Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? In most states, rental property is taxed at higher rates than owner-occupied homes. So landlords and tenants pay for irresponsible owner-occupant homeowners?
That's simply a lie. There are 12 states that have some sort of homestead tax. That's not "most".
Landlords are asking to be paid more than they are worth, and they can pull it off because their friends in government keep the supply of housing artificially low.
How do you get to decide what they are "worth"? Because you have a pathological envy of anyone that has made a success of themselves? And you strive to tear down people that have succeeded, rather than build yourself up?
You should read your links. This statement appears in the equilar link and a similar statement in all other links:
"In the U.S., compensation practices have evolved to heavily favor equity, displayed by the fact that more than 60% of the average pay mix for U.S. CEOs in the study came from either stock or options, with the inverse being true for companies based outside the U.S."
In other words, the issue is the pay mix, not the level of pay. By US companies leaning so heavily towards equity, a strong stock year with many large mergers (fy2015 was an all time record year for mergers in both count and volume) will result in skyrocketing pay for CEOs in the US. This is particular true because the largest equity pools and largest capitalized companies are in the US, so cash and stock mergers have a dramatic impact on CEO pay here. Another market crash year like 2008 and you will see these charts flip. (Also, since many of the countries have state-owned major corporations, the CEOs make enormous parts of their pay in non-compensation benefits like lavish state-owned mansions.)
Incidentally, this is also in response to our tax laws. The US has piled on corporate taxes in recent years, but equity awards for CEO still remain fully deductible. So, boards use equity to pay their CEOs, unlike other countries. (But the practice is rapidly being copied.)
There is no mandate regarding CEO compensation, but I am suggesting that mandating a more reasonable ratio of CEO to worker pay would result in raising workers pay or reducing CEO pay, or maybe doing both. It's not been tried so I don't know if it is "illegal" it would certainly require legislation to implement it- or another way to accomplish it would be make tax breaks to corporations contingent on their maintaining a reasonable ratio of CEO salary to worker pay
It would result in CEOs being paid in ways that do not count towards the ratio.
The same reason landlords should get an arbitrary raise every time they raise the rent?
Landlords have a choice. Something mandatory minimum wage takes away from a business owner. A landlord could only increase rent as far as the market would bear. Why do you insist that a business owner not be allowed to play by the same rules? I'll tell you why: Greed+Laziness
We all know that's a bunch of non-sense in the real world, for example boomers walked out of high school with no marketable skills straight into a well paid living-wage job that allowed them to quickly buy a house, start a family, buy a couple new cars, etc..... all with no college degree. These days a millennial has to do 4-12 years of college just for the chance to do the same.
It's all about cronyism and "who you know" these days, meritocracy is largely dead. I've ran across people that had no specific "skills" to speak of, yet commanded high salaries and fancy job titles simply because they had connections or friends in high places. "Skills" count for nothing against socially savvy/connected job candidates.
CLEARLY delusional about what life was like when boomers entered the workplace. Starter homes, cooking at home, owning one car - something millennials have stated they will never settle for.
Landlords have a choice. Something mandatory minimum wage takes away from a business owner. A landlord could only increase rent as far as the market would bear. Why do you insist that a business owner not be allowed to play by the same rules? I'll tell you why: Greed+Laziness
CLEARLY delusional about what life was like when boomers entered the workplace. Starter homes, cooking at home, owning one car - something millennials have stated they will never settle for.
B.S. Perhaps this should be another thread topic, but Boomers completely screwed the generations that followed. Since our president can post memes i'll post some.
B.S. Perhaps this should be another thread topic, but Boomers completely screwed the generations that followed. Since our president can post memes i'll post some.
How did Boomers screw anyone?
By being responsible?
By working hard for what they wanted instead of crying about how life isn't fair and expecting to have it handed to them?
You get paid according to your specific skill, knowledge and performance, not a fake economy (min wage, unions) because you can't afford to buy a house and new car working as a burger flipper.
This entire argument about getting paid what you are worth is silly, you get paid as little as the employer can get away with for McDonald's in California that's $10.50, in Missouri it's $7.25.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
