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.
Semantics...both moral and ethical behavior are "optional" though some might consider bits of it to be "customary". Optional/customary are obviously not legally obligated.
It’s not semantics; there is a distinction, particularly as it relates to business. Morality is personal (and may be cultural or religious) whereas ethical standards are (enforced) guidelines of behavior/a code of conduct relative to employment and professional positions i.e. lawyers, doctors, dentists, therapists, teachers and so on.
When you use the word ‘customary’, it’s as if you’re somehow confusing (business) ethics with social niceties or tradition. Point being, ethical behavior relative to a business or professional environment often intersects with the law and/or exposes one to liability and/or loss of a license. It’s not relative to personal morality (nor an issue of semantics). As such, it is not ‘optional’ (although some folks, such as yourself, surprisingly think so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
I'm not naive but I can still have an opinion that CEO compensation in largely inflated by a bunch of yes-men propping each other up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
Personal bias is not at issue here.
Sure it is; have you read some of the posts - including your own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
And I'm a person who is hollering. Not that their salaries be determined by the government but that their effective tax rate be.
Yeah, holler all you want about what you want. I’m just amused by your focus on c-suite executives’ salary/compensation; hence my point it’s an issue of taxation, as a whole, as opposed to a cap on personal income/wealth, per the thread - at least from my perspective.
No. Why no? Because trillions won't be enough. Eventually someone will decide owners of real estate like myself (I'm worth maybe 4.5 million) should be targeted.
I worked very hard and took the financial risks needed to get to where I am today. I'm not about to give away anything to anybody.
No matter how "deserving" they think they are
Well stated and agreed. The simple fact is everyone has an opportunity in this country to make something of themselves or invest. For example, I invest in an index fund, anyone can do this even with $1. If it goes down no one is giving me handouts, but if it goes up to 7 figures during a bull market I'm supposed to give it away? No thanks, I took the risk so I will take the reward.
It’s not semantics; there is a distinction, particularly as it relates to business. Morality is personal (and may be cultural or religious) whereas ethical standards are (enforced) guidelines of behavior/a code of conduct relative to employment and professional positions i.e. lawyers, doctors, dentists, therapists, teachers and so on.
When you use the word ‘customary’, it’s as if you’re somehow confusing (business) ethics with social niceties or tradition. Point being, ethical behavior relative to a business or professional environment often intersects with the law and/or exposes one to liability and/or loss of a license. It’s not relative to personal morality (nor an issue of semantics). As such, it is not ‘optional’ (although some folks, such as yourself, surprisingly think so).
Sure it is; have you read some of the posts - including your own?
Yeah, holler all you want about what you want. I’m just amused by your focus on c-suite executives’ salary/compensation; hence my point it’s an issue of taxation, as a whole, as opposed to a cap on personal income/wealth, per the thread - at least from my perspective.
There is definitely a semantics issue here, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. Language has never been a perfect avenue of communication.
I think their point was, corporations and people that control them absolutely are willing to risk others' life and limb, enslave people, start wars etc. as long as it falls under "business ethics", which you need to properly define. The only example you came close to giving was shielding oneself (the corporation) from legal liability. I see it as a set of social/behavior norms and expectations, which is entirely malleable and either based in utility or morals. Per my reading comprehension, you define business ethics as not necessarily moral and potentially 100% amoral. I believe that was their basic point, that corporations are essentially utilitarian (long and short-term profit-seeking) regardless of the effect on living beings or their environment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Not a limit on earnings, but a "consciousness" tax, say one or two percent of earnings over x-million. If every person on earth had the basics; a place to sleep, decent health care, enough to eat, war would cease to exist. A person who can't feed their children is ripe for revolution.
There is definitely a semantics issue here, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. Language has never been a perfect avenue of communication.
