%@#%@ the unions!

[Tom Ace]

Big Bank CEO #1. Mediocre at his job. Company doesn't flourish, doesn't flounder. Nothing major happens. No jobs created. No jobs lost.

Big Bank CEO #2. Lousy at his job. Bad decisions, company does really poorly. Stock price plummets. Jobs are lost.

Big Bank CEO #3. Great at his job, great decisions, company stock price rises, company expands, lots of jobs created. Uh oh .... CEO of the big bank just created jobs.

Now, when the board of directors hires a CEO- which one do they think they are hiring? The think they are getting #3, so they pay him accordingly. of course they don't have a crystal ball, so they can't see the future.

Have you been paying any attention at all the past few years? The big bank CEOs completely screwed up and then depended on bailouts, and they still got multi-million dollar bonuses.

Now what is wrong with getting rich? I posed this question earlier: What about the CEO of a company that owns and operates a chain of miniature golf courses. These are in tourist locations ... no one is being taken advantage of. Is it the workers that made this possible? Or is it his investment of time and capital that made it possible?

There's nothing wrong with being rich. That's the misunderstanding you have. Being rich is perfectly fine. All I want is for the rich to pay their fair share. They're more than welcome to stay rich.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I might point out that those of us reasonable faux economists also want to see a corresponding cut in government spending to go along with the tax cuts.

What pisses me off, is if Bill Gates were taxed at 98%, he would still have millions of dollars and that would piss off the crybabies that would want more. these are people that do not know a bloody darn about taxes or running a business or history or basic economic theory. They would want the other 3% from Gates.

If you taxed the top 15% of the country at a rate of 100%, that money would not begin to have a big effect. Well, except for forcing many out of the country.

Bob

 

[cipher6]

Yes, I read it, which is why I understand it. It's saying exactly what I'm saying. Remember when I said to lower tax rates while getting rid of deductions and exemptions? That's exactly what they're saying.

Yeah, if you go back, when you said those things, I was starting to agree with you. Then you outlines a tax rate that was raising taxes on everyone. Plus, you constantly focus on raising taxes on the rich, you can only increase taxes on a income class by raising rates. eliminating deductions across the board, like the morgate insurance deductions, raises effective tax rates on everyone, not just the evil rich not paying their fair share.


Its why I agreed revenue needs to increase, but there are more ways to do that than raising taxes.

The myth about the rich is that they're all hard-working and they earn all of their money. Nothing I've said about them is incorrect or a myth. You're welcome to try to point out support for your statement, though.

The upper 1/5 (20%) is 88,000, and have an average of 2 income earners. Even the top 5% has a lower limit of $157,176, with an average of 2 income earners. The billionaires are few and far between, so rare in fact, you could tax them at 100% and not fix the budget... then you would be screwed the following year.

The majority of people in the top 5%, this is their situation, they both went to school, got degrees, worked hard and climbed the latter until they each make ~75,000. That puts them in the top 5%, that you claim are not hard working achievers.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Who said it was? I've specifically said it hasn't. My point was comparing how you run your household to how we run the government as if they both work the same is wrong.

Just because you say it's wrong doesn't make so ....

I guess I expect to live within my means ... and I expect the government to do the same. sorry if that's not reasonable. You win.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Have you been paying any attention at all the past few years? The big bank CEOs completely screwed up and then depended on bailouts, and they still got multi-million dollar bonuses.

Have you ever heard of employment contracts? Some (not all) of the bonuses were contractual.

Do l like it when it happens. No.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

There's nothing wrong with being rich. That's the misunderstanding you have. Being rich is perfectly fine. All I want is for the rich to pay their fair share. They're more than welcome to stay rich.

It's a long thread (and getting more confusing by the minute) .... this one wasn't directed at you Tom. There are other people in the thread that have said / implied that all the rich are taking advantage of the workers. That's where this was supposed to be directed. Sorry for the poor writing. (the question still stands for the other folks )

 

[mdram]

Have you been paying any attention at all the past few years? The big bank CEOs completely screwed up and then depended on bailouts, and they still got multi-million dollar bonuses.

as has been said its in the contract. same with teachers getting paid to not work. uaw workers getting paid after getting laid off for several years, ect ect
ceo contracts should be tied to the company profits, worker contracts should be tied to performance

 

[Tom Ace]

I might point out that those of us reasonable faux economists also want to see a corresponding cut in government spending to go along with the tax cuts.

