New Tax System, how would you do it?

@waraxis:

To whoever it may concern( I’m refering to the “Guest”)

The idea that super rich familes getting more and more money will help the common family how?? Cause a billionare gets a paycheck doesn’t mean he earned it. Tell me someone how the CEO of Ford earns his fat paycheck when he hasn’t built one car?? All that guy ever does is sit on his @$$ behind his desk that his line workers would have a hard time affording wearing his suit that would take a line worker 6 months to buy, thinking of ways to screw his workers OOPS sorry cutting costs.

I have no problem for small time millionares families keeping their money, I have nothing against small business owners!

But for those FAT CATS who got their money through the stock market, like when guy or girl gets a big boost of money cause some company sent jobs to another country and their stock goes up. Not caring what happened to the small town those jobs were in. :evil: :evil: It really gets me mad when the company does it when they were already making huge profits :evil: :evil:

Those decisions are made by the rich and the super rich.

Okay, well are we discussing corporate ethics or taxes? Becuase I’d be happy to debate corporate ethics with you, but save it for another thread.

The CEO of Ford has the knowledge and judgement to run a company that someone working on the assembly line just DOES NOT have. I don’t know why you see absolutely no difference, but it doesn’t surprise me.

Why are you under the impression that the only respectable way to earn money in this country is to “get your hands dirty” with manual labor?

Maybe if the rich wouldn’t be so greedy and think of other people, then maybe I wouldn’t be upset with them. How much does the rich need??

That’s a really bad generalization of the rich. Do you really want me to counter this argument with FACTS? :roll:

By the way “Guest” you earn money by doing a job not by sitting behind a desk wearing stuff your workers can’t get.

Do I?

Who are YOU to judge how people earn their money? If it’s not illegal or immoral, then I have no problem with it. The President doesn’t fight in the wars he must wage, does that mean he is not earning his money?

You bad, DS.
You know it.
You bad, DS.
You show it!
8)

Deviant:Scripter If you are working of course you deserve a paycheck but I think you need a wake up call if you think the rich havn’t screwed the working class. I noticed you totally side step my example about a company packing up a factory in a small town and sending the jobs out of the country.

Do you know why they pack up and leave? Becuase they can find cheaper labor elsewhere. They’re not doing it to intentionally “screw” the employees. The only responsibility of a business is to MAKE MONEY. Whether that’s to it’s shareholders or it’s private owners is irrelevant. A business must put the financial success of itself ahead of EVERYTHING else, otherwise those people you care so much for wouldn’t have a job!

Don’t confuse a CEO with a small business owner. Small bussiness owners tend to work for a living as in working everyday in their bussiness, I doubt a CEO knows anything about the line work.

The first part I agree with…
…but you blew it on the last part. :wink:

I find it hard to believe that a CEO can make it to the top of a company without knowing how his company works…

Though I’m sure some do. If you had read my posts you would know I have nothing against millionares who built up a bussiness from the ground up. But billionares who go around looking for tax loops that is disgusting. With all the poor people in this country please explain to me you siding with the rich??

You know what’s disgusting? People trying to blame the world’s troubles on rich people.

I hate to break it to you, but rich people aren’t the only ones who look for tax loops. So, why should one group of people have to feel guilty about trying to keep the money they have, and another group doesn’t?

Answer this question: Why does the rich need more money??

Who said they need more money? I’m saying that they should KEEP THE MONEY THEY EARNED.

I’m getting an eerie feeling that you want to go back to the days of Eisenhower, and his 95% top tax bracket.

You bad, DS.
You know it.
You bad, DS.
You show it!

Please send all fan-mail to…. :wink:

@Deviant:Scripter:

…
The CEO of Ford has the knowledge and judgement to run a company that someone working on the assembly line just DOES NOT have. …
Why are you under the impression that the only respectable way to earn money in this country is to “get your hands dirty” with manual labor?

I don’t think waraxis said that. What he said was more “why is this knowledge worth this much more than the manual labor?”. D:S, you show this reflex of attacking any critics against the super-rich as socialist, from my european point of view one of the worst US stereotypes.
I counter your question with this one:
Why is the work of the Ford CEO so much more valuable (say factor of more than 300, right?) than that of his line workers? What does a line worker get if he works poorly and ruins a car? What does the CEO get if he works poorly and has to fire 30% of the line workers to consolidate his corporation?

