U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 12:15 PM
 
2,030 posts, read 519,230 times
Reputation: 3230

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
The self serving is the people who can only see the transaction from one side. They want to boost everyone’s income but don’t realize there’s a cost on the other side.
Nope. Missing the point entirely.

I am neither arguing for this stupid tax (see comments about the fruitcake zones of California; I know them well) nor for some vague, ignorant increase in everyone's pay.

Imbalance in wealth is destroying us, contributed to by imbalance in compensation. Not just weepy socialist "he makes more than me" imbalance, but gross, insane, out of control imbalance.

Those that defend the situation on any tired form of the "worth" argument are, IMHO and IME, so deeply indoctrinated in the prevailing mythos as to be unreachable. I'm not going to argue back and forth from your old Econ 101 textbook any more than I do with our pal M. Vaya con Mammón, amigos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 12:22 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 2,257,353 times
Reputation: 8049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
Nope. Missing the point entirely.

I am neither arguing for this stupid tax (see comments about the fruitcake zones of California; I know them well) nor for some vague, ignorant increase in everyone's pay.

Imbalance in wealth is destroying us, contributed to by imbalance in compensation. Not just weepy socialist "he makes more than me" imbalance, but gross, insane, out of control imbalance.

Those that defend the situation on any tired form of the "worth" argument are, IMHO and IME, so deeply indoctrinated in the prevailing mythos as to be unreachable. I'm not going to argue back and forth from your old Econ 101 textbook any more than I do with our pal M. Vaya con Mammón, amigos.
Maybe I think it’s not the imbalance of wealth that’s the problem, but the mindset that people are entitled to a certain amount of the wealth or any wealth without providing value and securing it for themselves.

But sure. You won’t argue with the textbook, but you’ll accept the garbage that people should get more because...hey they want more. But not enough to do anything to get it beyond simply looking in envy at what others have and saying, some of that should be mine.

And hey if we don’t get what we want, we’re going to cause destruction and trample all over the property rights of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:46 PM
 
2,030 posts, read 519,230 times
Reputation: 3230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
Maybe I think it’s not the imbalance of wealth that’s the problem, but the mindset that people are entitled to a certain amount of the wealth or any wealth without providing value and securing it for themselves.
Disagree. This is how the 0.25% lulls themselves to sleep at night, believing that everyone else is just greedy.

Quote:
But sure. You won’t argue with the textbook...
Let's come back to that.

Quote:
...but you’ll accept the garbage that people should get more because...hey they want more.
I'm not sure whose posts you're reading, but none of this has anything to do with anything I've written, on C-D or in more serious venues. You're not helping your canned argument by assuming it's just the same old rusty can you think you've heard somewhere else.

As for the textbook, I long ago moved past the catechism of Econ 101 and when someone argues from those pages as if it's holy writ, I will make a few attempts to knock them off the rail and then just move on. It's an indoctrination of concocted ideas that deeply suits those who believe it... because it benefits them. Just like those devout Catholics who are sure they are in a perfect state of grace, living their lives according to the rules they were taught at 13.

When you can move past the idea that economics is in any way a science and that it consists entirely of making up postulates that kinda-semi-sorta explain the whims of human behavior (as it relates to self-preservation, mostly), and then creating closed loops of logic using those postulates, you might be able to find the doorknob. If, on the other hand, the endless precision of the accounting component lulls you into believing that the let's-pretend side is equally rigorous... well, 'scusa me for stepping on your halo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:53 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 2,257,353 times
Reputation: 8049
No gods or king only man.

If you’re too important to put forth an argument, then there’s nothing to discuss anyways. It’s like a pub911 clone. Talk down to everyone and than offer nothing while making it known you can’t be bothered to come down from the lofty height to engage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:56 PM
 
2,030 posts, read 519,230 times
Reputation: 3230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
If you’re too important to put forth an argument, then there’s nothing to discuss anyways.
I put forth my arguments, at length and in multiple threads.

When the return is a canned, rote piece of econ dogma, I move on. Especially if it's repeated despite multiple suggestions there are other viewpoints. I stopped trying to convert the true believers long ago; there are many with more open, flexible minds to engage.

