Why do American CEOs get paid so much?

[phattonez]

total ignorance of course. to employ 100 in make work infrastructure you'd have to raise tax enough to unemploy 100 workers doing real work so no net benefit would be possible, rather you'd have net less from trading real jobs for make work jobs. Do you understand? Econ 101?

Do you think public works aren't wealth? Roads aren't valuable?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

?? If I said it did I"ll pay you $10,000. Does the liberal want to bet?

How would you stop that, then?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

we are poorer because idiotic liberal policies made illegals and Chinese richer. Do you understand?

So we should work like Chinese peasants to compete? That's what you want for Americans?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Lafayette]

THE ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH

We could have increased water capacity, built trains, and built more roads. What did we get instead? Bankers got fat bonuses, bond holders were saved, and people were paid to do nothing. This economy is a joke.

It's not that much different from most developed economies on earth.

You seem obsessed with "people who don't work". Employment is not a condition for which governments are or should be responsible - except in key critical areas where the government is providing the jobs. And the DoD, which consumes about half of all government expenditure is NOT A CRITICAL PART OF THE ECONOMY. (It is and has been a national boondoggle since a great long time!)

A government can seek to maximize a market-economy to produce work, but neither should we have such a laissez-faire governance of the economy as we do today. Why?

Because of a notion that has very little currency in the US. It is simply called "Income Disparity" - or the exaggerated difference in incomes especially between the top and the bottom. (Forty-million men, women and children eking out an existence below the Poverty-Threshold is a condition for which we have no reason whatsoever to be proud.)

But correcting that problem of Income Disparity is dead simple. We elect a government that puts a cap on upper-incomes. Howzat?

Here's how, it's Dead Simple:
*We undo the handiwork of Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s and we install confiscatory taxation of 99% of total income revenues above, say, 2 megabucks a year.
*We install confiscatory Death Taxes that are imposed by the IRS on someone's estate upon their death. These taxes are levied on the beneficiary who receives the property in the deceased's will or the estate which pays the tax before transferring the inherited property. And we allow only a minimum sum to be inherited by survivors.

Of course, then such Death Taxation will only prompt people to transmit their wealth Before Dying. But, to do so could also mean the application of confiscatory high Upper-income Taxation upon earnings that were not "earned" by any individual whether a member of the family or not. (Exception would be made when a will bequeaths wealth to a given and finite set of genuine worthy beneficiaries like non-profit organization performing a public good.)

It is only a matter of the national will. But the US is sooooo obsessed by The Accumulation of Wealth, that it will likely never happen ...

.

 

[Robertinfremont]

THE ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH



It's not that much different from most developed economies on earth.

You seem obsessed with "people who don't work". Employment is not a condition for which governments are or should be responsible - except in key critical areas where the government is providing the jobs. And the DoD, which consumes about half of all government expenditure is NOT A CRITICAL PART OF THE ECONOMY. (It is and has been a national boondoggle since a great long time!)

A government can seek to maximize a market-economy to produce work, but neither should we have such a laissez-faire governance of the economy as we do today. Why?

Because of a notion that has very little currency in the US. It is simply called "Income Disparity" - or the exaggerated difference in incomes especially between the top and the bottom. (Forty-million men, women and children eking out an existence below the Poverty-Threshold is a condition for which we have no reason whatsoever to be proud.)

But correcting that problem of Income Disparity is dead simple. We elect a government that puts a cap on upper-incomes. Howzat?

Here's how, it's Dead Simple:
*We undo the handiwork of Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s and we install confiscatory taxation of 99% of total income revenues above, say, 2 megabucks a year.
*We install confiscatory Death Taxes that are imposed by the IRS on someone's estate upon their death. These taxes are levied on the beneficiary who receives the property in the deceased's will or the estate which pays the tax before transferring the inherited property. And we allow only a minimum sum to be inherited by survivors.

Of course, then such Death Taxation will only prompt people to transmit their wealth Before Dying. But, to do so could also mean the application of confiscatory high Upper-income Taxation upon earnings that were not "earned" by any individual whether a member of the family or not. (Exception would be made when a will bequeaths wealth to a given and finite set of genuine worthy beneficiaries like non-profit organization performing a public good.)

It is only a matter of the national will. But the US is sooooo obsessed by The Accumulation of Wealth, that it will likely never happen ...

.

I would love to discuss this but see you are in love with ripping off wealthy people as though they never earned their wealth.

So, would you remove Oprah Winfrey's wealth?

If your home has ever been broke into, this is the disgust I have for those stealing wealth.

 

[rickc]

the tax code

if the top marginal tax rate started at $500,000 and was 60% above that you would see change.

if the long term capital gains holding period was 5 years instead of 1 year you would.see change. and if the the long term capital gains rate was raised to 25% you would see change.

before reagan once they hit the top marginal tax rate they weren't keeping much of it anyway so it was much easier to invest in the company and in better salaries for.workers. After Reagan they saw an opportunity to keep it all and they did.

returning the tax code back to pre-Reagan rates would be a great start in repairing the income inequality that has grown exponentially since the.start of trickle down in the 1980's

 

[Lafayette]

I would love to discuss this but see you are in love with ripping off wealthy people as though they never earned their wealth.