Who are YOU to judge how people earn their money? If it’s not illegal or immoral, then I have no problem with it.

He doesn’t judge the “how”, he judges the “how much”. And the immorality is a point to discuss here. Is it defendable on a moral basis to raise your own income by firing employees (which for whatever reason raises the value of the companies shares, and probably some of the pay you receive is in form of these shares)? Or is that a simple misuse of your power?

@Deviant:Scripter:

The only responsibility of a business is to MAKE MONEY. Whether that’s to it’s shareholders or it’s private owners is irrelevant. A business must put the financial success of itself ahead of EVERYTHING else, …

Great. Fanatastic. Super.
This dooms the human race as a whole, are you aware of that?
Some recipes for financial success:
Environmental friendly behavior costs money, though you can make a profit if you have educated and enough-earning customers to sell to at a higher price.
Education costs money, and raises critical voices who might not see the must of making a profit over anything else. These actually might think that humans are more important than the cash flow of the company. Much better instead of education is making people apprentices to our believes.
Unfortunately, if we follow the second, then we lose the potential customers of the first. Ergo, environmentally friendly products won’t sell and are to be avoided.

I know D:S, you will claim that this is some kind of “weird leftist conspiracy theory”, but you have not heard anything about the reforms in the educational system over here in germany, right? One of teh main arguments of the ones like you is that the university has to “produce” people who are better prepared to work in the industry. (We have special universities for that, who emphasize not the research but the application, but that is not enough for them it seems). If there was a bigger need for “different” university graduates, then the market should fix it, shouldn’t it? Why do the companies not just employ gradutes of the “applied universities” and leave the “regular” graduates where they are? That would be the way economics should work. But, it seems like the guys working there don’t trust their own theories and want to influence each and every part of society.
And there is more, so keep back your comment until you inform yourself on it.

BTW, the term “human resource” is violating human rights (as a resource does not have any rights, but is there to be exploited). Whoever invented it should be sent to court for that.

The average CEO now a days is a recruit not a come upper.

Of course they are, I have no doubt that companies go out and recruit management with good success records. Doesn’t it make sense to hire someone who has already proved themself?

Line workers tend not to have college degrees that would let them get even close to the top.

And whose fault is that exactly…?

All I ask the rich to do is pay higher than the middleclass and stop trying to get rid of the death tax.

I agree that the rich should pay more in taxes.
I don’t, however, agree that millions of Americans should pay NOTHING in taxes, and then gripe when the people who DO pay taxes want a break.

F-alk,
A number of times a year I hear that some CEO in the US has left his corporation after a few bad years of profits and dividends. The CEO leaves with a $10,000,000 bonus. :-? :roll: Do CEOs in Europe get royal treatment like this when their corporations perform poorly?

A recent study of CEO’s pays has shown that 90s a CEO was paid more if the company was bigger, NOT if s/he did a good job. In fact, the highest paid CEO’s for the most part destroyed the comanies they ran yet made out like the bandits they are.

@Xi:

F-alk,
A number of times a year I hear that some CEO in the US has left his corporation after a few bad years of profits and dividends. The CEO leaves with a $10,000,000 bonus. :-? :roll: Do CEOs in Europe get royal treatment like this when their corporations perform poorly?

Yup,
we now have the interesting case that we have a lawsuit against the CEOs of Mannesmann (mobile phone net) who sold the company to Vodaphone and got themselves royal bonuses. Actually, the case is about wether the CEOs only agreed not to defend Mannesmann against that take-over because of that offer to them.

Another funny thing we have over here is a double standard:

You are not “allowed” to argue that the “rich get to rich” on cost of others. You are then called “envious”, “jealous”. THerefore, the line workers and unions should keep their mouthes shut and not want higher wages.
On the other hand, the people who accuse of the above when you complain will argue: In comparison to international standards, german CEOs are underpaid.
Now i ask: Isn’t that just envious, jealous? With the only difference that the one is on the “national level” and the other one on the “international level”. Plus: What is the driving force behind capitalism? Envy, jealousy and greed…. So can anyone explain why you are allowed to complain for more money for CEOs but not allowed to complain about the high money they get?