ETA: and even more so when someone insists on misreading what I've written or lumping me in with other general opinions they don't happen to like. I'll argue my words with someone who has evidently read them; I am not going to argue with your Econ 101 professor or ideas other people have troubled you with.

Last edited by Therblig; Yesterday at 01:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:34 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
3,898 posts, read 1,029,629 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
And reminded that any statement boiling down to "it's just common sense" really means "but that's the way I was indoctrinated to think!" Your username does not help your case, here, either.
My 'case' for what? That a negotiated salary between two parties is its value, plain and simple. It's not up to you to decide what executives are 'overpaid', though you've clearly been indoctrinated to believe otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:55 PM
 
4,538 posts, read 3,912,073 times
Reputation: 10799
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Point being - as proposed, they must pay their CEO or their highest-earning employee at least 100 times (to 1000 times) the median salary of its SF workers (which logically, in and of itself, would eliminate most small business, as I explained in my post #25). It's clear this proposed 'surcharge' is targeting tech giants - even without examining specific details/exemptions. The $1.17m in annual gross receipts is simply a minimum in order to qualify before anything else comes into play.
Publicly traded corporations often reward their top officers in stock shares rather than, or in conjunction with, cash.

The chairman of Amazon, for example, makes $81,800 salary. Almost all of his wealth is in his shares of Amazon. Every year, he liquidates about $1 billion in stocks mostly to fund his Blue Origin space company.

Technically, he does get another $1.6m in compensation, bonuses or profit sharing or some such, so possibly Amazon might fall under this law, were it located in SF (it's not). But they would have to use some very convoluted language in the legislation. And, of course, smart companies will simply structure the compensation to evade this tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:47 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
3,898 posts, read 1,029,629 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
Publicly traded corporations often reward their top officers in stock shares rather than, or in conjunction with, cash.

But they would have to use some very convoluted language in the legislation. And, of course, smart companies will simply structure the compensation to evade this tax.
They can't structure compensation to 'evade' the tax; as it is currently proposed, it includes all wages and compensation i.e. bonuses, stock options, property and anything exchanged for services (and there are other benefits to do so beyond this potential surcharge/tax). That said, absolutely there are ways to navigate to reap the most benefit - though evasion isn't likely, especially in terms of top CEO's who may earn 1000 times the median compensation of their SF workers.

Since it's a progressive tax, however, there are certainly ways to lessen its impact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Riverside Ca
20,903 posts, read 23,305,008 times
Reputation: 32221
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
The last sentence aside......let's for sure hope CA does not slide into the pacific.

Your words would mean more if CA didn't have so many seemingly intractable problems. Like horrible GINI coefficients per the big cities and the state, woeful poverty numbers - worst in the country by a good bit and a considerable number of existing economic refugees.

_________________

All this matters because legions of people leave CA to escape the costs but they tend to bring the politics that drove much of the high costs with them.
Considering most Californians come from other states then become Californians then move elsewhere your argument is moot. The same thing happening to other states now happened to california a long time ago.

I suggest people stop selling their houses to Californians. But I bet they don’t. Because ultimately money talks. You’re telling me Californians moving to other states just up and are able to completely change laws? Don’t you people vote? If there are that many Californians moving to other states to just take over like that......give me a break. There aren’t enough people to do that of everyone on california moved. Californians aren’t the Borg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:40 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 2,257,353 times
Reputation: 8049
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
Publicly traded corporations often reward their top officers in stock shares rather than, or in conjunction with, cash.

The chairman of Amazon, for example, makes $81,800 salary. Almost all of his wealth is in his shares of Amazon. Every year, he liquidates about $1 billion in stocks mostly to fund his Blue Origin space company.

Technically, he does get another $1.6m in compensation, bonuses or profit sharing or some such, so possibly Amazon might fall under this law, were it located in SF (it's not). But they would have to use some very convoluted language in the legislation. And, of course, smart companies will simply structure the compensation to evade this tax.
For federal income tax, the new section 162(m) under TCJA eliminates the deduction for compensation on covered employees that make over 1 million in compensation. This includes deferred compensation. In other words, it’s a permanent book to tax difference and these deductions are lost forever to the corporation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top