So, would you remove Oprah Winfrey's wealth?

If your home has ever been broke into, this is the disgust I have for those stealing wealth.

Wrong again. Oprah can live very well with far less. She does not need the money she is allowed to have by means of the mismanagement of Wealth in America - which has been going on for most of its existence.

And it is high-time were it stopped-dead because it has created one of the most economically unfair countries on earth! (I doubt you are capable of understanding the Income Inequality - but have a go here anyway.)

I am in love with the idea of equitability. Which means this: Characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable and equitable treatment of all citizens. Law. pertaining to or valid in equity.

I have nothing against those who work hard and benefit by becoming very rich.

But being a person of reason, I also feel that too much is too much and unnecessary. Because were excessive incomes taxed correctly the money would return into the economy as Government Services (like National Healthcare and Free post-secondary Education). That is, to benefit all and not just an idiosyncratic few.

To wit:

And if you cannot understand the import of the above infographic then you are beyond repair. We are heading for exactly the same historical mistake that caused the downfall of the Roman Empire - too much wealth in the hands of too few people ...

 

[Lafayette]

if the top marginal tax rate started at $500,000 and was 60% above that you would see change.

if the long term capital gains holding period was 5 years instead of 1 year you would.see change. and if the the long term capital gains rate was raised to 25% you would see change.

before reagan once they hit the top marginal tax rate they weren't keeping much of it anyway so it was much easier to invest in the company and in better salaries for.workers. After Reagan they saw an opportunity to keep it all and they did.

You can say that a thousand times and dolt Replicants on this forum still wont understand.

Reckless Ronnie told them the "sky's the limit", and since they didn't give a fig about anyone except themselves they went for it. Because, as you say, Reckless Ronnie allowed them to do so.

As so, here we are with one of the worst Gini Indexes (of Income Disparity) in the world. That we share proudly with the Chinese.

Yes, the Chinese who also have let their economy get out of hand when it came to illicitly obtained remunerations (that they park in offshore accounts in the US and Europe):

 

[GottaGo]

THE ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH



It's not that much different from most developed economies on earth.

You seem obsessed with "people who don't work". Employment is not a condition for which governments are or should be responsible - except in key critical areas where the government is providing the jobs. And the DoD, which consumes about half of all government expenditure is NOT A CRITICAL PART OF THE ECONOMY. (It is and has been a national boondoggle since a great long time!)

A government can seek to maximize a market-economy to produce work, but neither should we have such a laissez-faire governance of the economy as we do today. Why?

Because of a notion that has very little currency in the US. It is simply called "Income Disparity" - or the exaggerated difference in incomes especially between the top and the bottom. (Forty-million men, women and children eking out an existence below the Poverty-Threshold is a condition for which we have no reason whatsoever to be proud.)

But correcting that problem of Income Disparity is dead simple. We elect a government that puts a cap on upper-incomes. Howzat?

Here's how, it's Dead Simple:
*We undo the handiwork of Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s and we install confiscatory taxation of 99% of total income revenues above, say, 2 megabucks a year.
*We install confiscatory Death Taxes that are imposed by the IRS on someone's estate upon their death. These taxes are levied on the beneficiary who receives the property in the deceased's will or the estate which pays the tax before transferring the inherited property. And we allow only a minimum sum to be inherited by survivors.

Of course, then such Death Taxation will only prompt people to transmit their wealth Before Dying. But, to do so could also mean the application of confiscatory high Upper-income Taxation upon earnings that were not "earned" by any individual whether a member of the family or not. (Exception would be made when a will bequeaths wealth to a given and finite set of genuine worthy beneficiaries like non-profit organization performing a public good.)

It is only a matter of the national will. But the US is sooooo obsessed by The Accumulation of Wealth, that it will likely never happen ...

.

Talk about a perfect plan to eliminate any reason whatsoever to succeed in life.

Exactly what do you see wrong with the parents having worked their butts off, so that the kids can have some money? Chances are, the money has already been taxed nine ways from Sunday, so you think it's a good idea to tax it into oblivion, so someone who didn't earn it, has a chance of getting it.

You do realise, 'money' is not a finite pool, right?

 

[jimbo]

So we should work like Chinese peasants to compete? That's what you want for Americans?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

What do you suggest? The phone you sent your post from cost 20% of an American made comparable. Would you pay 5 times the price for an US made equivalent?

 

[James972]

As so, here we are with one of the worst Gini Indexes (of Income Disparity) in the world. That we share proudly with the Chinese.

