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.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I don't want to limit people's ability to learn. What does that even mean?
if you don't know what it means why are you commenting?
I'm not putting words in anyones mouth. You are the one who wants to limit individuals earning power, not me. You just said you don't want to pay and based it on your definition of what bonus means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Scates
So you are saying that "oh our company just layed off 18,000 workers this year. Great job CEO you get 4 mil from the Federal subsidies for our failing company.
lmao I gave an example in my previous post.
You don't go far enough with the topic. IF you said I was FORCED to make an educated guess if that company was a failure or a success right now, I'd lean to failure but it would be a bit reckless to say so. Since when is laying off 18000 workers in a year equated with a failing company? The bottom line tells you if a company is failing AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. A company can have losses in a year in order to set themselves up to make a profit in the future. Nothing wrong with a plan that looses a dollar in year one in order to make 10 dollars in year two. You can have a situation when a company looses money through accounting changes.
If you want to talk about Federal subsides that's another issue. I don't believe in government subsidizing any business. That's anti competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Scates
"Bonus pay is compensation over and above the amount of pay specified as a base salary or hourly rate of pay"
Like I said. That is your definition. Doesn't mean it's true. The word bonus is not always about YOUR definition. If it is dealing directly with YOU as an individual in YOUR job and YOU want it to mean that sure it is then. Take a gander at the NFL and signing bonuses. It means guaranteed money to them. The purpose of the team for doing that could be to avoid a salary cap or pay less taxes.
What you've done is worked backwards and focused on the word. Like I pointed out in my previous post, its just wording. You have no problem with someone making 100k a year in a job that didn't go well but you do have a problem with that person making 50k and a 50k bonus for doing the same job. Who cares. The focus for a company concerned about wages is if the total compensation paid out was worth it. Doesn't matter how its done. Be it through bonuses or wages or benefits.
I see what you are saying but bonuses are not paid out to reward immediate "success" all the time.
Why not just git rid of bonuses altogether? Have a base salary for the year and stick to it.
Its pointless complaining about a $1 mil salary and then a $9 mil bonus, plus endless stock options. They will always find ways to work around base salary.
Just give the guy his $10 mil and put it on the books. It looks a lot less shady that way, and we can all see where the money goes/comes from.
For the most part, if I was a consumer I wouldn't care much. If I was a stockholder I would want to know how much the head people get compensated. They love their golden parachutes.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Scates
so you support corporate welfare? even if the corporation is nowhere near solvent?
You see the right refers to corporate welfare as an 'investment', it only becomes welfare, entitlement, SOCIALISM!, handouts, etc. when it goes to an individual
You see the right refers to corporate welfare as an 'investment', it only becomes welfare, entitlement, SOCIALISM!, handouts, etc. when it goes to an individual
You cant even state the position of the right, and then you try to argue against your made up definition..
Corporate welfare is TAXPAYER funded money going into corporations.
Corporations laying people off, thereby boosting their net profit is NOT corporate welfare.. NO TAXPAYER money is being used in the examples being provided.
The real question is, why do you liberals think you can force a company to employe people?
Please... laying people off earning the owners of the company more money, isnt corporate welfare.
So you support taking 24 million from the federal government in corporate bail outs, not being able to turn a profit and having to lay off 18k workers and then giving the ceo a 4mil bonus for all his "hard work"?
You cant even state the position of the right, and then you try to argue against your made up definition..
Corporate welfare is TAXPAYER funded money going into corporations.
Corporations laying people off, thereby boosting their net profit is NOT corporate welfare.. NO TAXPAYER money is being used in the examples being provided.
The real question is, why do you liberals think you can force a company to employe people?
I agree. Layoffs are better than corporate welfare. However, not when those layoffs are to make way for offshoring.
We need to deal with that problem. We need to level the playing field for companies that hire Americans. Offshoring should not be thought of a shrewd business move. It should be penalized, not rewarded.
Unless of course you wish to see the United States fail completely, which is right where we're headed if this keeps up.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You cant even state the position of the right, and then you try to argue against your made up definition..
Corporate welfare is TAXPAYER funded money going into corporations.
Corporations laying people off, thereby boosting their net profit is NOT corporate welfare.. NO TAXPAYER money is being used in the examples being provided.
The real question is, why do you liberals think you can force a company to employe people?
BULL! Giving tax breaks to corporations funded by taxpayers who get no such breaks is NO DIFFERENT than "TAXPAYER funded money going into corporations" so spare me the usual right wing BS doubletalk.
The real question I have is why do people worship corporations while being perfectly willing to spit on individuals?
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.
, handouts, etc. when it goes to an individual 
