So when you toss around yer unsupported sums, you admit you are not talking about ABW's earning MW. Fine, you are posting non-sequiturs.A MW worker is unlikely (in many states) to qualify for Medicaid unless they are also elderly or have minor dependents. The fact remains that Medicaid has no premiums, deductibles or co-pays which is ridiculous.
I often wonder, what goes through people's heads. Have you ever thought about poverty? I mean to the extent of looking at the comparative statistics for different oecd countries? It is true that the US could and should innovate and improve itself. But socialist propaganda falsehoods are not the reason to do so. The country is probably too reliant on social programmes and errs more with regard to structures and overspending.
The point is that, and I think you're fully aware of this, when we talk about redistribution and handouts, we mean the poor, "we the people". We subsidize the well off all over the place and no one minds.
The point is that, and I think you're fully aware of this, when we talk about redistribution and handouts, we mean the poor, "we the people". We subsidize the well off all over the place and no one minds.
We mind all over the place and have for generations, but the well-off keep getting what they want.
Because "both" parties represent the donor "job creator" class alone and the public cooperates and participates. That part's on us.
I agree that congress critters handsomely reward those that supply them with that, all important, campaign cash but that has little (or nothing) to do with this thread topic. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich - just as the non-union worker is not paid less because the union worker is paid more. The difference between those making over/under $30K/year is not who they are but what they do.
Very true.
That's exactly why we have Trump for president as well.
I agree that congress critters handsomely reward those that supply them with that, all important, campaign cash but that has little (or nothing) to do with this thread topic. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich - just as the non-union worker is not paid less because the union worker is paid more. The difference between those making over/under $30K/year is not who they are but what they do.
Absolutely. What, Hilary? **** me. Goldman Sachs is always in the white house either way, the solution will not come via voting, not voting alone.
Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses
The working class has been working for less and less over the past half century in terms of real spending power as productivity has grown exponentially; that's no accident, it is donor “job creator” class lobbied legislation. HALF of your fellow citizens take home less than $30K a year, in this economy. We all know who “recovered” post the last meltdown. You cannot retain a democracy without a functional middle class. Watch.
Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses
The working class has been working for less and less over the past half century in terms of real spending power as productivity has grown exponentially; that's no accident, it is donor “job creator” class lobbied legislation. HALF of your fellow citizens take home less than $30K a year, in this economy. We all know who “recovered” post the last meltdown. You cannot retain a democracy without a functional middle class. Watch.
Instead of talking about the difference between those making less $30K/year, and those making more than that, why don't we talk about those making $5k-150K, versus those making Millions, and voting themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses, through their like-minded Board members. Does a professional Doctor, Nurse, Engineer, Carpenter, Metal Worker, or any other occupation, even a janitor, work 5% as hard as a CEO or top executive? In many cases, they probably work a lot harder! Why do they make less than 1% to 5% of the money that CEOs and top executives earn? The Corporate Boards have stacked the decks in America.
Hourly pay (or salary) is not based on how hard (or easy) the position (job?) is - it is (generally) based on what is required to attract and retain qualified labor for that position (job?). It is not significantly harder to run a business (be its CEO) based on its size (500 employees vs.50K employees) but if the CEO pay is based on a percentage of gross profit then it may well be "worth"" 1000X more based on that "size" difference.
I make a decent, but modest, living (as a self-employed handyman) not because of how hard I work (and I try desperately not to do so at age 63) but because I possess the skills, experience and tools required to do a quality job. I rely 100% on repeat customers and their referrals yet must compete with countless others - most of which claim to be able to to the work better and/or cheaper. Thus my pay (hourly labor rate) is what the (very local) market will bear.
With all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. You're missing my point. I also work at a rate commiserate with what the market will bear. CEOs and Execs are not working at market-based rates. They are working at rates (and bonuses) that they themselves vote in. Usually only their bonuses are tied to profit, and they are on top of their 7-figure salaries. I worked for a Fortune 500 company. At a company communications event, the following conversation ensued.
Union Employee (raised hand): How do you justify the money you make (with bonuses, was well into 7 figures)?
