- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,412
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The ceo isn't asking for, or taking anything that he/she hasn't earned...
What someone else makes doesn't effect you. I got it.
Doesn't matter if the CEO of your company pays himself a zillion dollars.
Doesn't matter how high we make minimum wage either, after all minimum wage workers are paid out of the same income pool that CEO's are.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064690348 said:So you vote on lies, knowing they're lies? Does it make you "feel better?"
The ceo isn't asking for, or taking anything that he/she hasn't earned
There is that word.....earned
So it was OK that the CEO of GM was making millions of dollars a year, and getting raises year after year, while GM was loosing billions? The guy was paid $100 million dollars in 12 years, had 9 years of losses out of those 12 and ran the company into bankruptcy.
You obviously don't understand this, but wages aren't set by how hard one works, or how productive they are, but by negotiating power. CEOs use every drop of negotiating power that they can gather, I don't see why minimum wage workers shouldn't also utilize every drop of negotiating power that they have, even if that includes protesting for higher wages or unionizing.
So it was OK that the CEO of GM was making millions of dollars a year, and getting raises year after year, while GM was loosing billions? The guy was paid $100 million dollars in 12 years, had 9 years of losses out of those 12 and ran the company into bankruptcy.
You obviously don't understand this, but wages aren't set by how hard one works, or how productive they are, but by negotiating power. CEOs use every drop of negotiating power that they can gather, I don't see why minimum wage workers shouldn't also utilize every drop of negotiating power that they have, even if that includes protesting for higher wages or unionizing.
I don't think that's true. We already have a production (manufacturing) credit and Obama proposed to expand it and double it for certain industries, and I really don't think democrats as a group would be against tax breaks to move into the inner cities, where they have HUGE voter support.
I have not heard any suggestions from 2016 candidates on this. To be fair, neither side has put any real proposals on the table
It's true NAFTA was Clinton and Obama strongly supports TPP, but that's true of probably anyone who can get elected POTUS. The Democratic base isn't happy about it, and the democratic wing of the democratic party is against the trade deals.
A little off topic, but I've changed my views on "charter schools." I had thought the charter schools would be like the non-profit high school I went to. Instead, what we seem to be getting are corporate, for profit schools that from what I can see exist mainly to capture and privatize what has been many $billions in public spending. And I haven't seen any evidence that they do a better job, and they appear to at least frequently be dogged with lack of transparency and obvious conflicts of interests, with tons of the spending getting siphoned off into related companies for various services, management and the like and the public unable to see exactly where there money is going. I know this varies by school district so generalities are difficult, but the trends I've seen aren't good.
So as is I don't support expanding charter schools or funding them with taxpayer money. Bottom line is if corporations could make money with private schools, not funded with deals they can buy with captured legislators, they'd have been funding them all over the country long ago. It's only happening now that they can get public money, so I'm very worried this is just another example of public costs, privatized profits, with little if any benefit for students.
I agree that it would be great to have these schools non-profit. I think many are. Also agree that there should be transparency. That being said, I was able to send my son to a private high school. Very expensive, but a great education and certainly helped to get into a great University. I would like more students to have that opportunity even if their parents can't pick that type of tab.
I agree with the general ideas, but the specifics are very hard to implement. The deductions for plants overseas is part of income in those countries, not here, and I guess we could tax that income more heavily than we do now, but already the firms keep the profits offshore to avoid the U.S. tax. My preference is strongly to subsidize/incentivize domestic production. I'm generally not a big "tax cuts for the plutocrats will save us" crowd, but I'd be OK with far lower marginal tax rates on corporations in the U.S. accompanied with higher taxes on distributions to shareholders. Or not. Other countries heavily subsidize their domestic firms - I'm fine if we do the same however we can do it. Yes, perhaps it's going to mostly accrue to shareholders, but it's worth a try IMO. So little is actually collected from the corporate income tax that we could halve it and not do all that much damage to collections, especially with just a small increase in taxes on corporate distributions to shareholders.
