- Joined
- May 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,250
- Reaction score
- 763
- Location
- Los Angels, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Obama doesn't have the right to redistribute income, but he can use the Executive power to do that. Progressives most of the time try to legitimize taking from the more affluent in the society and rewards those who haven’t earned, because according to them that is the moral thing to do. In reality what they are after is more power to control people lives.“Enough Money"
Townhall - Thomas Sowell - "Enough Money"
by Thomas Sowell
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't stop and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough money."
The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.
Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters.
Are we really so eaten up with envy, or so mesmerized by rhetoric, that we are willing to sacrifice our own freedom by giving politicians the power to decide how much money anybody can make or keep? Of course, that will start only with "the rich," but surely history tells us that it will not end there.
Obama doesn't have the right to redistribute income, but he can use the Executive power to do that. Progressives most of the time try to legitimize taking from the more affluent in the society and rewards those who haven’t earned, because according to them that is the moral thing to do. In reality what they are after is more power to control people lives.
Obama doesn't have the right to redistribute income, but he can use the Executive power to do that. Progressives most of the time try to legitimize taking from the more affluent in the society and rewards those who haven’t earned, because according to them that is the moral thing to do. In reality what they are after is more power to control people lives.
Yeah I'm pretty ****ing tired of people taking a sentence Obama said out of context and then using that to build up a response to an imaginary totalitarian orwellian socialist radicalist redistrbution of wealth.
One must wonder if you've ever heard of a concept called "Corporate Welfare." That, IMO is worse because already profitable companies are getting free money. Giving money to people who need it isn't as bad as giving money to companies already raking in billions in profits. And effectively, that money gets sent to the upper class via dividends. So it's still redistribution.
And functionally, all government spending is redistribution of income. Defense? That's redistribution. Roads? Same. Welfare? Same.
I can't state enough how a private individual's earnings are none of the government's business. Legally earned money is just that and anything other than staying out of the way of that will be arbitrary and draconian.Who is going to decide who is making "enough money"? Let say you have a company which produce a product that people buy, and you make “enough money” satisfying a demand. How does a new department created by the government get to decide when you have made "enough money"? This will take us in a very dangerous path.
I support a corporate structure that distributes the profit of the business equally - I don't support it being stipulated *by* the government (like capping wages) - but if a company earns 9billion annually . . . then the employees who made that happen should get a much larger cut - rather than the CEO (etc) getting a golden mansion.
not sure i understand why you believe the paid employees - who are working by their own consent, for their given wage - are more entitled to a portion of the profits than the stockholders who have invested in the organization which generated the profits
another name for these shareholders is "owners"Well I don't understand why you believe that people who played the stock market and merely invested in a company based on it's employee-churned profit growth and CEO contrived business success would be more entitled to a portion of the profits that they played no direct part in making other than their initial investment per purchase of said stock.
actually, the reason why stock is sold is usually to capitalize the corporationThe reason why a company offers stock is so the company can profit *from* the sale of stock.
actually, that is the purpose. why would anyone invest in a corporation's stock with the intent of realizing upon its sale less than they have invested?If the company pays *more* to their stock-holders than their stock-holders ever invest over the course of time then doesn't that defeat the purpose?
if you are speaking of retained earnings, which were elected by the Board of Directors not to be distributed as dividends, then we are in agreementThus - dividend payouts are always controlled, capped or otherwise limited and not all stock-portions are for public-investment. Much is reserved for the use of the company itself.
i am guessing you are distinguishing between an active and a passive investor here, so we can agree that this discussion focuses on the passive investor(When a stock-holder gains a substantial amount of profits they are no longer a mere mouse in the game of the market - they are lifted to a different level in which their opinions and thoughts about the business are considered . . . this is *no longer* a routine "market shareholder position" - this is beyond that and this is no longer related to my point)
but what we are addressing is the distribution of profits to the corporation's employees instead of to the corporation's stockholders (aka 'the owners')Aside that - those in the stock market don't receive all of a company's excessive profits as dividends - they purchase the stock knowing that they *might* receive a set % of profit as a dividend. Their amount fluctuates according to profit, growth, liquidity, overall market stability and other factors. . . none of which they have a direct hand in - the only money they invest is their purchase of said stock.
the investors are usually making a calculated investment, based on the expected return they will realize from the investment. the profits you do not give to the owners of the corporation to instead hand over to the employees diminishes the return those investors would realizeFor most investors their true interest is *not* the company's business-goals and purpose but it is the *company's* value and a very self-centered "how much will this profit *me*"
certainly we would expect a rational employee to be concerned about the profitability and longevity of its employer corporation. they have selfish reason for being so concerned. an unprofitable business will likely be considering cutbacks, in employee numbers/wages/bonuses/hours/perks. it is in the employee's self interest to want the corporation to do well enough to continue to fairly compensate the employee for his/her workUnlike the employee - not all - but there are many which *do* care about the company's bottom line, reputation and overall success, not just how much they might profit from it.
