Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.[W:963:1176:1448]

[Glen Contrarian]

This conversation is clearly sailing right over your head. I understand democracy just fine. I am discussing morality and you are still confusing it with majority rule.

Morality, tyranny, stupidity...it all depends on one's points of view, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between them. But what it boils down to is this: you see the rights of the individual as trumping all else, whereas I see the good of the nation as a whole as trumping all else.

Theft has a specific definition.

By your definition, ALL taxation is theft, because the government forces the individual to pay up or else.

A majority voting into power politicians who will confiscate the property of others and redistribute it to them falls within that definition. That is a fact that you cannot intelligently dispute.

That cannot be 'intelligently disputed' if one cannot accept that the good of the whole is more important than the good of the one. But fortunately for the first-world democracies of Earth - ALL of which are socialized democracies (including America) - most people understand that the good of the nation is more important than the good of the individual. And if you don't believe this is true in America, look up "eminent domain" sometime.

Let me explain things to you since your grasp of history is a bit weak. What elevates a third world nation to a first world nation is liberty and capitalism ( which is nothing more than liberty in the realm of economics). Capitalism, and the individual genius that it inspires, creates wealth that kings of old would envy. So it is no surprise that mobs of the modern day grow envious as well. The envious mobs elect to power politicians who will loot that wealth from its rightful owners and spread it around. They pretend, in their ignorance and willful blindness, that what they are doing is not theft, then heap on the final insult to reason by claiming that their ability to steal has actually CREATED a first world nation. That, of course, is laughable, but it is the ultimate indictment of the mob that so many actually believe it.

You really haven't been around to third world nations much, have you? FYI, if you lived in such places for a while - as I have - you find that third-world democracies are in many ways FREER - in the conservatives' definition - than America. Unions? Hah! Minimum wage? Don't make me laugh! Workers' rights? Not much. And it's all caveat emptor - buyer beware...don't even think about suing the people who sold you something (and if you really want to see them laugh, try returning a garment you didn't like back to where you bought it). Business regulation? Close to nonexistent. Unregulated capitalism is rampant - the golden rule truly applies - America is nowhere near as capitalist as most third-world democracies. And schools? They teach pretty much whatever the school administrators want taught - there are no 'national standards'. LGBT rights? Have you seen what just happened in Uganda? Social safety nets? Almost nonexistent.

In third-world democracies, there is much, MUCH less of the government economic, environmental, industrial, safety, business, or whatever regulation as we have in America (much less in the rest of the first-world democracies). But in such places you still have the right to vote and to go pretty much where you will and do what you want. And I don't exaggerate in any of this.

In other words, third-world democracies are quite literally FREER - in the conservatives' definition - than America.

I know, it's hard for you to believe this - but go live in such places for a while, travel a bit to different third-world nations...and you'll start seeing strong similarities - not so much in the cultures themselves, but in the economics of such places, in the ways they get things done. That's when you start seeing that what you call 'economic liberty' above is a chimera, a pipe dream, a line of empty rhetoric fed to you by plutocrats and would-be oligarchs.

 

[MTAtech]

Re: Come clean. Come out of the (statist) closet

On the topic of redistribution, it’s kind of interesting to read the book by Piketty, because one point Piketty makes is that the modern notion that redistribution and “penalizing success” is un- and anti-American is completely at odds with our country’s actual history. One subsection in Piketty’s book is titled “Confiscatory Taxation of Excess Incomes: An American Invention”; he shows that America actually pioneered very high taxes on the rich:

When we look at the history of progressive taxation in the twentieth century, it is striking to see how far out in front Britain and the United States were, especially the latter, which invented the confiscatory tax on “excessive” incomes and fortunes.
​

Why was this the case? Piketty points to the American egalitarian ideal, which went along with fear of creating a hereditary aristocracy. High taxes, especially on estates, were motivated in part by “fear of coming to resemble Old Europe.” Among those who called for high estate taxation on social and political grounds was the great economist Irving Fisher.

Just to reemphasize the point: during the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer — a position that few people in politics today would dare espouse.