From my perspective, the language is very clear; (professional/legal/business) ethics vs. morality is not an issue of semantics nor is it ‘optional’, per Renee63. Consider The California Rules of Professional Conduct to regulate the professional behavior of attorneys licensed by the State Bar (as a way to protect the public); it is not an attempt to control our morality/personal lives. That said, I wouldn’t call any of them ‘optional’ or use the word ‘customary’, either. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMW R1100
A person who can't feed their children is ripe for revolution.
Why not address the issues/programs relative to such rather than be blackmailed/motivated by a threat of violence.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 12-27-2022 at 01:31 PM..
Throughout human history, we see a repeating pattern, that when wealth and power become too concentrated, society eventually becomes unstable and often the result is that the masses are left with no way to regain a decent life except by overthrowing the ruling class.
In order to prevent this from happening, some safeguards could be put into place, such as a "Prohibition on Trillionaires". It has not happened yet, but more than one person has had a net worth in the 12-figure range for some time now. Before anyone manages to become a trillionaire, a legal structure could be created in order to stabilize society by limiting wealth.
For instance, it could be made unlawful to be a trillionaire, with the limit being automatically adjusted for inflation going forward. The fine would be $250 billion per offense, with each calendar quarter resulting in a new violation until such time as the individual is in compliance. The fine would be raised to $500 billion if the individual is found to be attempting to conceal substantial assets overseas and failing to report them. Repeated asset concealments would result in mandatory prison time or a revocation of citizenship followed by deportation to the host country. (All dollar amounts in this paragraph should be auto-adjusted for inflation going forward.)
The USA could take the initiative to try this, for example, hoping that the movement would catch on internationally, in order to make it impossible to evade. Would you support a Constitutional amendment that prohibits trillionaires, in order to stabilize society against the types of events that belong in the history books?
No. I wouldn't support that.
But I would support a constitutional amendment that forbids congress from budgeting more money than it takes in each year in taxes, more than two years in a row. If they want to spend more money than they take in beyond two years, they would be forced to either raise taxes on ALL brackets proportionally until the deficit was covered or reduce the budget or whatever other means would eliminate the deficit.
If every person on earth had the basics; a place to sleep, decent health care, enough to eat, war would cease to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
That's not true at all. Lots of wars start for reasons other than poverty and famine in a country.
Yeah, and the thread/debate is about a wealth limit in this country, anyway - not necessarily regarding specific legislation or proposals for change relative to anti-poverty policies and programs. Obviously, it’s a different subject entirely i.e. would anyone be ‘for’ starving kids?
Point being, it does not require a (radical) wealth cap to address such.
If every person on earth had the basics; a place to sleep, decent health care, enough to eat, war would cease to exist.
What you define as the "basics" are highly subjective with varying degrees of quality. What about internet access? Transportation? Education? Safe neighborhood? Income? Economic opportunity? Social mobility? Again, there are varying degrees of quality to every aspect of society and not enough resources to fulfill everyone's subjective wish of what they believe are the basics. Also known as scarcity.
Quote:
In economics, scarcity "refers to the basic fact of life that there exists only a finite amount of human and nonhuman resources which the best technical knowledge is capable of using to produce only limited maximum amounts of each economic good."
Quote:
If the conditions of scarcity didn't exist and an "infinite amount of every good could be produced or human wants fully satisfied ... there would be no economic goods, i.e. goods that are relatively scarce..."
Not a limit on earnings, but a "consciousness" tax, say one or two percent of earnings over x-million. If every person on earth had the basics; a place to sleep, decent health care, enough to eat, war would cease to exist. A person who can't feed their children is ripe for revolution.
If people had wings and could breathe underwater, we'd be able to use 100 percent of the earth's available living space. It's a goal worth achieving if we can just work towards it.
A person who can't feed their children is ripe for revolution. And, after the revolution, the revolutionaries find that malnutrition and the occasional famine is PERFECT for keeping the masses in line. And meager rewards are PERFECT for ensuring loyalty - because they seem like abundance compared to what the masses are getting. AS LONG AS the revolutionaries are careful to invent enemies to blame for the famine, they can keep the scam going for a couple of generations.
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.
