ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 The only thing capping salaries would accomplish is to ensure that the percentage of pay that is currently being reported and taxed be untaxed and unreported. Essentially paid under the table. Seriously folks, that's just a real, real bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Other than your pure jealousy, what is your reason for wanting to punish successful people? Should we put a cap on how much income an actor should be able to make from a film production? should we put a cap on how much a singer/songwriter should earn from an album or concert tour? Should we cap how much money a person can make my writing a book? Just curious, How can you consider the non-free-market over regulated condition we are in right now "a market failure"? The Lefty dribble about "the Rich" is old and way overplayed. If you want "it" then it earn "it", If you have already earned "it" then you should have the right to keep "it". Just because someone can afford to pay for other people's laziness doesn't mean that they should If all the corporate rewards for working hard and being innovative go to the executives, that's a big problem. Check out what's happened to other countries where there is no reward for hard work and innovation at the workplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 That's what she's worth, not her yearly income as the article is saying. How does her net worth go from $21.7 million to $35.2 million over the course of a year if not for income? That's not rhetorical nor intended to sound confrontational, I really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 How does her net worth go from $21.7 million to $35.2 million over the course of a year if not for income? That's not rhetorical nor intended to sound confrontational, I really don't know. Capital gains, of course. Her land and stock went up in value. Of course, she doesn't have to pay taxes on that increased value until she sells, and even then she will only pay 15%. It's good to be rich in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Other than your pure jealousy, what is your reason for wanting to punish successful people? I don't think most want to punish successful people, but we've seen enough of these highly unsuccessful people who run their companies into the ground, create massive layoffs, and do incredible damage only to be excessively rewarded that it makes you scratch your head. If your company is doing great then you should do great. If your company is heading for the crapper, then there's a lot right with the captain going down with the ship and not being the only guy with a lifevest and a life boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 That's what she's worth, not her yearly income as the article is saying. Most rich people do not have salaries,nor even poorer folk like me that work for themselves....income is rather open to interpretation. When they are figuring the executives take they included stocks ect.....only fair to do so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 In Canada, whats the cap on your wages personally? How much are you personally allowed to earn annually. Just curious.Is the cap for your people on a sliding scale or is it a set level by role or industry? Well more to the point the government has not attacked labour unions so people still have the chance to use that vehicle to negotiate raises, also they keep things better regulated except for the cuts to sorporate taxes we are not suffering like the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Short term cap gain rates in the 1990s was 39 percent, while long term was 20 percent. I think its important to return to this level, i.e encourage people to take the "long" view with regards to stocks/bonuses/land. I read somewhere that in 1997 the rules on cap gains changed (and obviously the rates are far lower today) which helped lead to the tech bubble and housing bubble, and along with that has seen executive compensation far outpace wage inflation this past decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Capping pay would be a idiotic way to suppress corruption...ask Russia Actually Russia had the very few benefit while the many did without that is what destroyed, if caps are a bad idea why did God put rules in place in Israel to keep people from gaining to much wealth and others suffering in poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 If you can set limits on politicians why can you not set limits on those who most often buy politicians? That would upset a lot of Union Bosses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 That would upset a lot of Union Bosses. And why would that upset anyone get special interest money out of politics all together and it may bring about better government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Explain the Texas economy,not even the idiots up there have killed it yet...but they keep trying Hmm, from June 2009 to April 2011 out of the 496,000 jobs created in the USA, Texas created 237,000 of them. But the EPA will mandate Texas to comply with the Federal Clean air transport rule. I guess your current clean air program for the past 2 decades wasn't good enough. ---------- Post added June-21st-2011 at 09:20 AM ---------- And why would that upset anyone get special interest money out of politics all together and it may bring about better government It would not upset me to get Union dues err Special interest money out of politics all together, however that would not be the case when it comes to the leaders of the SEIU, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, etc. and their wet dream of card check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oisn1 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Hmm, from June 2009 to April 2011 out of the 496,000 jobs created in the USA, Texas created 237,000 of them. But the EPA will mandate Texas to comply with the Federal Clean air transport rule. I guess your current clean air program for the past 2 decades wasn't good enough. Yeah it's a thing called progress. Rules are set into place, companies find ways to break those rules, then additional rules are set into place to stop that. Additionally, new technology and chemicals tend to pollute in a ways that are beyond old laws, thus existing laws need to be upgraded. But I guess you're right, why update anything; the Model T wasn't good enough for you? Also, kudos to Texas for job creation, though that really can't be replicated all over the nation. Texas has huge reserves of natural energy resources and the breakthroughs in natural gas exploration put Texas a forefront of that energy system. Unfortunately, the majority of the other states do not have those kinds of reserves and would not be able to create that kind of growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Yeah it's a thing called progress. Rules are set into place, companies find ways to break those rules, then additional rules are set into place to stop that. Additionally, new