Many people nowadays imagine that redistribution and high taxes on the rich are antithetical to American ideals, indeed practically communism. They have no idea (and wouldn’t believe) that redistribution is in reality as American as apple pie.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Come clean. Come out of the (statist) closet

Just to reemphasize the point: during the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer — a position that few people in politics today would dare espouse.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it penalizes those who happen to live and work in the most expensive areas of the country.

The problem is that most Progressives base their models on the large cities and urban areas of the country. Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and the like. They look at the median income in cities like Los Angeles ($55k per year) and the high cost of living there, then try to lay that down as the blueprint across the entire country. And they do not even realize that that kind of income and cost would ruin most of the country.

15 years ago I left LA and moved to Alabama. My income before I left was just under $40k per year, and I was barely getting by. The high cost of housing, insurance, gasoline, and everything else was making it harder and harder to make ends meet every year. I moved and saw my income drop to $25k per year, and I lived twice as well. My rent plummeted from $800 a month for a studio apartment to $300 a month for a 2 bedroom house. My gasoline went from $2.25 a gallon to $1.75 a gallon. My car insurance went from $380 a month to $125 a month.

In rural Alabama, people could live comfortably doing pizza delivery as a job. In LA, somebody with that kind of a job would be living on the street.

To Progressives, everything is about money. They seem obsessed with it, and demand anybody that has it must give it to somebody else.

 

[Media_Truth]

Take two people, one that is poor, only earning the minimum wage, and one that is rich.

The poor person may not be paying any federal or state income taxes...but he does pay a lot of other taxes - sales tax, utility taxes, gas taxes, et al - and these taxes take up a much greater proportion of a that poor person's income than they do of a rich person's income. Of course, one might argue that these are only 'use taxes'...but if you think about it, all taxes are 'use taxes'...and any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person.

Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", recognized this when he said:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

But in today's political Right, the "Father of Capitalism" would be branded a bleeding-heart liberal socialist.

Be that as it may, conservatives are right about one thing - taxes ARE wealth redistribution. But when the rich pay the extra taxes, do those dollars go up in a puff of smoke? Of course not. When the poor get money - through whatever means, but preferably through work - they SPEND that money...and the money they spend helps to support their local businesses, which supports the local economy, which helps the national economy. HOWEVER, if a rich person decides to send their money to the Caymans or opens factories in China, those dollars are - as far as the American economy goes - WASTED.

That is why it is good for the nation - in morality and in effect - that the rich pay higher progressive taxes.

YES! On the money!

 

[Conservative]

YES! On the money!

Typical, right on the money? Seems that personal choice to you only relates to abortion and not how they spend their money. Federal Income taxes were created to fund certain operating expenses of the federal govt., sales taxes and property taxes are state and local taxes created to fund schools, police, fire fighters and other public services. Payroll taxes were created to fund SS and Medicare, Excise taxes were created to fund infrastructure including roads. You seem to have missed that discussion in high school.

Taking from someone to give to someone else isn't moral at all, it is legal stealing when done by the govt. I find the left totally clueless on this issue having no problem with taking from someone to give to someone else for personal responsibility issues. This is right out of the socialist playbook, doesn't work and leaves states strapped for cash. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[OscarLevant]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

I think you want communism, most working Americans aren't interested in what you're selling

The red-baiting never ceases from the right.

You going to have to come up with a new rebuttal that one's dead

 

[Rucker61]

From the OP: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Does this progressive support mean that the state can take everything that the rich have as long as they retain the means to possess a certain, minimal standard of living?

 

[Conservative]

Take two people, one that is poor, only earning the minimum wage, and one that is rich.

The poor person may not be paying any federal or state income taxes...but he does pay a lot of other taxes - sales tax, utility taxes, gas taxes, et al - and these taxes take up a much greater proportion of a that poor person's income than they do of a rich person's income. Of course, one might argue that these are only 'use taxes'...but if you think about it, all taxes are 'use taxes'...and any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person.

Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", recognized this when he said:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

But in today's political Right, the "Father of Capitalism" would be branded a bleeding-heart liberal socialist.