And that's a good thing.

What pisses me off, is if Bill Gates were taxed at 98%, he would still have millions of dollars and that would piss off the crybabies that would want more. these are people that do not know a bloody darn about taxes or running a business or history or basic economic theory. They would want the other 3% from Gates.

So, what pisses you off is a misunderstanding of others' position? Almost no one wants anyone taxed at 98% or even 80%. You should understand that in the past the top rate was much higher than it is now, and the economy did fine. It's not like the rate has always been this low and we want to keep raising it.

If you taxed the top 15% of the country at a rate of 100%, that money would not begin to have a big effect. Well, except for forcing many out of the country.

Bob

More of your "facts"? The top 10% is 11,500,000 people making an average of $335,000. If you tax them at 100%, you get over $3.3 trillion. That's more than plenty to balance the current. Of course, I'm not advocating anything close to that, though.

 

[mdram]

i remember when i was just outa high school, got a job
well after a short time i got a raise. got the first check, and i got less money then i had before the raise. the raise bumped me up a tax bracket.
i requested to go back to the lower income since i would be leaving for college shortly.

moral- if you make less by making more there is no reason to work so hard

 

[JimmyRayBob]

You should understand that in the past the top rate was much higher than it is now, and the economy did fine. It's not like the rate has always been this low and we want to keep raising it.

and when the rates well above 50 / 60 /70% - there were far more deductions, and those people that fell into that tax bracket didn't pay any where near that much.

 

[byteware]

Nope, not considering what happens when you put those numbers in context. Sure, it appears unfair when you don't take into account all of the relevant facts, but once you do, you realize it's not unfair at all. That was the point of my breaking it down earlier. I'm sorry that didn't get through, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Ok, as I asked earlier... put that in context...

The top 10% makes 5 times more than the bottom 90%, but pays 21 times more in taxes... put that in context for me.

Yes, being able to make all of that money is a privilege. What's so hard to understand about that?

Wow... just wow... it's a privilege that we allow you to receive a pay check from a company you are performing a service for.

Wow.

They should pay the correct proportional amount. I thought I made that clear.

So, they are making 5 times more, but paying 21 times more in taxes... how is that proportionally fair?

Ah, OK. I assumed you might have these misunderstanding, and now you've confirmed. Generally people with satellite TV and an XBOX pays taxes.

Prove it.

I stated that if someone doesn't want the responsibility that goes along with their position, they shouldn't take the position.

Yes. The responsibility being... allowing the government to take your money by force.

If you don't want the responsibility of allowing the government to take your money by force, then you shouldn't have money for them to take... in what way have I misrepresented your position?

Wow, it's incredible how you can just move in different, irrelevant directions with things. Well done, but this has nothing to do with anything, other than distracting from any real points.

Your the one that stated that the employees aren't a complete moron, as if only a complete moron could screw up running a company.

Yes, we do. That's because I know how to put facts in context, and apparently you don't.

This will be the third time I've asked you to do so, and so far you haven't been willing to do that.

Nope, I'm saying that 47% of the country are contributing what they can. It's not their fault the rules are set against them. Again, if the rich people want to have the poor people make twice what they're making, the poor will gladly contribute some taxes.

47% of the country are contributing what they can... I see. Nothing.

Force them to work for the government then. If they can't contribute money to the government force them to do labor.

You force the rich to give up their property by threat of force.

 

[Tom Ace]

Yeah, if you go back, when you said those things, I was starting to agree with you. Then you outlines a tax rate that was raising taxes on everyone. Plus, you constantly focus on raising taxes on the rich, you can only increase taxes on a income class by raising rates. eliminating deductions across the board, like the morgate insurance deductions, raises effective tax rates on everyone, not just the evil rich not paying their fair share.

Its why I agreed revenue needs to increase, but there are more ways to do that than raising taxes.

First, you really need to stop with the "evil rich" nonsense. Saying the rich should pay more in taxes doesn't imply that they're evil.

Second, the tax rates I outlined wouldn't raise taxes on everyone. Let's take a quick look.

Currently, a single person with no kids and no special exemptions making $40,000 pays about $4,200 in taxes. Under my system, that person would pay $2,580. A family of four is where there's a big difference the other way. That family of four making $50,000 would pay 6% on $26,000, or about $1,500.

This is why I made it clear that my numbers were rough. They might need some changing. Hell, it's possible that there need to be some exemptions.

