OT: Millionaires ask for higher taxes

Page 2 of 5  
Gordon Shumway writes:

Lots of ways to become destitute.
How about people who have worked, never really saved much, then got sick or old?
Some may have worked, some may have never been able to work. The ones seen as just lazy get everyone upset.
Still, there are plenty of material goods to go around. Not everyone can have a BMW (yet) but there's no need to starve people either. I think we've moved past that.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:52:55 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote:

If they never saved much that's their fault for squandering their money. The fact that they spent their money on toys instead of saving for the future is no reason I should have to give them my money.

If you want those material things all you need to do is work.

Maybe you have moved past that because your liberal thieves in congress feel they need to legislate my savings to those who are not to eager to work so they can get re-elected -- but I haven't.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 10, 10:18 pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:

And if you continue to follow the path of trying to redistribute the material things to all regardless of their willingness to work and do the right things, over time you'll have less and less of those material things produced. Why should someone work hard when they can get taken care of for free?

Well said.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And if you continue to follow the path of trying to redistribute the material things to all regardless of their willingness to work and do the right things, over time you'll have less and less of those material things produced. Why should someone work hard when they can get taken care of for free?
=================================================== I like the CEO's take on "shared sacrifice". One very large bank in Oh, quit matching the worker's 401, touting everyone needs to sacrifice. This year, the CEO got a $1.4 million dollar bonus. The worker's, well they also took a cut in pay this year.
I can list other examples for you, if you'd like.
Funny how that redistribution works from the top. Why should a hard worker have to redistribute their paltry dollars to the rich ones?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The hard worker was not forced to redistribute any of their money. If they thought they could get better pay for the same work elsewhere they are free to leave and go take those better jobs. That's how free economies work. The market sets the rate for compensation.
With regard to executive compensation, a bonus of $1.4mil for the CEO of a large bank does not sound excessive. Often the bonus is a large part of their total compensation. If it's in line with similar CEOs and the bank is profitable, it seems reasonable.
Now compare that to true redistribution that the libs want. Their form is they take it from you by force, without you having a choice, other than to leave the country.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

With regard to executive compensation I am not so sure. In the mid-80s or so Congress, in its infinite wisdom decided that executives were getting paid too much. So, in order to Fix That Situation, they passed changes in the tax law. The first effectively capped salaries (what they are paid for actually running the company) at $1 million or so by limiting the amount that could be deducted. Then, in an effort to align the interests of the executives with the shareholders, they tax favored the giving of options and bonuses. Of course this then meant that the executives were not paid for running the company, but for cooking the books. (and it meant compensation a few orders of magnitude higher than even the most captive board would have had the balls to give). The top was probably Merril Lynch just before it collapsed when the honcho got #$300K in salary but around $300 million in things that were supposed to align his interests with those of the shareholders.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/13/2011 11:33 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The law of unintended results rears its ugly head again eh? Evey time the government screws around with something like that it gets worse and causes a calamity or collapse of some sort.
TDD
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are those that are meant to be employees and those that are meant to be employers. The employee has zero risk, the employer has 100% of the risk and should be comensated accordingly
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with the concept that some should be paid more than others but the average person making a hiring decision isn't taking any more risk than the person accepting the job.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:59:24 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote:

Bullshit! If the guy doing the hiring (your example) hires a thief the next day his entire inventory could be missing. Is that your method of sharing the wealth?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gordon Shumway wrote:

We'll see. San Francisco recently passed (or is contemplating passing, I forget which) an ordinance prohibiting a prospective employer from discriminating against an applicant based on an applicant's former felony convictions.
If I own a business, and I discover an applicant has three prior felony convictions for arson of a business...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/11/2011 7:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Hire him/her and take out a lot of fire insurance. I remember reading a story about a guy who insured a rare box of cigars that were worth a great deal of money. The fellow smoked them then filed a claim that the cigars had been lost to fire. He had to sue the insurance company to get them to pay which they did. The insurance company then brought arson charges against the smoker for every single cigar he smoked. Your fire insurance company would probably use the fact that you knew the new employee had a criminal history of arson and refuse to pay off. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have seen that tossed around, but never actually seen it backed up with anything reliable. As far as income is concerned (which is what INCOME taxes are built on), this isn't close to reality.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Suga Moto Soy wrote:

So what if they own 90% of the wealth? They earned it.
Take away what someone has earned, irrespective of whether he's got a lot or very little, and you destroy his incentive to earn more.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

exactly Never seen a poor man create a job
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The "poor" in the UK have been creating a lot of jobs lately. Every night.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:30:58 -0500, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Hmm, I hate to admit it but you're right.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He keeps the people writing checks at the welfare off ice employed.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/10/2011 3:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Whats wrong with that, I thought greed was good?
--
Jack
Got Change: Trickle up Poverty!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

There's a word for the destroyed incentive. It's called: "Going John Galt."
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.