Be that as it may, conservatives are right about one thing - taxes ARE wealth redistribution. But when the rich pay the extra taxes, do those dollars go up in a puff of smoke? Of course not. When the poor get money - through whatever means, but preferably through work - they SPEND that money...and the money they spend helps to support their local businesses, which supports the local economy, which helps the national economy. HOWEVER, if a rich person decides to send their money to the Caymans or opens factories in China, those dollars are - as far as the American economy goes - WASTED.

That is why it is good for the nation - in morality and in effect - that the rich pay higher progressive taxes.

The basic problem with liberalism is the focus on victims and not the focus on personal responsibility and opportunities. Even poor people earning money have personal responsibility issues that apparently you believe should be funded by someone else mostly the rich according to the left.

The problem with the left is their constant promotion of class envy, class warfare and jealousy. That attitude promotes spending in the name of compassion yet never generating actual positive results but it does appeal to individual feelings

is it your contention that even the poor earning money don't have an obligation to pay something for their own govt. operating expenses such as defense? $100? $500? $1000? PER YEAR? How does anyone justify not paying any Federal Income taxes to fund the govt. and national defense?

I sure wish you people would learn the taxes you pay and their purpose as it is easy to ignore what actually was created to fund the problems you want to help people and when you put all the funds into one pot abuse, waste, fraud is going to happen. Here are some of those taxes

Federal/Corporate Income Taxes fund the Daily operating expenses of the federal govt. including defense, general govt, the V/A, Sciences, the Federal Legal System

FICA is payroll taxes for funding Social Security, Medicare, and Federal Employee pensions

Excise taxes fund Federal Highway and Federal infrastructure programs, NOT state highways and bridges

Sale Taxes-STATE expenses including teachers salaries

Property taxes, schools, police, fire fighters

Those are just a few of the taxes people pay but the focus by you and the left is only on Federal Income Taxes and not the reality that when you cut those taxes all the other revenue streams grow due to economic activity. States and local governments have record revenue this year as people travel more, buy more funding Sales tax and property tax revenues

Sure wish you all would stop demonizing and misinterpreting people for what they don't pay in Federal Income taxes while ignoring what they pay in other taxes

 

[Media_Truth]

The basic problem with liberalism is the focus on victims and not the focus on personal responsibility and opportunities. Even poor people earning money have personal responsibility issues that apparently you believe should be funded by someone else mostly the rich according to the left.

The problem with the left is their constant promotion of class envy, class warfare and jealousy. That attitude promotes spending in the name of compassion yet never generating actual positive results but it does appeal to individual feelings

is it your contention that even the poor earning money don't have an obligation to pay something for their own govt. operating expenses such as defense? $100? $500? $1000? PER YEAR? How does anyone justify not paying any Federal Income taxes to fund the govt. and national defense?

I sure wish you people would learn the taxes you pay and their purpose as it is easy to ignore what actually was created to fund the problems you want to help people and when you put all the funds into one pot abuse, waste, fraud is going to happen. Here are some of those taxes

Federal/Corporate Income Taxes fund the Daily operating expenses of the federal govt. including defense, general govt, the V/A, Sciences, the Federal Legal System

FICA is payroll taxes for funding Social Security, Medicare, and Federal Employee pensions

Excise taxes fund Federal Highway and Federal infrastructure programs, NOT state highways and bridges

Sale Taxes-STATE expenses including teachers salaries

Property taxes, schools, police, fire fighters

Those are just a few of the taxes people pay but the focus by you and the left is only on Federal Income Taxes and not the reality that when you cut those taxes all the other revenue streams grow due to economic activity. States and local governments have record revenue this year as people travel more, buy more funding Sales tax and property tax revenues

Sure wish you all would stop demonizing and misinterpreting people for what they don't pay in Federal Income taxes while ignoring what they pay in other taxes

See the chart below. You want to suck every cent out of the group on the left. You want to defund programs like Social Security and Medicare, that they rely on; even though most of them paid into them all their lives. You want to initiate tax policy that benefits those on the right of this graph.

