%@#%@ the unions!

[ElasticNinja]

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.

wow.. how uninformed

 

[byteware]

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%.

Ok... so 8499 at 10% = $7649.1

Raise at $8500 at 15% = $7225.0

But, I guess she's wrong, I'm wrong... (apparently you're wrong, since they are your own numbers) and let's not forget math instructors are all wrong.

The reality is... this is exactly the way it works. I can't even believe you would argue that to be honest.

 

[Tom Ace]

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.

Wow, it takes a complete mischaracterization for you to argue against it.

Wow.

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

Because of when you put it in context. This all goes back to my original argument in this thread. All income is not equally valuable. Almost every dollar of the average 90%er's $44,000 is crucial for them. Most of the 10%er's is not crucial. If you assume an average household needs around $25,000 just for basic food, shelter, clothing and transportation, then only less than half of the average 90%er's income is beyond the basic amount needed. 92% of the average 10%er's income is beyond the basic amount needed.

Prove it.

You're the one with the wild assumption here. I don't need to prove you wrong. You need to provide some evidence that a large number of people have things like satellite TV and XBOX and get money from the government.

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?

Fail.

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

Yes, I have. I've done it several times. As I said, I did it once in great detail, and you ignored it. That doesn't make me want to spend much time explaining it to you again, but I did so quickly above.

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

They're still contributing. They still pay payroll taxes and state and local taxes. They just don't contribute federal income tax. That's because of how little they make.

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

Huh? So, you're saying that on top of the full-time jobs they have and the kids some of them raise, we should make them work for the government in their non-existent spare time? Good call.

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

Everyone is forced to give up money by force, to use your words. That's why it's a misleading way of putting it.

 

[Tom Ace]

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.

OK, I'll say it again in the probably vain hope that you'll listen.

The context is that the average 90% household makes $44,000 and contributes $3,000. Assuming an average household needs a minimum of $25,000 to have food, shelter, clothing and transportation (even leaving out any kind of healthcare, which should be considered a necessity), the average 90% household has an extra $19,000 before taxes. They pay $3,000 of that, or 15.8%. The average 10% household makes $310,000 more than that before taxes, and pays $62,000 or 20%. So, by that standard they make 16 times more after taking out money for the essentials, and pay 4% more in taxes.

No more so, than any of the others here.

It seems it's much more so than most 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.

And by that you mean the more I talk the more you misunderstand what I'm saying.

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 am merely debunking the myth that all rich people work hard or earn their money. Our tax system is not based on how hard you work, of course. And yes, I don't have the right to take money from rich people simply because I don't like that they have more than I do. You're 100% right. However, I don't want to take anything from them for that reason. I have no problem with someone having more than I do. I just have a problem with the extreme disparity we see when the tax burden isn't equally distributed.

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

By using the phrase "force by penalty of jail".

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

Not necessarily, but the point is rich people aren't necessarily hard-working and they didn't necessarily earn their money. On average they're no more hard-working than the middle and lower classes.

 

[Tom Ace]

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.

Obviously I agree that the way things are doesn't give much hope for accomplishing anything we need to. However, yes, that's how the government needs to work. Certain things need to be in place and function a certain way. They shouldn't just say "Oh, we don't have enough revenue for police or military, so we're just not going to have them". We need certain things.

 

[Tom Ace]

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.

Do you even bother to read? It would really help. I already told him where he was wrong. He made the same false claim about me in two different posts. In one post I corrected him on it, and in the next, I reiterated that he needed to read more carefully for the reasons I had already explained. It helps to pay attention.

 

[Tom Ace]

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

In other words, when you guys realize I'm not saying anything that could reasonably be taken that way, which means probably never.

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.

Actually those are a few of your interpretations of my comments. We have an environment that allows them to make ridiculous amounts of money and pay relatively low taxes. It's a privilege for them to make that much, not a right. And what I said was, if they don't want to pay the amount they should pay on the very high income they have, then they can give up the very high income. If they want to pay 15% instead of 20%, they can go down to making less money like everyone else who makes 15%.

But yes, some of them do leech off of this country.