Then you didn't read it very carefully, because it was spelled out.Wonderful. Read the article. Now...how does Bill Gates making 10 Billion a year prevent you from becoming successful? How does the fact that the top 1% are REALLY REALLY REALLY wealthy prevent you from becoming successful? How do you reconcile the fact that there have MILLIONS of NEW MILLIONAIRESaround the globe over the last several years (an average of 1000 per day)with your constant bemoaning the success and largess of the 1%? '
As for new millionaires, mobility in the U.S. Is low. What you call a new millionaire, is someone who last year made $975,000 crossing the million line. I'll look for the data on this.Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
Well, Thomas Paine in Common Sense certainly complained about the evils of inherited wealth and power but I don't recall any founders who were concerned about income inequality.
They just disagree on how to fix it. In European social democracies, the GDP per capita is less than the US GDP per capita....that's a very easy example of welfare effectiveness.
Pretty much confirms that republicans vote against their own interests. Dem candidates at least pay lip service to fixing inequality. They do little about it, but the repub candidates and voters seem to be in complete fantasy land. I mean if government won't do anything about it, who else will, the corporate overlords? Maybe the fairy godmother?
Exactly. :shrug:
The few countries (in the world) that have higher gdp per capita than the US have drastically lower populations and large quantities of marketable resources.
IOW,per capita GDP is not the result of "welfare effectiveness"; it's the result of population size and natural resources
Exactly. :shrug:
The few countries (in the world) that have higher gdp per capita than the US have drastically lower populations and large quantities of marketable resources. The main factor that skews the argument in favor of the redistributionists (superficially) Is that in addition to having one of the highest gdp per capitas in the world, we also have one of the highest number of very rich people in the world.
Pretty much confirms that republicans vote against their own interests. Dem candidates at least pay lip service to fixing inequality. They do little about it, but the repub candidates and voters seem to be in complete fantasy land. I mean if government won't do anything about it, who else will, the corporate overlords? Maybe the fairy godmother?
Politically, anything other than that sounds like foolishness as a solution to income disparity.
Other than forced wealth redistribution, the only thing that the government can do is more deficit spending to increase demand and improve our overall economy, but most people are more concerned about the federal debt than income disparity, so that option is off the table, until we stop focusing on the deficit and debt - which won't happen until we get another republican POTUS.
If true (and the only cause), then with our population being one of the largest in the world, greatly larger than any above us, we should have a lower gdp PER CAPITA than we do.
Further, I did not claim it was a result of welfare effectiveness. I claimed is was an example of the lack of welfare effectiveness.
You seem to have missed my statement:
Or maybe, population isn't the cause.
Or maybe, welfare effectiveness is not the cause.
No, I caught your statements. First, you claimed that the social democracies of Europe have lower per capita GDP than the US (even though that's not true) which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of social welfare polices. Once the higher per capita GDP of some European nations was pointed out to you, you pivoted to arguing that per capita GDP is affected by population and natural resources.
The truth is, per capita GDP is the result of many factors. Unless you're going to present a case that includes an accounting for all of those factors, your argument is nothing more than baseless claims motivated by partisan hackery
You cited what the article was full of...horse**** and platitudes. Bill Gates did not diminish your capacity for becoming successful. You did. As for the 'tax' argument...again...that is such a ridiculous played out false narrative. The rich pay the taxes in this country. Average citizens dont pay enough in taxes to pay for even ONE of their kids teachers in school. Look at a breakdown...an actual breakdown of who pays for what.Then you didn't read it very carefully, because it was spelled out.
As for new millionaires, mobility in the U.S. Is low. What you call a new millionaire, is someone who last year made $975,000 crossing the million line. I'll look for the data on this.
What someone else makes doesn't effect you. I got it.
Doesn't matter if the CEO of your company pays himself a zillion dollars.
Doesn't matter how high we make minimum wage either, after all minimum wage workers are paid out of the same income pool that CEO's are.
It's not, solely.
It's not, the opposite is true.
I didn't say European nations, I said European social Democracies. The only country that is an exception to that is Norway....sorta. Norway has low population and high resources.
It is a result of many factors, it is also an example of the lack of welfare effectiveness. The US has higher GDP per capita, Higher PPP, and Higher average wage (including Norway, Switzerland, and Luxembourg) than most countries, and nearly every European social democracy despite having a much higher population and lower welfare levels.
A " Strong majority " are for wealth redistribution ?
In Greece maybe, or Venezuela, or Argentina.
Not in this Country by any means.
And the economy has " improved by most measures " ?? How can you post this crap ?
Oh thats right, you put ideology before the needs and concerns of Millions of Americans who continue to struggle under this President
Pretend they're not there so you can push this drivel.
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?