technology and chemicals tend to pollute in a ways that are beyond old laws, thus existing laws need to be upgraded.But I guess you're right, why update anything; the Model T wasn't good enough for you? Also, kudos to Texas for job creation, though that really can't be replicated all over the nation. Texas has huge reserves of natural energy resources and the breakthroughs in natural gas exploration put Texas a forefront of that energy system. Unfortunately, the majority of the other states do not have those kinds of reserves and would not be able to create that kind of growth. Rules that are counterproductive are foolish and wasteful whether that is progress is certainly in doubt. dismissing the Texas economy difference as simply energy resources is wrong DRSmith....for God's system to work it must be implemented in full,no cherry picking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Well more to the point the government has not attacked labour unions so people still have the chance to use that vehicle to negotiate raises, also they keep things better regulated except for the cuts to sorporate taxes we are not suffering like the US Thats a cop out answer. Didnt answer my very specific question at all. I understand why you did it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Term limits. Without that.... Do like the fore fathers did and remove the currupt Government in place now. Only after the wealthy once again took control did people stop remembering that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and all the rest of those great men were once over throwers of a currupt Government. Washington once said in his farewell address about political parties ""They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests." In short he opposed political parties. Term limits aren't the problem, you must weed out all of the cancer before you can ever be clean. Term limits? Hell no. I say throw the Republicants and the Democraps out on there ear and then you will once again have a Government that isn't only catering to the rich and pandering for votes but instead is once again a nation united for the betterment of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Thats a cop out answer. Didnt answer my very specific question at all. I understand why you did it though. The answer pointed to another problem which helps slow down the gap between execs and working folks. I know pointing out that the govenment in the past has not helped the slide here must get annoying when you think less regulation is good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The answer pointed to another problem which helps slow down the gap between execs and working folks.I know pointing out that the govenment in the past has not helped the slide here must get annoying when you think less regulation is good I know it must be very annoying to be in your shoes of inability to answer the specific question posed because it obviously makes you uncomfortable. It was a simple question. What is YOUR cap on income and what is the regulatory cap on executives in your nation? I'd think that since you are an avid supporter of such caps that you would be first in line to crow about both and the success of those plans, and if they arent already in place, i would have to assume that you are right out there demanding it of your government. and if you insist on saying that your government doesnt have many of the same types of policies and problems that ours has, you are living a bit in fantasy land http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17649 http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Greed%20Corruption/Corporate%20scandals.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_political_scandals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 It's cyclical folks. These levels of executive pay (relative), income inequality, household debt to savings ratio have not been seen since the years leading up to the Depression. Will there be a correction in compensation for execs? I believe so. Stockholders (i.e. owners of the company) can't keep feeling that they're losing a lot of income to essentially high priced employees. But then again, people don't buy stocks to own a piece of a company anymore... it's mainly to buy and sell stocks based on price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I know it must be very annoying to be in your shoes of inability to answer the specific question posed because it obviously makes you uncomfortable. It was a simple question. What is YOUR cap on income and what is the regulatory cap on executives in your nation? I'd think that since you are an avid supporter of such caps that you would be first in line to crow about both and the success of those plans, and if they arent already in place, i would have to assume that you are right out there demanding it of your government. and if you insist on saying that your government doesnt have many of the same types of policies and problems that ours has, you are living a bit in fantasy land http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17649 http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Greed%20Corruption/Corporate%20scandals.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_political_scandals I never said they were perfect I said the that they were not in the habit of attacking the vehicles by which common folks are able to keep the gap between the haves and the have nots to a much slower pace Hey we are no Denmark but were not the US either http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I never said they were perfect I said the that they were not in the habit of attacking the vehicles by which common folks are able to keep the gap between the haves and the have nots to a much slower paceHey we are no Denmark but were not the US either http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results LOL, noticed you still cant seem to answer the question posed. Nice deflection. I dont blame you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 LOL, noticed you still cant seem to answer the question posed. Nice deflection. I dont blame you I know pointing out the government is not under cutting the working class seems put a damper on the working class asking the government to cap exec pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I know pointing out the government is not under cutting the working class seems put a damper on the working class asking the government to cap exec pay. keep digging, its getting funny. Actually, never mind. Just let me know when you are ready to actually answer the questions I posed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 keep digging, its getting funny. Actually, never mind. Just let me know when you are ready to actually answer the questions I posed. Let me know when you understand that it has been answered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Let me know when you understand that it has been answered LMAO!! OK man, whatever you say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.