Now, eliminating deductions across the board doesn't necessarily raise taxes on everyone, as I've shown. With my system, if you make less than $12,000, you don't pay any tax. It's effectively a deduction, but it's simpler to just say it the way I did. Also, if you lower the rates the right way, you get lower taxes on lower-income households and higher rates on higher-incomes.

The upper 1/5 (20%) is 88,000, and have an average of 2 income earners. Even the top 5% has a lower limit of $157,176, with an average of 2 income earners. The billionaires are few and far between, so rare in fact, you could tax them at 100% and not fix the budget... then you would be screwed the following year.

Did you not read the couple times I told you that I don't consider the top 20% to be rich? I specifically said it's the top 1.5% that I'd consider rich. Beyond that I'm not sure what this has to do with the comment it's in response to.

As I pointed out to Bob above, if you taxed the top 10% at 100%, you'd get double the money you need to balance the budget. But I'm not advocating that.

The majority of people in the top 5%, this is their situation, they both went to school, got degrees, worked hard and climbed the latter until they each make ~75,000. That puts them in the top 5%, that you claim are not hard working achievers.

See, this is the problem. You get so caught up in arguing with me that your mind twists what I say. The myth is that all or the vast majority of rich people are hard-working and earned what they have. Saying that is false is not saying that none of them work hard or earn their money.

I wouldn't consider the top 5% to be rich, to start off with. That, in and of itself, is sad. You have to be above the 95th percentile to be rich. So, for one, when I say "rich" I'm not referring to the top 5%, and for another, I'm not even implying that none of the rich people work hard. I'm not even implying that only a minority of them work hard.

 

[byteware]

I already did. It helps if you actually read what I write. Quickly, the average 10%er makes $335,000 and pays $62,000 in taxes. The average 90%er makes $44,000 and pays $3,000. Then we go back to how valuable those amounts are. $3,000 out of $44,000 is a much bigger hit than $62,000 out of $335,000. The 10%er after taxes still makes over 5 times what the 90%er makes before taxes.

So, just so we're clear... they make 5 times more than the lower 90%, and pay 21 times more in taxes.

The context that this is acceptable in is that they make 5 times more than the lower 90%?

That's just saying, that they make a lot of money and shouldn't be allowed to keep it.

Yes, in my opinion based on facts and logic.

No more so, than any of the others here.

FYI, the more you talk, the more you make it apparent that your opinion is based more in the fact that you don't think the rich should be allowed to be rich.

I don't really care whether they are or not. To me it's not important to how much tax they're paying. But you and others pretend that all rich people are working hard and earning their money. I'm merely pointing out that that's not the case.

Let me merely point out something... Whether or not they are working hard is irrelevant. It is THEIR property. You don't have the right to take it simply because you don't like that they have more than you.

I'm sorry you don't understand the idea of misleading language.

Educate me. How am I being misleading? What have I said that's misleading?

Actually, not all of them are. I was just responding to your comment.I did. That's because it's not about hating the rich. What I do hate is this myth that the rich are all hard-working, upstanding people who earn all the money they have.

All that money was earned at some point. Whether you LIKE it or not.

 

[Tom Ace]

Just because you say it's wrong doesn't make so ....

I guess I expect to live within my means ... and I expect the government to do the same. sorry if that's not reasonable. You win.

I also expect the government to live within its means. That's why I think they should figure out what they need (remember I'm saying "need", as in what's required and nothing more), and bring in revenue equal to that.

 

[byteware]

Says the amount of taxes they pay compared to everyone else.

21 times what everyone else pays... when they only made 5 times what everyone else made... yep. That's completely against the point you're making here...


Yes, I know... it's out of the context that they actually MADE 5 times what everyone else made...

 

[byteware]

The correct proportional amount would be an amount that didn't increase wealth disparity at the rate we've seen over the past 30 years. I don't have exact numbers for you, sorry. There's no need for them. Asking for them is just a way to try to "get" me.

So, the correct proportional amount is the amount that keeps them from being able to get richer... yeah, that's not punitive at all.

I don't think you understand that word proportional...

Proportional would mean, that if they made 5 times what everyone else made, they would pay 5 times the taxes that everyone else paid... that's proportional.

 

[Tom Ace]

Have you ever heard of employment contracts? Some (not all) of the bonuses were contractual.

Do l like it when it happens. No.

What does that matter? What I'm saying is these CEOs are making many millions of dollars and not even doing a very good job, while their employees are averaging $45,000. Now, again, I don't even so much have a problem with people making that kind of ridiculous money. I just want them to pay their share, and it would also be nice if we didn't bail them out when the job they got paid millions to do was crappy enough to bankrupt them.

 

[byteware]

Again, you need to read more carefully.

I like how he quotes you... and responds, and your only response is... you need to read more carefully... but you don't clarify...

mostly because he's responding to a direct quote from you.

 

[byteware]

First, you really need to stop with the "evil rich" nonsense. Saying the rich should pay more in taxes doesn't imply that they're evil.

I expect it'll stop being said, when you stop treating them that way.

Earning money is a privilege we allow them?

Having money is a privilege we allow them?

If they don't want to be forced to give their money to the government, then they shouldn't have any?

The rich leech off of this country?

This is just a few of your comments against the rich.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

What does that matter? What I'm saying is these CEOs are making many millions of dollars and not even doing a very good job, while their employees are averaging $45,000. Now, again, I don't even so much have a problem with people making that kind of ridiculous money. I just want them to pay their share, and it would also be nice if we didn't bail them out when the job they got paid millions to do was crappy enough to bankrupt them.

If you don't have a problem with people making that kind of money, why is it ridiculous?

 

[JimmyRayBob]

I also expect the government to live within its means. That's why I think they should figure out what they need (remember I'm saying "need", as in what's required and nothing more), and bring in revenue equal to that.

When i have to live within my means - i look at how much money i earn, and spend accordingly.

When my company has to live within their means, they look at how much money they earn, and spend accordingly.

But when the government needs to live within their means, they get to decide what to spend and then tax (take by force) what they want? Is that how it works? To me, that is backwards. To you, it is not.

Remember - getting a bunch of politicians in Washington to decide what is "required and nothing more" is what got us into this mess. There is someone up on Capitol Hill that will swear up and down that every dollar is NEEDED for each and every program.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Ace
Have you been paying any attention at all the past few years? The big bank CEOs completely screwed up and then depended on bailouts, and they still got multi-million dollar bonuses.

What does that matter? What I'm saying is these CEOs are making many millions of dollars and not even doing a very good job, while their employees are averaging $45,000. Now, again, I don't even so much have a problem with people making that kind of ridiculous money. I just want them to pay their share, and it would also be nice if we didn't bail them out when the job they got paid millions to do was crappy enough to bankrupt them.

Why do employment contracts matter? Because we are a country of laws - that's way.

how would you feel if a Republican governor / president came along and voided all the union contracts because the pensions were too expensive?

 

[Tom Ace]

i remember when i was just outa high school, got a job
well after a short time i got a raise. got the first check, and i got less money then i had before the raise. the raise bumped me up a tax bracket.
i requested to go back to the lower income since i would be leaving for college shortly.

moral- if you make less by making more there is no reason to work so hard

Well, you're remembering something wrong, since you have a misunderstanding of how our taxes work. The first $8,500 you make is taxed at 10%. Anything between $8,500 and $34,500 is taxed at 15%. Anything between $34,500 and $83,600 is taxed at 25% and so on. If you make more money before taxes, you make more money after taxes. For instance, let's say you went from making $42,000 to making $45,000, which after deductions and exemptions puts you right over the threshold. In the first case, assuming just the standard deductions and such, you pay taxes on about $33,000. That means you pay $4,525 in taxes and end up with $37,475. In the second case, you pay taxes on about $36,000, which means you pay $5125 and end up with $39,875.

 

[Tom Ace]

and when the rates well above 50 / 60 /70% - there were far more deductions, and those people that fell into that tax bracket didn't pay any where near that much.

There weren't far more deductions. The people in the top bracket today don't end up paying the top percentage either. There were deduction then and there are deductions now. There weren't enough extra deductions then to make up 35+%.

 

[2003vstrom]

this country is being destroyed by unions and their buddy obama(spread the wealth), hey what happen to common sense in this country? I grew up knowing, you have work your ass off for the finer things in life, and all you hear about the unions we need this, we need that, you know what? F*** you unions, unions don`t serve their purpose anymore, unions are for lazy MOFO`s that want to do little as possible and get the most money, hey wait that sounds like welfare!!! we need to drop all the unions and the welfare losers that don`t want to work in the deepest ocean trench.