with few exceptions, employees are fungibleWithout these employees the company/business would not exist ...
we disagree here. probably because of our fundamental differences in opinion about the purpose of stock sales. unless one can fund the corporation out of their wallet, or is able to leverage the funds they do have to secure a business loan to fund operations, the corporation will necessarily have to sell stock to capitalize the business' operations.... - while stock-market investors are somewhat important - they are not necessary and many argue that they aren't actually beneficial to the company *at all*
if the corporation had the profits avilable and chose not to make distribution to the shareholders, then those surplus profits would be retained earnings, which would enhance the corporation's financial statement. those retained earnings would make the corporation's value increase dollar for dollar of retained earnings. that should (ordinarily) force the corporation's stock price upwardAlso, Not all companies reward their stock-investors with dividends, too boot; for the majority of stocks the only way to make money is to buy low/sell high - and literally play the game. And this isn't paid for *by* the company - this is paid for *by* other investors - the company in a buy/sell ONLY stock is merely profiting a portion from each sale of stock.
not always. some corporations are privaely/closely held. all but one NFL team is closely held, as an example. so, by distributing shares to the employees, they would lose their advantages of owning closely held corporate stockAside that - employees are always offered a company-stock option that they can invest in if they wish - ...
sometimes corporation buy back shares of their stock when they believe the shares are being sold below value and the corporation has the liquidity to invest in its own shares. other times, the corporation will distribute unsold shares, or will authorize the sale of additional shares (the latter of which dilutes the value of each previously owned share)... which often isn't from the market-pool but the reserved-pool of stocks that the company sets aside for itself.
it is my belief that you are standing firmly in quickstand with that unshakable stanceThus - I still stand firm and always will in my belief that the employees which keep a company going, make all the money and magic happen, ...
employees are plentiful. that employee who is no longer satisfied with the agreed upon compensation they receive is entitled to and should walk away from the corporation if they believe they can realize a better compensation elsewhere. but as i said earlier, the reality is employees are fungible. there are plenty - estimated these days at 40 to 100 applicants for every open position. someone would be found to do the job that disgruntled former employee left ... because they did not get the share of corporate profits they wrongly felt they were entitled to enjoy... should be respected and given the highest reward and appreciation from their employers - without employees working hard - there would be no company, there would be no profit in stocks.
i doubt that every employee performed well enough to deserve a bonus, from my years in the work force prior to retirement. many did only enough to get by. i don't see that as bonus-worthy; in fact, it may somewhat demean the bonus the deserving realize when they see the slackers enjoy the same bonus resultOften when this "giving back to the employee" is done it's called a bonus, by the way, which many profitable companies fully believe in and give to their employees as a thank you for their hard work.
i like the simplicity of it, but here is what i view as the flaw of this processIf I were in charge, the tax form would be one page long and 3 lines.
1. Enter your total gross income.
2. Subtract money given to charity.
3. Take 20% of line 1 minus line 2 and send it to the IRS.
Done.
i like the simplicity of it, but here is what i view as the flaw of this process
a business that has very low margins on its product because of competitive factors may not generate a gross income of 20% ... even before expensing administrative costs
Seriously, redistributing the wealth straight back to the rich seriously doesn't bother them somehow.
How much is redistributed to the wealthy and the corporate and how much goes to jobless john?
I support a corporate structure that distributes the profit of the business equally - I don't support it being stipulated *by* the government (like capping wages) - but if a company earns 9billion annually . . . then the employees who made that happen should get a much larger cut - rather than the CEO (etc) getting a golden mansion.
What really puzzle me is that those on the left side of the spectrum, who don’t produce anything of value to satisfy a demand, have contempt for those who are successful. This is very common among the intellectual elite.
The intellectual elite accuse those who are successful and make "enough money" of being greedy. Envy, the feeling of resentment aroused by pride and fear, with the desire for the possessions or qualities of others, is a very disturbing pattern of behavior.
Whatever Obamas enough money means, say 250,000 a yr. That's enough, so you give anything over to the government or just stop because you have enough? That's what it sounded like he meant. So who is ever going to make over that?
I wish we had a president who didn't think he was the only one entitled to live a life of luxury.
I'm pretty poor myself, but I'm fine with that. I have what I need and pretty much what I want. However some people desire more and if they are willing to work for it they should be able to get as wealthy as they want without being demonized by our president.
If I were in charge, the tax form would be one page long and 3 lines.
1. Enter your total gross income.
2. Subtract money given to charity.
3. Take 20% of line 1 minus line 2 and send it to the IRS.
Done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?