 

[TurtleDude]

See the chart below. You want to suck every cent out of the group on the left. You want to defund programs like Social Security and Medicare, that they rely on; even though most of them paid into them all their lives. You want to initiate tax policy that benefits those on the right of this graph.

View attachment 67246433

here is a question-what moral duty does one person-who is successful-have to pay for the existence of someone else? I am just trying to establish where you get your views concerning income redistribution

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

here is a question-what moral duty does one person-who is successful-have to pay for the existence of someone else? I am just trying to establish where you get your views concerning income redistribution

Here's another question: what justification can one person put forth to justify controlling such a disproportionate share of the country's resources and wealth within a social structure and a legal structure that is supposedly in place to serve everybody?

At some point, would the poor of any society not be justified in rising up and killing and/or robbing the ultra rich, if the social/legal structure isn't working for 90+% of the people that make up that society?

I'm just trying to get your views concerning how much you think society owes you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here's another question: what justification can one person put forth to justify controlling such a disproportionate share of the country's resources and wealth within a social structure and a legal structure that is supposedly in place to serve everybody?

At some point, would the poor of any society not be justified in rising up and killing and/or robbing the ultra rich, if the social/legal structure isn't working for 90+% of the people that make up that society?

I'm just trying to get your views concerning how much you think society owes you.

lets suppose we were going to redo the entire structure of the US government. Would the poor sign on to what we have now? where they get the same vote as a guy who pays a million in taxes? where they don't have to work but they won't starve? how about the people being taxed to the point where they pay twice as much of the tax burden as they enjoy of the income burden?

I think if the poor tried to rise up and kill the rich, our welfare payments would pretty well disappear six months later. there wouldn't be many poor left if they were part of that effort

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

lets suppose we were going to redo the entire structure of the US government. Would the poor sign on to what we have now? where they get the same vote as a guy who pays a million in taxes? where they don't have to work but they won't starve? how about the people being taxed to the point where they pay twice as much of the tax burden as they enjoy of the income burden?

I think if the poor tried to rise up and kill the rich, our welfare payments would pretty well disappear six months later. there wouldn't be many poor left if they were part of that effort

I think you are kidding yourself.

First of all, the top 1% don't have a monopoly on knowledge or education, despite what they may believe. A better, smarter society that learned from the mistakes of our present system would be a pretty popular option, I think. "One man, one vote" is hardly a valid description of American democracy in the 21st century.

Second, if you think that production would drop off one iota if the presently rich were all guillotined, you don't understand where production comes from. Not only would people not starve, they would have better access to food.

Nobody starts a revolution to get welfare payments.

 

[Conservative]

See the chart below. You want to suck every cent out of the group on the left. You want to defund programs like Social Security and Medicare, that they rely on; even though most of them paid into them all their lives. You want to initiate tax policy that benefits those on the right of this graph.

View attachment 67246433

What the hell does household income have to do with tax cuts? If people don't make money they don't pay taxes. For some reason you seem to believe that these people work for the govt. thus a tax cut is an expense. Have you bothered to look at the breakdown of Federal Income? Funding for SS and Medicare is up well over 60 billion dollars this year alone so how is that cutting or not funding those programs? You have no interest in research or anything that refutes your beliefs of the opinions of others. Rather sad to see someone do ingrained in an ideology that they cannot admit when wrong and that would be you

 

[Conservative]

Here's another question: what justification can one person put forth to justify controlling such a disproportionate share of the country's resources and wealth within a social structure and a legal structure that is supposedly in place to serve everybody?

At some point, would the poor of any society not be justified in rising up and killing and/or robbing the ultra rich, if the social/legal structure isn't working for 90+% of the people that make up that society?

I'm just trying to get your views concerning how much you think society owes you.

You don't seem to understand that our economy isn't finite and continues to grow thus growing the pie so even people like you have the opportunity to join those evil rich people and get your share of that total wealth. What is preventing you from doing that? You are preventing yourself with that entitlement big govt. nanny state ideology. You still haven't answered the question as to how the U.S. benefits from debt own by foreign countries and why that money wouldn't be better used in this country? Keep running from the tough questions

 

[Conservative]

See the chart below. You want to suck every cent out of the group on the left. You want to defund programs like Social Security and Medicare, that they rely on; even though most of them paid into them all their lives. You want to initiate tax policy that benefits those on the right of this graph.