Executive Spokesman: My pay is equitable with that of similar positions in this industry and other industries.
And there lies the crux. These policy makers, continued to raise their salaries and bonuses. For example, XYZ Corporation pays their execs $3 Million per year, so ZYX Corporation must do the same. The following year, ABC Corporation raises pays to $3.5 million. Time for others to follow suit In 2009 some of the CEOs salaries actually got lowered, after Obama challenged GMC and others. Did the rest follow suit? Are you kidding? By 2011, the income gaps were substantially widening again.
That is my point exactly - what is required to attract and retain a top notch CEO? If X corp is paying 6% of net profit then so must Y corp to get the same type of CEO candidate. Obviously, the Z corp board could decide screw that nonsense and offer to pay their CEO what the POTUS makes and pick the best applicant that shows up for that offer but somehow they just won't do that.
Why would a board change the status quo that is enriching them? The belief that a corporation needs to pay $100 million a year to get a CEO also increases their "value" immensely. Our problem is that Govt. is not taxing those exorbitant salaries at 90%. They would go away real quickly and companies would need to look elsewhere for places to spend their profits. Like the wages of their employees perhaps?
What difference to the employer does the income tax rate paid by any given corporate employee make? A CEO's, like any other employee's, pay is a direct expense - how much of that goes into the US treasury instead of the CEO's, or any other employee's, pocket makes no difference to the employer.
With all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. You're missing my point. I also work at a rate commiserate with what the market will bear. CEOs and Execs are not working at market-based rates. They are working at rates (and bonuses) that they themselves vote in. Usually only their bonuses are tied to profit, and they are on top of their 7-figure salaries. I worked for a Fortune 500 company. At a company communications event, the following conversation ensued.
Union Employee (raised hand): How do you justify the money you make (with bonuses, was well into 7 figures)?
Executive Spokesman: My pay is equitable with that of similar positions in this industry and other industries.
And there lies the crux. These policy makers, continued to raise their salaries and bonuses. For example, XYZ Corporation pays their execs $3 Million per year, so ZYX Corporation must do the same. The following year, ABC Corporation raises pays to $3.5 million. Time for others to follow suit In 2009 some of the CEOs salaries actually got lowered, after Obama challenged GMC and others. Did the rest follow suit? Are you kidding? By 2011, the income gaps were substantially widening again.
LOL You think CEO's would be making 100's of millions when 90% goes to taxes? Of course it makes a difference. No one took such high wages when rates were that high, it would be insane. That was the purpose of penalizing exorbitant incomes. That intent was lost and income disparity has gone thru the roof.
OK, Skippy, riddle me this: when federal income tax bracket percentage rates went down for all pay levels, even more for those at the bottom BTW (some even went negative), what happened to salaries at all pay levels?
What you refuse to see is that payroll expenses (labor costs) do not change based on personal income tax bracket rates.
I have shown that since capital income growth was given tax preference, inequality began to rise as total factor growth has stalled... on multiple occasions in multiple threads. The growth of wealth in this country for the past 3+ decades has eclipsed the tax burden felt by the wealthy many times over. It's akin to complaining your engine doesn't run without oil or a cooling system.
There is no discussion on the matter. The government has a right to tax people and spend money. That you disagree doesn't equate to a violation of property rights. This has already been decided in the courts... and no amount of whining and serial repeating changes this fact.
Once again, you put on full display that you cannot address the topic, and instead choose to discuss me instead.
:yawn:
LOL You think CEO's would be making 100's of millions when 90% goes to taxes? Of course it makes a difference. No one took such high wages when rates were that high, it would be insane. That was the purpose of penalizing exorbitant incomes. That intent was lost and income disparity has gone thru the roof. Greed is human nature and it is not compatible with sustained capitalism so it must be heavily penalized or the society will fail.
I guess you don't drive on the roads. I guess you don't ever use the USPS. Don't ever cross a bridge. If we're invaded, I guess you don't need our military for defense. You'll pull out your pop-gun and battle the tanks. You don't need clean air, clean water...
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?