2) Yup, CEO's deserve some compensation for the job they do. But the difference between their salary and the folks who work for themhas gotten ridiculous. Capitalism is alive and well in a number of places on this world, but only in this country is the salary difference so skewed. W/out the worker bees, your CEO don't get a lot of normal work done.
Both points in a way are examples where the system has gone to extremes.
Renata
--snip--
smart, not dumb for email
That was far from clear in your original post; all that _was_ clear was your willingness to apply the adjustment to those with more assets than yourself. In any event, it's clear now, and I apologize for impugning your motives.
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Philosophically I agree with keeping the government out, but in the real world it doesn't work. Without rules, and someone to enforce them, those with good intelligence and bad ethics will wind up with everything.
Now how to make sure the government makes and enforces the right rules, that's a problem :-).
Why am I reminded of the story of Stalin remarking on the "constitution" of the USSR with the old Russian saying "bumaga vse terpit."
"Paper will put up with anything. "
The IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of all income taxes. The top 1 percent of Americans - those who earn more than about $300,000 a year - pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than half.
-source: ABC News
Let's take a look at that on instant replay:
- Richest 1% pay 34% of the income tax
- Richest 5% pays 50% of the income tax
Just how much more is required of them to "pay their fair share?"
Can't be determined from the facts at hand.
In order to answer that question, one needs to know what portion of the income is earned by the top 1% and top 5%. If those groups are earning 34% and 50% of the total income, respectively, then they're paying their fair share now. If they're earning 17% and 25% respectively, then they're paying much *more* than "fair share".
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Doug Miller responds:
And if they're earning 50% and 66% respectively, they're underpaying.
I don't know where they fall. Does anyone?
Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
One more try - according to the IRS:
in 2000 (latest year of this report) the top 1% paid 37.4% of income taxes with 20.8% of income. The top 5% paid 56.3% of income taxes with 35.3% of income. I'm sure gabriel will jump in again and claim that they are all greedy bastards who hide their income in mattresses and other not verifiable schemes as well as doing grab and dash of the poor's food stamps.
-Doug
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:33:25 -0500, Renata brought forth from the murky depths:
I'm still freaked about actually shaking my head in dismay to his statements right along with a Democrat, Sen. Kennedy, during that show.
...which might effectively raise the number by what, 50%?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as 5 or six years ago, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent of the wealth.
In which case it is clear that these groups are already paying _far_more_ than their fair share.
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
If you have a point to that statement, I confess that I do not know what it is.
Is this an "accident?" Or the result of a "silver spoon" being in their mouths when born? I think not.
I have bought two books because they had a handful of paragraphs. From ISBN
1-56052-078-7 page 9,--------------------- Here's proof that planning works. Back in the 1950s, a behavioral research team from the Harvard Business School took a random sample of 100 members of the senior class and asked them what they would like to be doing 10 years from graduation. All 100 said they would like to be wealthy, successful, and significant forces in the business world.
The researchers noted that of the 100 seniors, only 10 had drawn up specific goals and put them in writing.
Ten years later, the research team paid a follow-up visit to the 100 subjects. They found that the 10 graduates who had written down their goals
*owned 96 percent of the total wealth* of the 100-student sample.Planning *does* pay off.
---------------------
I know people who are millionaires. I have met a billionaire. I am still a hundred-aire or thousand-aire.
IMO the people I know who MADE IT, actually MADE IT by hard work, multiple failures, sacrifice, etc. They have already paid more than their "fair share" of taxes (*) They furthered their education when others of their generation were watching TV. They contemplated their futures while others were contemplating their navels. Why punish those who chose to succeed? Why reward those (like me) who tried to do as little as they could and still get by?
-- Mark
(*) I am in favor of a 100% flat tax at some certain rate. People making $100/month pay X%. People making $1,000,000 / month pay X%.
BTW, I know I'll pay more taxes under the flat rate plan. That's fine with me.
I had an email conversation with this person in January 2004. In the 45 years it has taken this billionaire to amass his fortune he has read over
6,500 biographies. It was his desire to emulate the things others found sucessful and avoid the things others found fruitless. Using the yardstick of $$, IMO he has been successful. I have many books, but I'm no where close to having read 6500 biographies!Many of us (myself included) have spent 40 +/- years with items of little import. IMO the tiny few who focused on the important things should not be taxed on their foresight, especially when they have already paid on the order of 2x their "fair share" of the taxes!
-- Mark
The number in 2000 was 16% of AGI. That was the rate of doing your "fair share" of income tax.
-Doug
I fear you're right.
When I was in grade school (about a million years ago), we studied world geography and learned that countries in what is now called the Third World (then called undeveloped countries, I think) served the role of supplying raw materials to the more advanced countries (the US and the European countries) because they lacked the skills and the infrastructure to produce sophisticated products themselves. Those countries then imported finished goods from us and others.
In another generation, we're going to be in that position ourselves. Who is going to make the investment in time and money to become a machinist, an engineer, or a programmer if we're sending all of our manufacturing, engineering a programming work overseas? Why bother learning anything but how to flip burgers if that's all the jobs that are left? Skilled people will be unemployed, manufacturing plants as well as engineering offices will be shut down.
Today, we choose not to employ Americans to fill jobs that we can send overseas more cheaply. Soon, the choice will be gone. There simply won't be any Americans left with these skills. Like those undeveloped countries of my grade-school days, we will lack the skills and the infrastructure to produce sophisticated products ourselves and will be dependent on importing finished goods from elsewhere. Assuming, of course, that we burger-flippers can afford them at all.
-- jc Published e-mail address is strictly for spam collection. If e-mailing me, please use jc631 at optonline dot net
Well, gee, 60% is greater than 50%. I thought that was obvious, but I apparently overestimated my audience.
I meant, they (the more well to do) got more stuff that needs protectin', for example. They're much more interested in order and law, for example. Versus a bum on the street, or even a step or two above that.
Renata
--snip-- smart, not dumb for email
;-)
-- Mark
Will someone *PLEASE* take issue with this? 45 years ago this guy couldn't really read a newspaper. 40 years later he's selling videos to people like me for $1k.
Yes, he's read over six thousand, five hundred biographies. No sense replicating the mistakes of others. Only fools don't learn from history.
-- Mark
HomeOwnersHub website 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.