View attachment 67246433

Post 4230 completely and conveniently ignored as is anything else that refutes your class envy, class warfare and total ignorance of the U.S. economy posts and charts

 

[Conservative]

I think you are kidding yourself.

First of all, the top 1% don't have a monopoly on knowledge or education, despite what they may believe. A better, smarter society that learned from the mistakes of our present system would be a pretty popular option, I think. "One man, one vote" is hardly a valid description of American democracy in the 21st century.

Second, if you think that production would drop off one iota if the presently rich were all guillotined, you don't understand where production comes from. Not only would people not starve, they would have better access to food.

Nobody starts a revolution to get welfare payments.

In our Representative Democracy "one man, one vote" does indeed exist but what is truly amazing is the class envy, jealousy, and warfare generated by people like you as you totally don't understand the U.S economy and the reality that it continues to grow thus the pie gets bigger. Seems you want equal outcome vs. equal opportunity and what is preventing equal outcome is effort, hard work, risk taking on the part of you and others that promote that ideology.

what is preventing you from getting a share of that economy? How has some rich person prevented you from joining them? Ever see a conservative worry about what someone else earns, pays in taxes? Seems that it the mantra from the left.

 

[Media_Truth]

here is a question-what moral duty does one person-who is successful-have to pay for the existence of someone else? I am just trying to establish where you get your views concerning income redistribution

I worked for a Fortune 500 company for over 35 years, so I understand how this works better than you do. The deck is stacked. CEOs get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars just to sit on the Boards of each other's Corporations. In this capacity, they attend one meeting a year.

They vote themselves huge pay increases and bonuses. Their buddies are given the same. These executives don't work hundreds of times harder than doctors, engineers, factory workers, technicians, etc. But they have stacked the deck. If they accept net pay reductions that makes their actual work commiserate with their wages, then I am more than happy to accept your stance. As it is --- we should tax the h*** out of them.

 

[TurtleDude]

I worked for a Fortune 500 company for over 35 years, so I understand how this works better than you do. [B]The deck is stacked. CEOs get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars just to sit on the Boards of each other's Corporations. In this capacity, they attend one meeting a year.[/B]

They vote themselves huge pay increases and bonuses. Their buddies are given the same. These executives don't work hundreds of times harder than doctors, engineers, factory workers, technicians, etc. But they have stacked the deck. If they accept net pay reductions that makes their actual work commiserate with their wages, then I am more than happy to accept your stance. As it is --- we should tax the h*** out of them.

yeah that has some merit-that comes from the son of a man who sat on FOUR Fortune 500 boards. He took deferred stock options for the 45 years or so he did that-worked out pretty well for my brothers and I and I do agree that some executive salaries are the boards' playing ego games rather than based on a valid business reason. but that is the stockholders' issues not the government's.

BTW I never ever hear liberals complaining about the sort of money actors or performers get for a movie or a show.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

yeah that has some merit-that comes from the son of a man who sat on FOUR Fortune 500 boards. He took deferred stock options for the 45 years or so he did that-worked out pretty well for my brothers and I and I do agree that some executive salaries are the boards' playing ego games rather than based on a valid business reason. but that is the stockholders' issues not the government's.

BTW I never ever hear liberals complaining about the sort of money actors or performers get for a movie or a show.

That's because actors, star athletes, etc., have unique talents, and they have the leverage to demand that pay. I have no problem with that. They get paid per movie, or per contract, commensurate to what they are worth. It's basically very, very high wages; they are paid for their actual work, and what they add to the product.

That's very different than board members who make their money by self-dealing. Board oversight is almost nonexistent. Normal stockholders have zero ability to do anything about it.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's because actors, star athletes, etc., have unique talents, and they have the leverage to demand that pay. I have no problem with that. They get paid per movie, or per contract, commensurate to what they are worth. It's basically very, very high wages; they are paid for their actual work, and what they add to the product.