Your numbers are simple liberal lies of course that do not include $trillions in income given to USA poor each year to eliminate income disparity. What income disparity there is, is mostly due to liberal programs like unions taxes regulations and immigration that destroy American business, and social programs that attack the family schools and religion of America rendering many unfit to work. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

Wrong again. Oprah can live very well with far less. She does not need the money she is allowed to have by means of the mismanagement of Wealth in America - which has been going on for most of its existence.

And it is high-time were it stopped-dead because it has created one of the most economically unfair countries on earth! (I doubt you are capable of understanding the Income Inequality - but have a go here anyway.)

I am in love with the idea of equitability. Which means this: Characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable and equitable treatment of all citizens. Law. pertaining to or valid in equity.

I have nothing against those who work hard and benefit by becoming very rich.

But being a person of reason, I also feel that too much is too much and unnecessary. Because were excessive incomes taxed correctly the money would return into the economy as Government Services (like National Healthcare and Free post-secondary Education). That is, to benefit all and not just an idiosyncratic few.

To wit:

And if you cannot understand the import of the above infographic then you are beyond repair. We are heading for exactly the same historical mistake that caused the downfall of the Roman Empire - too much wealth in the hands of too few people ...

So stealing money at gunpoint from those who earned it is going to save the country. Why is the liberal so afraid to say how that would save the country???

 

[phattonez]

What do you suggest? The phone you sent your post from cost 20% of an American made comparable. Would you pay 5 times the price for an US made equivalent?

What makes you think that the phone would cost 5x as much by paying American workers good wages? Do you honestly think that phones are at production costs? Profits are MASSIVE. Apple makes $151 per each iPhone sold. What do you think is more likely if they were forced to move production here? Would the cost rise massively, or would they just trim their profits?

 

[James972]

Apple makes $151 per each iPhone sold. What do you think is more likely if they were forced to move production here? Would the cost rise massively, or would they just trim their profits?

you understand less than nothing. The scale in China is 10 times greater than here, and needed for instant worldwide distribution in competition against other world class Chinese manufacturers. Steve Jobs already addressed this. He said if an iphone production line was down on a Sunday morning in China and he needed 1000 engineers working on it immediately he could have them in China, but certainly not in USA where the few available would not want to come in until Monday. Apple would die if forced to operate here!!

 

[phattonez]

you understand less than nothing. The scale in China is 10 times greater than here, and needed for instant worldwide distribution in competition against other world class Chinese manufacturers. Steve Jobs already addressed this. He said if an iphone production line was down on a Sunday morning in China and he needed 1000 engineers working on it immediately he could have them in China, but certainly not in USA where the few available would not want to come in until Monday. Apple would die if forced to operate here!!

Sounds like we treat our employees better. I'm glad I'm not a Chinese peasant.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[James972]

Sounds like we treat our employees better. I'm glad I'm not a Chinese peasant.
.

why?? now that China has switched to capitalism they are getting rich whereas as under violent libcommieism 60 million slowly starved to death. Do you understand?

 

[rickc]

why?? now that China has switched to capitalism they are getting rich whereas as under violent libcommieism 60 million slowly starved to death. Do you understand?

yeah i understand

we should put a tariff on all chinese goods equal to the cost to bring their environmental and worker rights rules equal to ours

and then another tariff to equal US labor cost!

why should corporations be allowed to abandon America's labor force and still have unfettered access to our consumer market?

 

[James972]

why should corporations be allowed to abandon America's labor force and still have unfettered access to our consumer market?

econ 101: So American consumers can get rich on the low prices!! Do you understand.

 

[rickc]

econ 101: So American consumers can get rich on the low prices!! Do you understand.

not consumers!

minimal cost differences between chinese and american manufactured cost to the consumer.

now for the importers quite different but that goes to the corporate bottom line to be distributed to the stockholders.

The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks

 

[James972]

not consumers!

Sure I, a consumer, just bought a security system direct from China on Alibaba at about 40% of the USA price. Do you understand. China makes us rich just like Costa Rica makes us rich with their cheap bananas. We get rich buying from the guy with lowest price. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

minimal cost differences between chinese and american manufactured cost to the consumer.

obviously if cost differences were minimal Apple and others would not have to go to China when it is so much easier to stay here!! Do you understand?

 

[James972]

The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks

and???????????

 

[phattonez]

why?? now that China has switched to capitalism they are getting rich whereas as under violent libcommieism 60 million slowly starved to death. Do you understand?

Lol. China is ranked 110th on the Index of Economic Freedom. So capitalist!

 

[phattonez]

econ 101: So American consumers can get rich on the low prices!! Do you understand.

I'm still looking. Where are our massive riches? Why have we instead gotten poorer over the past decades?

 

[phattonez]

Sure I, a consumer, just bought a security system direct from China on Alibaba at about 40% of the USA price. Do you understand. China makes us rich just like Costa Rica makes us rich with their cheap bananas. We get rich buying from the guy with lowest price. Now do you understand?

You cannot get rich if you do not have an income.