 

[Tom Ace]

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

It's an adjective. It's used to describe something extreme. I could have said "very high amounts" and meant the same thing, but I like the word "ridiculous".

 

[Tom Ace]

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?

You can't possibly be missing my point accidentally at this point. The point is there's something wrong with that contract. First, generally, no, a contract shouldn't be voided. I wasn't implying that those contracts should have been. So, it's pointless to argue against that. Second, in a case where the government gives taxpayers' dollars to a company so that the company doesn't go under, I think it's perfectly acceptable to make a condition of that money be that the CEOs don't get their multi-million dollar bonuses. If the company doesn't want to void their contracts, they don't have to take the bailout money.

 

[Tom Ace]

Ok... so 8499 at 10% = $7649.1

Raise at $8500 at 15% = $7225.0

But, I guess she's wrong, I'm wrong... (apparently you're wrong, since they are your own numbers) and let's not forget math instructors are all wrong.

The reality is... this is exactly the way it works. I can't even believe you would argue that to be honest.

Man, it must take a lot of work to avoid reality like this. The money up to $8,500 always gets taxed at 10%. If you make $20 million, the first $8,500 gets taxed at 10%. The amount between $8,500 and $34,500 gets taxed at 15%. See that? The amount between those numbers. That's the only amount that gets taxed at that rate. If you make $34,500, the first $8,500 gets taxed at 10%, and the amount between $8,500 and $34,500, which is $26,000, gets taxed at 15%.

I already gave one example, and giving another probably won't help, but I'll try it. If you make $8,450 after deductions and exemptions, you pay $840 in taxes and take home $7,610. If you get a raise and start making $8,550 after deductions and exemptions, you pay $857.50 and take home $7,692.50.

It's no wonder you have these weird ideas about the economy and taxes. You don't even understand how they currently work, even when it's explained to you.

 

[ElasticNinja]

no one in almost any bank should be getting a bonus
the bonus system is probably one of the biggest issues - how many bank execs gave back falsely earned bonuses? none
besides that banks have a habit of lying and cheating
bonuses for bankers should be taxed out of existence for a few years

 

[byteware]

Wow, it takes a complete mischaracterization for you to argue against it.

Ok, how am I mischaracterizing your statement?

Because of when you put it in context. This all goes back to my original argument in this thread. All income is not equally valuable. Almost every dollar of the average 90%er's $44,000 is crucial for them. Most of the 10%er's is not crucial. If you assume an average household needs around $25,000 just for basic food, shelter, clothing and transportation, then only less than half of the average 90%er's income is beyond the basic amount needed. 92% of the average 10%er's income is beyond the basic amount needed.

So, your context is that society should value their property less, because they have so much of it... and thereby take it from them.

That's the context?

You don't get to assign a value to someone else's property.

You've got two cars. I determine that they are less valuable than someone who has only one car, so we take your second car to give to someone else who has no car.

That's absolutely reasonable according to your logic.



In reality, this is just an attempt to justify only taking property from rich people.

You're the one with the wild assumption here. I don't need to prove you wrong. You need to provide some evidence that a large number of people have things like satellite TV and XBOX and get money from the government.

ahhh... I see. So, you see nothing wrong with people getting free money from the government... and having absolutely no social responsibility... that's fine.. because we can force the rich to give that money over...

Fail.

Explain. how have I misrepresented your position? You keep saying people are wrong, but refuse to explain... so come on, man up... explain.

Yes, I have. I've done it several times. As I said, I did it once in great detail, and you ignored it. That doesn't make me want to spend much time explaining it to you again, but I did so quickly above.

Yes... you went back to your opinion that wealthy people's property is less valuable, and that they make more money... that's the context you provided.

They're still contributing. They still pay payroll taxes and state and local taxes. They just don't contribute federal income tax. That's because of how little they make.

Are they now? Prove it.

Huh? So, you're saying that on top of the full-time jobs they have and the kids some of them raise, we should make them work for the government in their non-existent spare time? Good call.

non-existent spare time? lol. You are kidding me right? If you have no spare time, then you aren't in poverty either.

Everyone is forced to give up money by force, to use your words. That's why it's a misleading way of putting it.