That's very different than board members who make their money by self-dealing. Board oversight is almost nonexistent. Normal stockholders have zero ability to do anything about it.

I think its just as rare to find someone who can run P&G or another huge corporation as it is to star in a movie. you don't think actors engage in self dealing etc? half the stars in hollywood got their roles because of connections-parents, or whom they were sleeping with. How did Talia Shire get in the Godfather films? how about Nicholas Cage? Winona Ryder? a good friend of mine who was the son of a big madison avenue ad executive (and this friend of mine held a SAG card at age 16 since he did advertisements) noted that the reason why so many actors/actresses are left-wingers who whine about corporations is because they labour under the delusions that the guys who end up running the huge companies got there the same way many actors and actresses do-through connections or sex.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You don't seem to understand that our economy isn't finite and continues to grow thus growing the pie so even people like you have the opportunity to join those evil rich people and get your share of that total wealth.

Wealth may not be finite, but income in any given time period is. Too much income going to too few people means a lot of savings, and like I attempted to explain a number of times before, savings are a demand leakage. So the savings of the rich has to be financed with new debt, either by the private sector, the government, or both.

You still haven't answered the question as to how the U.S. benefits from debt own by foreign countries and why that money wouldn't be better used in this country? Keep running from the tough questions

I haven't answered it because it's not a position I ever held, it's just another stupid, pointless strawman from your insane conservative imagination.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I think its just as rare to find someone who can run P&G or another huge corporation as it is to star in a movie. you don't think actors engage in self dealing etc? half the stars in hollywood got their roles because of connections-parents, or whom they were sleeping with. How did Talia Shire get in the Godfather films? how about Nicholas Cage? Winona Ryder? a good friend of mine who was the son of a big madison avenue ad executive (and this friend of mine held a SAG card at age 16 since he did advertisements) noted that the reason why so many actors/actresses are left-wingers who whine about corporations is because they labour under the delusions that the guys who end up running the huge companies got there the same way many actors and actresses do-through connections or sex.

The difference is that when athletes lose their skills and actors fail to attract moviegoers, they don't get a golden parachute on their way out the door. Talia Shire might have gotten a few roles because of who she knew, but she never became a star. You don't produce, you don't get paid. Unless you are running Sears into the ground.

Frankly, I couldn't identify a "talented" CEO if I tried. I'm not sure that they are terribly identifiable, either. But I've never heard about one that didn't retire rich, including getting paid a ton for leaving, when even the most talented CEO couldn't be making a difference to the company anyway.

 

[Conservative]

Wealth may not be finite, but income in any given time period is. Too much income going to too few people means a lot of savings, and like I attempted to explain a number of times before, savings are a demand leakage. So the savings of the rich has to be financed with new debt, either by the private sector, the government, or both.




I haven't answered it because it's not a position I ever held, it's just another stupid, pointless strawman from your insane conservative imagination.

I can certainly see why your income level is finite and will never grow. Look in the mirror for the problem

 

[TurtleDude]

The difference is that when athletes lose their skills and actors fail to attract moviegoers, they don't get a golden parachute on their way out the door. Talia Shire might have gotten a few roles because of who she knew, but she never became a star. You don't produce, you don't get paid. Unless you are running Sears into the ground.

Frankly, I couldn't identify a "talented" CEO if I tried. I'm not sure that they are terribly identifiable, either. But I've never heard about one that didn't retire rich, including getting paid a ton for leaving, when even the most talented CEO couldn't be making a difference to the company anyway.

we will agree to disagree. One I personally knew was a man named John Smale. He was a young brand manager at PG-his brand was crest toothpaste. He'd attend the ADA conferences talking to dentists about tests PG had done concerning their Crest toothpaste. He'd try to convince them that Crest was really better. well after years of this, the ADA endorsed Crest. He made P&G over a billion dollars from that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Smale

if you want entertainment-read up on how Victor Kiam got his big break as an executive. he later was the guy who famously said (about Remington shavers) that he liked the shaver so much he bought the company. He turned around Remington from losing millions to making a big profit