I know of just as many examples of poor people taking advantage of people also….

@Deviant:Scripter:

I know of just as many examples of poor people taking advantage of people also….

ANd if you integrate over people and accounts/damage that these people did, then divide by the costs you’d have to pay to reduce the number of people doing it…
Which one woul dbe better:
Try to reduce the huge number of little damage by a costly effort,
or reduce the number of the few who do much damage ?

It’s all and only capitalism, why i am after the bigger fishes.

I’ve never heard of any company who fires their employees on purpose just so they can give a CEO a bonus because he’s leaving. That’s a stretch even for you waraxis… :P

@waraxis:

The problem with the rich is that they only think short term. They seem not to care about the people they hurt … ruining the envoriment, and taking advantage of others. I don’t mean to say all rich are like this, I’m just saying that people who do these things tend to be rich.

I know and have seen plenty of people from all walks of life who take advantage of others and pollute the environment. It ain’t just the rich!

I don’t think I’m rich, though according to Clinton and Gore I am getting close. I have three kids to put through college and retirement for my wife and I to plan. I think the system we have gives people with initiative the opportunity to succeed beyond their wildest dreams. I’ve got dreams, too, but I have placed some of them a distant second to spending time with my wife and kids. I want them to know what a loving family is. That example is getting harder to find these days. Not saying it’s perfect.

@Xi:

…
I think the system we have gives people with initiative the opportunity to succeed beyond their wildest dreams. I’ve got dreams, too, but I have placed some of them a distant second to spending time with my wife and kids. I want them to know what a loving family is. That example is getting harder to find these days.

I think the major problem is that the "successful"ness of these wildest dreams often are totally incompatible with the loving family and spending time with family and friends.
To play the big game, you often have to show “flexibility” in where you work. This means that your wife, if she supports your desires, will not work, and you, your wife and your kids have to find new friends quite often.
A high price to pay.
And if it’s true, it might be one of the reasons why so many of the “rich” seem to be sociopaths (with socio more in the sense of society).

Except for the ‘Socio’ part, that’s a rewording of what I was saying.
I agree. But, success does not necessarily mean money and fame. That’s where a lot of TV/movie stars/models fail(,drugs, short marriage, kids, divorce, custody/financial fights, plastic surgery, liposuction, two-faced for audience approval, etc.). Then we have politicians who become contortionists to be elected(abortion, taxes, guns, national defense, UN, NATO, SEATO, NAFTA, minimum wage, healthcare, illegal aliens, etc.)

Often, the successful are those who stand by their convictions, even if they keep quiet about them(TV/movie stars/models, not politicians!

@Xi:

Except for the ‘Socio’ part, that’s a rewording of what I was saying.
… But, success does not necessarily mean money and fame.

Well, i think the daily definítion of success that is presented by the media et al. is mostly fame, wealth and good looks. What you define as success for yourself can be different, but that probably is not part of the public picture painted of “success”. And with the three above seen as success, we continue to bred people to follow those goals, as they want to be “successful”. It might look different if our society could implement another picture of “success”.

@waraxis:

The problem with the rich is that they only think short term. They seem not to care about the people they hurt over unfair job cuts, having things over priced, ruining the envoriment, and taking advatage of others. I don’t mean to say all rich are like this I’m just saying that people who do these things tend to be rich.

CEOs are always getting great deals when the leave a company, I wonder how many workers lose their jobs to cover those deals?? Any idea Deviant:Scripter.

two stupid things.

1. wealthy people get this way far more often by thinking long term. True, some of them do not care who they step over to get the money, but this does not make them worse than the poor, but rather in many cases just smarter, more far-sighted, and more able. I think that one day i may be wealthy. The ironic thing is that in my profession, the harder i work, the more people i will help, and the wealthier i will become. In fact, if i were to slack, i would make less money, help fewer people and be less useful.
2. i think that the workers in many cases would have lost their jobs anyway. But i agree with D:S - “hmmmm . . . Jerry is leaving next week. Let´s get rid of the Detroit plant to give him a good send off, eh?”