Ben and Jerry's once instituted a policy that the top paid employee should be paid no more than X times what the lowest paid employee gets. The minimum wage is a means by which all employees have a floor on their earnings. I'd like to propose a ceiling on earnings as well. Something tied to the overall health of a company. In other words, obscene bonuses at companies that are failing, would be out. Venture capitalists who acquire a company and pay themselves massive salaries while destroying the company would be out. Now, how to implement...

Elisabella -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 7:45:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Now, how to implement... You could start by running for political office.

Sanity -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 7:54:16 AM)
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. What comes after this anyway, mandatory gray unisex jumpsuits? Forced relocation to communes? quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven This post will give conservatives a heart attack. I'll apologize in advance. There's been a lot of fuss about income disparity of late. All proposals to deal with it invariably involve taxes. I oppose increased taxation on several grounds, but it occurs to me that taxation should be a means by which the government gets the means to run itself. Income inequality should be dealt with at its source. Ben and Jerry's once instituted a policy that the top paid employee should be paid no more than X times what the lowest paid employee gets. The minimum wage is a means by which all employees have a floor on their earnings. I'd like to propose a ceiling on earnings as well. Something tied to the overall health of a company. In other words, obscene bonuses at companies that are failing, would be out. Venture capitalists who acquire a company and pay themselves massive salaries while destroying the company would be out. Now, how to implement...

mnottertail -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 7:58:02 AM)
It would seem like it, I guess, however absent the law to run the straight and narrow, and to do business for the common good, we have not seen a plenty of best and bright businessmen, rather what we see is a plethora of scoundrels.

Jeffff -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 8:03:39 AM)
Eliminate income tax. Institute a Federal Sales Tax. Taxes based on consumption not income. Tax corporations the same way. Spend 22 million on a CEO pay taxes on that amount. Make Corporate deductions based in business re investment. If you don't spend it, you don't pay any tax. It becomes an incentive for average people to save and invest.

Elisabella -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 8:04:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It would seem like it, I guess, however absent the law to run the straight and narrow, and to do business for the common good, we have not seen a plenty of best and bright businessmen, rather what we see is a plethora of scoundrels. I agree. Our honest and upright politicians have been trying to lead by example for too long, it's high time they intervene.

Archer -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 8:18:45 AM)
Wealth disparity and income disparity are two different things. I have to side with Sanity on the idea of how will you get or keep anyone worth a damn if you can't pay them based on what they bring to the company. 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? I'm partly with Jeffff on the consumption tax, but I would leave corporations out of it, because in the end corporations don't pay taxes anyway. All taxes are paid by individual people the corporate taxes come out of some real person's pocket. stock holder, employees, customers, someone real is not getting that money. But I'm all for the Fair Tax version of a consumption tax.

pahunkboy -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 8:24:58 AM)
at one time the muliplyer was a matter of custom. it is not any more.

Jeffff -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 8:32:37 AM)
Archer, that was just off the top of my head. I am sure there would be some tweaking. I just would not want over tweaking. I am also pretty sure it will never be implemented. If you had 6 kids, your consumption would be higher than mine. People would whine.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 8:58:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Eliminate income tax. Institute a Federal Sales Tax. Taxes based on consumption not income. Tax corporations the same way. Spend 22 million on a CEO pay taxes on that amount. Make Corporate deductions based in business re investment. If you don't spend it, you don't pay any tax. It becomes an incentive for average people to save and invest. I think it would stop people from investing, because investments would be taxed heavily then, as a result the equipment would not be modernized and imports would take over...

Archer -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 8:59:46 AM)
Jeff the fair tax accounts for family size, LOL Accounts for progressiveness some as well. Prebates the tax one would pay to buy the nessesities of life for a family of X If a family of 4 needs 24 K to be above poverty line then they get a prebate check for 24K X (23% tax rate) A Family of 6 needs 38K to be above the poverty line then they get a prebate check of 38K X (23%) it covers all the taxes for those under poverty level spending.

Jeffff -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:05:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Eliminate income tax. Institute a Federal Sales Tax. Taxes based on consumption not income. Tax corporations the same way. Spend 22 million on a CEO pay taxes on that amount. Make Corporate deductions based in business re investment. If you don't spend it, you don't pay any tax. It becomes an incentive for average people to save and invest. I think it would stop people from investing, because investments would be taxed heavily then, as a result the equipment would not be modernized and imports would take over... Invesments would not be taxed. Things purchased with the profit from those investments would be.

