Um, yeah. I paid over $8000 in federal income tax last year. Sound like a fair enough share, or should I just go ahead and open a vein for them too?? :roll:
Um, yeah. I paid over $8000 in federal income tax last year. Sound like a fair enough share, or should I just go ahead and open a vein for them too?? :roll:
From BigDH01-
You're right, of course. The bitter and delusional ravings of the wingnut wannabees here are both sad and amusing, a product of the most sustained and effective agitprop campaign ever mounted. It's the mental, moral, and emotional equivalent of snakebite, I'm afraid. They're basically goners, but I return occasionally to tickle the minds of the lurkers, point out that they don't have to succumb to lies and half-truths, don't have to drink the kool-aid.
I see the wave of sentiment and rationality leading up the the last election as encouraging, even if many of those elected are proving to be disappointing, too willing to attempt compromise. Rightwing gibberish is what spawned the current economic imbroglio- trying to compromise is like feeding the bears, remorseless eating machines that they are... they can't comprehend compromise, and neither can the wingnuts...
You're right, of course. The bitter and delusional ravings of the wingnut wannabees here are both sad and amusing, a product of the most sustained and effective agitprop campaign ever mounted. It's the mental, moral, and emotional equivalent of snakebite, I'm afraid. They're basically goners, but I return occasionally to tickle the minds of the lurkers, point out that they don't have to succumb to lies and half-truths, don't have to drink the kool-aid.
I see the wave of sentiment and rationality leading up the the last election as encouraging, even if many of those elected are proving to be disappointing, too willing to attempt compromise. Rightwing gibberish is what spawned the current economic imbroglio- trying to compromise is like feeding the bears, remorseless eating machines that they are... they can't comprehend compromise, and neither can the wingnuts...
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
Oh thank you, master, for gracing the unwashed with your presence, even if it is to only scold and remind us our betters really do care for us. How can we repay this great sacrifice you've bestowed upon us?
Ahhh, the ugly face of the "intellectually elite".
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Why is that disturbing and why shouldn't those people "pay their fair share" even if that "fair share" is only $1.
Just because someone lives in the US does not mean they are entitled to own a TV, own a car, or own a cell phone. Those are all *gasp* luxury items. Heaven forbid someone should have to pay a little taxes instead of giving up a luxury item.
Paying nothing or getting a tax credit from the government is certainly not paying "their fair share".
When you have no skin in the game what difference does it make what government is doing as long
Slurp it, Corn, You arrogant Dick.
While P&N may be more relaxed as regards forums rules, that ^ is a bit over the line. Please try to keep it a bit more civil.
TIA
Fern
P&N Moderator
I'd like to see a 90% tax bracket returned, you make 100 million?? You still have 10 million left, more than enough to live on if you budget well. But, you may keep 10,00 families firmly in the middle class to purchase and invest in all your goods and services which keep this US machine running. It's in everyone's best interest to have a nice, big, fat, stable middle class. and a progressive tax is the surest way to do it.
A means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
hehehe I wouldn't mind that either but the problem is people who make 100 million spend 90 of it in a year just look at some of those idiots in sports
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
Sorry, I like girls, specifically my wife. Your solicitations are unwanted and I will ask you keep them to yourself. That said, how my servile reply could exemplify arrogance does task the imagination. I really do find your outburst to be delightfully amusing. Please, do continue.
In a 5 page thread, Corn adds one bit of snide derision, not even directed to the topic at hand, and somehow thinks that's not arrogant...
Pretty much his standard MO, last time I bothered to check- contentless posts with a certain air of superiority...
Pretty much his standard MO, last time I bothered to check- contentless posts with a certain air of superiority...
if poor people would just get married they could file jointly and get like $18,000.00+ in just standard deductions. So what is the point of taxing people that make less than that?
As for he mega-rich we should start rationing the power they are allowed to use. That should keep them from building gigantic mansions and using too many resources. Let them build their own power plant.
As for he mega-rich we should start rationing the power they are allowed to use. That should keep them from building gigantic mansions and using too many resources. Let them build their own power plant.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I agree with much of what you said, especially the opening, and it's nice to see someone "on the right" recognize how the very wealthy benefit tremendously from our government. I'm afraid I disagree with your take on the source of American wealth and on CEO qualifications and responsibilities.
I think you hold CEOs in far too much regard. While I agree their jobs are not easy, and they are usually very capable people, the bar isn't nearly as high as you imagine. Being a successful CEO is mostly about vision, leadership, and most of all, surrounding yourself with good people and giving them the the freedom to succeed. It's not a job for everyone, but your average company has hundreds of people who could fill that role well if given the chance. The person actually selected for the job is there for a combination of reasons, including not only skill and hard work, but also connections, luck, and even superficial factors like appearance.
Nobody is suggesting the folks cooking burgers deserve the same compensation as the guys running the company. Certainly CEOs have great responsibility and I agree they deserve commensurate compensation. I disagree that tens of millions of dollars (or more) is commensurate. CEOs don't create success by themselves. Company success depends on employees at all levels performing. Yet once again, the reward for success too often falls disproportionately to a few at the top instead of being shared with all who contribute, a trend that has worsened dramatically over the last forty years. It is especially outrageous that CEOs who have so dramatically failed to produce results often still receive lavish salary and benefit packages, doubly so when the rank and file are suffering the consequences. It highlights how broken executive compensation has become in many American corporations.