So, you admit that everything in that statement was true.

And we are discussing tax hikes on the rich, so since we are only discussing the rich, and the rich were all I was talking about... how is that misleading again?

 

[byteware]

OK, I'll say it again in the probably vain hope that you'll listen.

I'm listening... you just aren't liking the facts that are being put back to you.

The context is that the average 90% household makes $44,000 and contributes $3,000. Assuming an average household needs a minimum of $25,000 to have food, shelter, clothing and transportation (even leaving out any kind of healthcare, which should be considered a necessity), the average 90% household has an extra $19,000 before taxes. They pay $3,000 of that, or 15.8%. The average 10% household makes $310,000 more than that before taxes, and pays $62,000 or 20%. So, by that standard they make 16 times more after taking out money for the essentials, and pay 4% more in taxes.

Yes, your two fallbacks for "context", which aren't context, they are justifications.

Are the rich earn 5 times as much... and the property of the rich is less valuable...

I get you.

You justify taking money from the rich by saying it is less valuable, which is an arbitrary assignment of value by you.

It seems it's much more so than most others here.

That's because to you, only your opinion matters.

And by that you mean the more I talk the more you misunderstand what I'm saying.

And by that you mean, the more you talk, the more you don't like about what you reveal.

I am merely debunking the myth that all rich people work hard or earn their money. Our tax system is not based on how hard you work, of course. And yes, I don't have the right to take money from rich people simply because I don't like that they have more than I do. You're 100% right. However, I don't want to take anything from them for that reason. I have no problem with someone having more than I do. I just have a problem with the extreme disparity we see when the tax burden isn't equally distributed.

Ok... so, let's agree myth debunked.

That gives you no right to take their property.

By using the phrase "force by penalty of jail".

It's true. It's 100% accurate. It's just something you don't like to think about when you talk about taking money from the rich by force.

Not necessarily, but the point is rich people aren't necessarily hard-working and they didn't necessarily earn their money. On average they're no more hard-working than the middle and lower classes.

And that means it's perfectly ok for you to take it from them. Heck, why even worry about taxes, just go to their house and take it. They didn't earn it. It's less valuable to them. Right?

You have no right to take someone else's property, whether you think they earned it or not.

Do you even bother to read? It would really help. I already told him where he was wrong. He made the same false claim about me in two different posts. In one post I corrected him on it, and in the next, I reiterated that he needed to read more carefully for the reasons I had already explained. It helps to pay attention.

False claim... that's pretty funny.

You can't seem to successfully demonstrate how any of his claims are false.

In other words, when you guys realize I'm not saying anything that could reasonably be taken that way, which means probably never.

Let's see everything I posted was accurate. You may want to hide behind justifications of why stealing from the rich by force isn't wrong, because they have lots of money, and they possibly didn't earn it themselves... but that's just justifications. You don't think the rich should be rich.

Man, it must take a lot of work to avoid reality like this. The money up to $8,500 always gets taxed at 10%. If you make $20 million, the first $8,500 gets taxed at 10%. The amount between $8,500 and $34,500 gets taxed at 15%. See that? The amount between those numbers. That's the only amount that gets taxed at that rate. If you make $34,500, the first $8,500 gets taxed at 10%, and the amount between $8,500 and $34,500, which is $26,000, gets taxed at 15%.

No ones arguing that eventually, you'll start making MORE money again.

You can't escape the math man... a raise from 8499 to 2 million will bring you home more in your paycheck.

a raise from 8499 to 8500 brings home significantly less.

I already gave one example, and giving another probably won't help, but I'll try it. If you make $8,450 after deductions and exemptions, you pay $840 in taxes and take home $7,610. If you get a raise and start making $8,550 after deductions and exemptions, you pay $857.50 and take home $7,692.50.

No ones arguing that if you get a raise from 8499 to 2 million, that you won't take home more... you claimed it was impossible for her to get a raise and take home more money... I've proven you wrong. End of story. You can keep flailing and post that a big enough raise will still bring home more money regardless of the higher tax bracket, but that's a false argument based on flawed logic.

It's no wonder you have these weird ideas about the economy and taxes. You don't even understand how they currently work, even when it's explained to you.

Yep... everyone is wrong but you. It's the world that is wrong, and doesn't see how we should be taking more and more money from these evil rich people.

no one in almost any bank should be getting a bonus
the bonus system is probably one of the biggest issues - how many bank execs gave back falsely earned bonuses? none
besides that banks have a habit of lying and cheating
bonuses for bankers should be taxed out of existence for a few years

I'm glad you are qualified to determine that if someone made the company 15 Billion dollars, that they don't deserve a bonus... and FYI, not all banks required bailouts.

 

[byteware]

Actually those are a few of your interpretations of my comments.

Interpretations? You said they leeched off of this country. You said these things. Don't like them? Heck, neither do we.

We have an environment that allows them to make ridiculous amounts of money and pay relatively low taxes. It's a privilege for them to make that much, not a right.

Let me ask you this... at what level does making "that much" become a privilege and no longer a right?

 

[Tom Ace]

So, your context is that society should value their property less, because they have so much of it... and thereby take it from them.

That's the context?

You don't get to assign a value to someone else's property.

You've got two cars. I determine that they are less valuable than someone who has only one car, so we take your second car to give to someone else who has no car.

That's absolutely reasonable according to your logic.

Humans value extra property less. If I forced you to give up all food or your car, which would you choose? I'm hoping food, since that's much more valuable to a human than a car. The necessities, and the money that pays for them are much more valuable than a car or a second car or second house.

With that in mind, taking 12% from the first $25,000 you make is not the same as taking 12% from the 20th $25,000 you make. Taking 12% from the first $25,000 is not even the same as taking 25% of the 20th $25,000 you make. No one is saying to take your second car and give it to someone else. What I'm saying is that before you have your fourth car, let's make sure other people at least have the basics.

In reality, this is just an attempt to justify only taking property from rich people.

In reality, it's an attempt to acknowledge reality.

ahhh... I see. So, you see nothing wrong with people getting free money from the government... and having absolutely no social responsibility... that's fine.. because we can force the rich to give that money over...

In other words, you don't actually want to respond to what I actually said, huh? OK.

Explain. how have I misrepresented your position? You keep saying people are wrong, but refuse to explain... so come on, man up... explain.

I've been explaining for pages. You just refuse to catch on.

Yes... you went back to your opinion that wealthy people's property is less valuable, and that they make more money... that's the context you provided.

As I said above, you just refuse to listen.

Are they now? Prove it.

Are they what, contributing? You mean you didn't already realize that? Not surprising. The same articles that all talked about how they're not paying federal income taxes specified that they're mostly paying other taxes. Obviously there are some people in the country paying no taxes at all, but it's nowhere near that 47%. You should really try to get all the information, not just the stuff you want to hear.

non-existent spare time? lol. You are kidding me right? If you have no spare time, then you aren't in poverty either.

Ah, more misconceptions. It's funny that every time I come across someone with your opinions, they're always based on ignorance. You most certainly can live in poverty and not have any spare time. You can also live just above poverty and not have any spare time.

So, you admit that everything in that statement was true.

And we are discussing tax hikes on the rich, so since we are only discussing the rich, and the rich were all I was talking about... how is that misleading again?

Maybe you should go look up the word "misleading".

 

[Tom Ace]

I'm listening... you just aren't liking the facts that are being put back to you.

You're not listening very well, then. And what facts are you giving me?

I get you.

Obviously you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be misinterpretting what I say when you try to rephrase it.

You justify taking money from the rich by saying it is less valuable, which is an arbitrary assignment of value by you.

No, it's an attribute assigned by humans as a whole. Ask any human which they would rather give up: food or their computer.

That's because to you, only your opinion matters.

No, but an opinion based on logic and reason has much more worth to me than one that's not.

And by that you mean, the more you talk, the more you don't like about what you reveal.

Keep trying. One day you might succeed.

Ok... so, let's agree myth debunked.

Hey, look at that. You can admit something. Good start.

That gives you no right to take their property.

I didn't say it did.

It's true. It's 100% accurate. It's just something you don't like to think about when you talk about taking money from the rich by force.

Again, everyone has to give money to the government upon penalty of jail. It's not a helpful way to characterize things. That's why it's misleading.

And that means it's perfectly ok for you to take it from them. Heck, why even worry about taxes, just go to their house and take it. They didn't earn it. It's less valuable to them. Right?

You have no right to take someone else's property, whether you think they earned it or not.

When did I say that was a justification for taking anything from them? And again, a conversation goes much better when you don't use intentionally misleading language. You're right that I don't have the right to someone else's property, but society has a right to what it needs to function well.

False claim... that's pretty funny.

You can't seem to successfully demonstrate how any of his claims are false.

OK, you're really just wasting my time now. If you're not going to read all of the posts, then don't post about the ones you haven't read. I already explained how his claim was false more than once. All you have to do is pay attention.

Let's see everything I posted was accurate.

Wow, you can't possibly actually think that, can you?

You may want to hide behind justifications of why stealing from the rich by force isn't wrong, because they have lots of money, and they possibly didn't earn it themselves... but that's just justifications. You don't think the rich should be rich.

Again, it's better when you don't use silly language like "stealing". Also, you really need to stop with these misinterpretations like I don't think the rich should be rich. I specifically said they're welcome to be rich. You're welcome to make $1 million and keep most of it. I don't mind someone making $500,000 after taxes, or $5 million or $5 billion, just as long as they pay their share. That means the person making $5 million would pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%. They'd still make $3 million after taxes, and I don't know about you, but I still consider that rich.

No ones arguing that eventually, you'll start making MORE money again.

You can't escape the math man... a raise from 8499 to 2 million will bring you home more in your paycheck.

a raise from 8499 to 8500 brings home significantly less.

No ones arguing that if you get a raise from 8499 to 2 million, that you won't take home more... you claimed it was impossible for her to get a raise and take home more money... I've proven you wrong. End of story. You can keep flailing and post that a big enough raise will still bring home more money regardless of the higher tax bracket, but that's a false argument based on flawed logic.

Really? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You've shown multiple times that you refuse to acknowledge reality. I'll try this again.

First, the cut-off is $8,500, so your numbers would be $8,500 and $8,501. If you make $8,500, you get taxed 10% and pay $850 leaving you with $7,650. If you get a raise and make $8,501, you pay 10% on the first $8,500 and 15% on the other $1. That means you pay $850.15 in taxes, leaving you with $7,650.85. You don't pay 15% on your whole income if you go up to $8,500. You only pay 15% on that extra $1 you make. You still pay 10% on the first $8,500 just as you always did. That's why you will never make less after tax when you get a raise.

So, really, either learn your stuff before entering conversations like this, or at least listen when others talk. That way you won't look so silly like you do here.

Yep... everyone is wrong but you. It's the world that is wrong, and doesn't see how we should be taking more and more money from these evil rich people.

So, now you think everyone thinks like you? Really? Wow, it's worse than I thought. In reality, there are a lot of reasonable people who realize the error of your ideas. There just aren't enough in a position of power who are willing to do anything about it.

And again, you can drop the "evil rich" nonsense. It only makes you look bad.

I'm glad you are qualified to determine that if someone made the company 15 Billion dollars, that they don't deserve a bonus... and FYI, not all banks required bailouts.

Jesus, you're too much. I'm guessing the company didn't make $15 billion, if they need a bailout. You could prove me wrong, though. If a bank needed a bailout, the CEO wasn't doing a very good job, but that's not even the relevant thing. If the government is bailing out a company, they can set the terms of the bail out. If the company doesn't like the terms, they don't have to accept the money. If we're going to bail out a bank, then I think it's more than reasonable to tell them the CEO can't have his $10 million bonus.

And yes, all banks didn't require bailouts. And?

 

[JimmyRayBob]

You can't possibly be missing my point accidentally at this point. The point is there's something wrong with that contract. First, generally, no, a contract shouldn't be voided. I wasn't implying that those contracts should have been. So, it's pointless to argue against that. Second, in a case where the government gives taxpayers' dollars to a company so that the company doesn't go under, I think it's perfectly acceptable to make a condition of that money be that the CEOs don't get their multi-million dollar bonuses. If the company doesn't want to void their contracts, they don't have to take the bailout money.

OK - This should be very simple, and hopefully we can agree.

I agree that if the government bails a company out, there should be some mechanism to void employment contracts of top executives so they don't receive multi-million dollar bonuses. This is a good idea only when bailed out by my tax dollars (Chrysler, GM, a bunch of banks, etc.). Companies that do not receive government (my) money should not do this.

I also think that if the government bails a company out, there should be some mechanism to void the labor contracts that have contributed to the problem. GM and Chrysler come to mind. Do you agree with this apples to apples comparison???

 

[Tom Ace]

Interpretations? You said they leeched off of this country. You said these things. Don't like them? Heck, neither do we.

Yes, I don't like your misinterpretations, and I don't blame you guys for not liking them either. I do like how you pull out one part of it as if it's representative of the whole. Yes, some rich people leech off of the country. Do you deny that?

Let me ask you this... at what level does making "that much" become a privilege and no longer a right?

When it's above the amount needed for your basic needs. I consider it a privilege for me to live comfortably as I do.

 

[Tom Ace]

OK - This should be very simple, and hopefully we can agree.

I agree that if the government bails a company out, there should be some mechanism to void employment contracts of top executives so they don't receive multi-million dollar bonuses. This is a good idea only when bailed out by my tax dollars (Chrysler, GM, a bunch of banks, etc.). Companies that do not receive government (my) money should not do this.

My whole point is that if someone is making all that money, they should be contributing accordingly. If a CEO makes $20 million in a year, I'm fine with it. Just as long as he also contributes something like 40%.

I also think that if the government bails a company out, there should be some mechanism to void the labor contracts that have contributed to the problem. GM and Chrysler come to mind. Do you agree with this apples to apples comparison???

That's a different story. Then the company would have to ask the workers. In that case you couldn't allow the owners of the company to decide on something that isn't their decision. But where we do disagree is that the labor contracts contributed to the problem. As I already posted more than once in this thread, it's a myth that union agreements have hurt the big car companies.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Second, in a case where the government gives taxpayers' dollars to a company so that the company doesn't go under, I think it's perfectly acceptable to make a condition of that money be that the CEOs don't get their multi-million dollar bonuses. If the company doesn't want to void their contracts, they don't have to take the bailout money.

My whole point is that if someone is making all that money, they should be contributing accordingly. If a CEO makes $20 million in a year, I'm fine with it. Just as long as he also contributes something like 40%.

Please pick one. Thank you.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Simple Question.

Company gets bailed out by Uncle Sam. Should the officers get their contractually required bonues? Yes or No.

I'm not asking if they should pay a lot or a little tax on it. Just should the contracts be voided and the bonuses declared null and void.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

As I already posted more than once in this thread, it's a myth that union agreements have hurt the big car companies.

Yeah, those medical plans that are spelled out in the union contracts for current and retired employees don't factor into the cost of a car at all ....

 

[JimmyRayBob]

That's a different story. Then the company would have to ask the workers. In that case you couldn't allow the owners of the company to decide on something that isn't their decision. But where we do disagree is that the labor contracts contributed to the problem. As I already posted more than once in this thread, it's a myth that union agreements have hurt the big car companies.

Why would the company have to ask the workers? Do the officers get to choose if they have their contracts voided?

I don't understand your comment "In that case you couldn't allow the owners of the company to decide on something that isn't their decision" Please clarify (i'm not trying to be difficult - i really don't understand your point)

 

[Tom Ace]

Please pick one. Thank you.

Please use common sense. Thank you.

 

[Tom Ace]

Simple Question.

Company gets bailed out by Uncle Sam. Should the officers get their contractually required bonues? Yes or No.

I'm not asking if they should pay a lot or a little tax on it. Just should the contracts be voided and the bonuses declared null and void.

Why do I have to spell this out so much for you? In the case of the bailout, the terms of the bailout should be that bonuses for CEOs should be eliminated. The CEO of a company not getting a bailout can make whatever he wants, as long as he pays the amount of taxes he should. What was so unclear about that?