BoiJen -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:19:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Eliminate income tax. Institute a Federal Sales Tax. Taxes based on consumption not income. Tax corporations the same way. Spend 22 million on a CEO pay taxes on that amount. Make Corporate deductions based in business re investment. If you don't spend it, you don't pay any tax. It becomes an incentive for average people to save and invest. I think it would stop people from investing, because investments would be taxed heavily then, as a result the equipment would not be modernized and imports would take over... Here's the thing, to get this economy back up and going, people need to spend. During a stable economy things are different. We're in the height of the "W" on this...another dip will come soon. boi

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:20:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven This post will give conservatives a heart attack. I'll apologize in advance. There's been a lot of fuss about income disparity of late. All proposals to deal with it invariably involve taxes. I oppose increased taxation on several grounds, but it occurs to me that taxation should be a means by which the government gets the means to run itself. Income inequality should be dealt with at its source. Ben and Jerry's once instituted a policy that the top paid employee should be paid no more than X times what the lowest paid employee gets. The minimum wage is a means by which all employees have a floor on their earnings. I'd like to propose a ceiling on earnings as well. Something tied to the overall health of a company. In other words, obscene bonuses at companies that are failing, would be out. Venture capitalists who acquire a company and pay themselves massive salaries while destroying the company would be out. Now, how to implement... The market will establish compensation just fine without outside regulation. Executive compensation is already tied to the overall results and health of companies since the big numbers in compensation are in the form of options. Yes, some companies tie comp to performance better than others, but the Board and shareholders are responsible for that and it is THEIR money that is being spent. For a regulator to step in would mean that he has specialized knowledge of the industry that enables him to determine how much value a CEO or COO has brought to the company. A company may have lost 10 cents a share, but the regulator would have to determine that it would have done better with different guidance and not lost 30 cents a share. If the regulator were capable of doing that then HE would be a CEO/COO and not a regulator.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:21:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Eliminate income tax. Institute a Federal Sales Tax. Taxes based on consumption not income. Tax corporations the same way. Spend 22 million on a CEO pay taxes on that amount. Make Corporate deductions based in business re investment. If you don't spend it, you don't pay any tax. It becomes an incentive for average people to save and invest. I think it would stop people from investing, because investments would be taxed heavily then, as a result the equipment would not be modernized and imports would take over... Invesments would not be taxed. Things purchased with the profit from those investments would be. Where do you draw the line then with what is an investment and what is a purchase? As a business owner my house, car, etc. would be all used for business purposes (ie an investment) and not be taxed... I would actually use a different taxing structure, you know anything that covers a basic need I would tax as low as possible (milk, bread, etc.), any luxury good I would tax higher, especially SUVs in inner cities or sports cars, if you want to burn petrol like there is no tomorrow and pollute my environment, pay for the priviledge. Same with imports, if you want to eat strawberries in the middle of winter, cough up more money...

BoiJen -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:22:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The market will establish compensation just fine without outside regulation. Deregulation without proper balance is what got us all in this situation to begin with. The suggestion that further deregulation or continuing as it was would improve the situation is ludicrous. History proves that. boi

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:25:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The market will establish compensation just fine without outside regulation. Deregulation without proper balance is what got us all in this situation to begin with. The suggestion that further deregulation or continuing as it was would improve the situation is ludicrous. History proves that. boi Wrong. What history proves is that bad regulation makes things worse.

BoiJen -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:25:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze ....especially SUVs in inner cities or sports cars, if you want to burn petrol like there is no tomorrow and pollute my environment, pay for the priviledge. Same with imports, if you want to eat strawberries in the middle of winter, cough up more money... 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

DomYngBlk -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:27:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven This post will give conservatives a heart attack. I'll apologize in advance. There's been a lot of fuss about income disparity of late. All proposals to deal with it invariably involve taxes. I oppose increased taxation on several grounds, but it occurs to me that taxation should be a means by which the government gets the means to run itself. Income inequality should be dealt with at its source. Ben and Jerry's once instituted a policy that the top paid employee should be paid no more than X times what the lowest paid employee gets. The minimum wage is a means by which all employees have a floor on their earnings. I'd like to propose a ceiling on earnings as well. Something tied to the overall health of a company. In other words, obscene bonuses at companies that are failing, would be out. Venture capitalists who acquire a company and pay themselves massive salaries while destroying the company would be out. Now, how to implement... The market will establish compensation just fine without outside regulation. Executive compensation is already tied to the overall results and health of companies since the big numbers in compensation are in the form of options. Yes, some companies tie comp to performance better than others, but the Board and shareholders are responsible for that and it is THEIR money that is being spent. For a regulator to step in would mean that he has specialized knowledge of the industry that enables him to determine how much value a CEO or COO has brought to the company. A company may have lost 10 cents a share, but the regulator would have to determine that it would have done better with different guidance and not lost 30 cents a share. If the regulator were capable of doing that then HE would be a CEO/COO and not a regulator. So the years that GM and Chrysler fell into the shitter...Management didn't get paid?

Jeffff -> RE: Wealth distribution. (8/3/2010 9:28:04 AM)
I don't know where I draw the line. I suppose everyone paying the exact same amount would be the fairest thing. That looks good, in a vacumn. A person paying twice as much in federal tax, does not get twice the benefits. Taxing an inheritance is also wrong. Taxes have been paid on that money. On the otherhand, without it this country would have a CLEAR ruling class in no time at all. The answer would be in a benevolent dictatorship. No pork, no tit for tat, just a clear vision of what is good for everyone. Unless I am named Dictator, I am not a big fan of that.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875