Re. wealth, it's important to understand the difference between a company's founders and its current executives. I agree that generally speaking, the founders of a company, the entrepreneurs who seized an opportunity, stuck their necks out, worked their asses off, and built something from nothing deserve tremendous reward for their creation. This typically comes when they are bought out, though in some cases they continue to play an active role in leading the company for many years. Your typical CEO, however, was not involved in founding the company and creating the wealth. He was hired after the fact to run it and grow it. That's a different job involving less risk and less work, and does not deserve the same level of reward.
As with your comments, these are generalizations. Individual situations vary greatly.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Then we will agree to disagree re: the whole CEO discussion. Fair enough. But something to keep in mind, (I believe we are talking about the "big boy" salaries) mean salaries for CEO's is really not that much. The ones who earn the huge bucks are single percentage.
Salary Survey for Job: Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (United States)
$50k-250k. Not exactly wealthy.
Now, when you get to Fortune 100 companies, of course its a different story.
Top Paid CEOs
After a 38% collective pay raise in 2006, chief executives of the 500 biggest companies in the U.S. (as measured by a composite ranking of sales, profits, assets and market value) took a pay cut of 15% last year. The last time the big bosses took a pay hit was in 2002. In total, these 500 executives earned $6.4 billion in 2007, an average of $12.8 million apiece.
As far as your last sentence...yes I know. Thus *my* last statement of my post:
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Yes, I was also talking mostly about very large corporations, and even there it varies tremendously by company and industry. The Finance sector seems to have some of the most spectacular examples of outrageous compensation.
(Re. the last sentence, I saw your comment and was agreeing my post was also generalizing.)
big boy's pants now on!
I think you'd get free spit on your burger "sir", compliments of the staff!
Markets "deep" in debt would be a truer statement, you need to look at who's doing the numbers on these "charts/researches", before reading those numbers as facts.
A kaleidoscope of corporate collusion, leaving a few mega rich and the rest (joe public) holding massive debt.
Intra-industrial, corporate conspiracy to defraud the mainstream populace!
If growth is monopolizing/duopolizing a market, I'll stand and be buggered stupid.
The way these companies have gotten unaccountably big is through a fuckload of political contributions and the resulting failure to regulate predatory competition practices. Leaving the traditionally middle class run small businesses out of business and workers earnings in the freezer, I'd like to think of it as a cycle........ but, as soon as a small competitor raises it head anywhere, the mega operator slashes prices to a level unsustainable for the little guy and recoups the cost from the consumer after the for lease sign goes up in the front window.
Protectionism is nationally necessary to have a culturally/socially diverse and highly skilled society(at all levels of service).
Taxation is less an issue then getting the corporate dollar away from party politics and their lobbyists out of Washington. Democracy has been hijacked at all levels local, state and federal- in most of the worlds developed economies. "Americanism" has set an ugly precedent for the future, it must lead the way back to a fairly democratic system or Orwell's nightmares will come true.
Comprehension and understanding isn't what the common man lacks, it's the ability to change things which has been slowly eroded, to the detriment of the justness, health and well being of the nation as a whole.
Yes, "generalized freedom".
Sounds like the government is subsidizing not only the poor, but the corporations who employ them.
For example:
1) Acme Corporation needs to hire a janitor. They know they can hire one for $9/hour and someone will be desperate enough to take the job.
2) Janitor nets about $16k/year (despite what you may think, he's not going to get all of his paycheck even with a low wage). Of course pretty much every cent of that is required in order to feed, clothe, and house himself.
3) Janitor thus benefits from not having to pay much in taxes that he cannot afford. Acme Corporation thus benefits by being able to hire someone at a wage that frankly would be unlivable on if he had to pay more in taxes.
Who is really being subsidized the most by the government in the end? The janitor or the Acme corporation who can hire 500 janitors across the country at $9/hour?
Let's face it, businesses benefit from low taxes on the poor just as much as the employees do, if not more.
For example:
1) Acme Corporation needs to hire a janitor. They know they can hire one for $9/hour and someone will be desperate enough to take the job.
2) Janitor nets about $16k/year (despite what you may think, he's not going to get all of his paycheck even with a low wage). Of course pretty much every cent of that is required in order to feed, clothe, and house himself.
3) Janitor thus benefits from not having to pay much in taxes that he cannot afford. Acme Corporation thus benefits by being able to hire someone at a wage that frankly would be unlivable on if he had to pay more in taxes.
Who is really being subsidized the most by the government in the end? The janitor or the Acme corporation who can hire 500 janitors across the country at $9/hour?
Let's face it, businesses benefit from low taxes on the poor just as much as the employees do, if not more.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Indeed, it's a form of corporate welfare. In general, this whole concept is ignored by those who like to point at the poor and complain about all the government benefits they receive. Businesses and investors receive far greater benefits, not just directly, but through the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure developed and maintained largely through tax dollars.
For example, Joe Sixpack personally benefits from the public road he uses to get to work. Acme, Inc. (and its shareholders) benefits by the 100,000 employees who use those roads to get to work (many using public transportation), as well as having those roads to receive materials and ship their wares. Joe's K-12 public education qualified him to work on the line at Acme. Acme benefits from 100,000 public educations creating a strong supply of qualified employees, plus the tens of thousands of professionals with subsidized college degrees working in their offices. And on and on it goes, utilities, banking, public safety, health, defense, etc.
This is why progressive taxation is, in fact, "fair." In general, one draws proportionately greater, compounding benefits from government as you rise up the food chain. Sure, those at the top pay more taxes, but the benefits of those taxes are why they can make so much more in the first place. They're still coming out ahead.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter