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.
Raising taxes on businesses = higher prices and job cuts
Are you good with that?
That's the thing. Whenever people talk about cheap labor, they mention how without it, you would have to pay more. No, if the already rich executives running the company wouldn't take so much, you could have it both ways. People could get paid, and the price of an iPhone wouldn't have to be ridiculously high. It could work here...
Then you're advocating a tax cut for the top 1%. They own less of the wealth than the percentage of the taxes they pay.
yeah, we're going around in circles about this. i dispute your "facts," plain and simple. if you want to provide a source i'd be happy to look at it and possibly change my mind.
if i remember correctly, you posted something about income and called it wealth, you were called on it, and you never answered.
i dispute your "facts," plain and simple. if you want to provide a source i'd be happy to look at it and possibly change my mind.
if i remember correctly, you posted something about income and called it wealth, you were called on it, and you never answered.
Here are the answers. Easy to find the info, so I'm not sure why you couldn't do it yourself.
The top 1% owns 34.6% of the wealth, but pays 38.02% of the federal income taxes.
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Furthermore, the 38.02% of federal income taxes the top 1% pays is nearly TWICE that of their share of the income which is 20%.
Note that it's an INCOME tax, not a wealth tax. Wealth is the accumulation of income that has already been taxed, and investments whose gains have not yet been realized (in other words, still at work in the economy creating jobs, etc.).
What you advocate, "equal to the share," would necessitate a tax cut for the top 1%. They earn 20% of the income but pay 38.02% of the federal income tax revenue.
No, if the already rich executives running the company wouldn't take so much, you could have it both ways. People could get paid, and the price of an iPhone wouldn't have to be ridiculously high. It could work here...
What business school did you go to come up with that idea? Do you know how much research and development went into the iPhone and other similar products? Once they are "perfected" then parts tooling. A single plastic injection mold can be upwards of $50,000.
Since you brought up the iPhone, Steve Jobs makes a salary of $1 per year. If his decisions about the direction of the company are profitable, then he and millions of other stock holders increase their wealth. If his decisions are wrong, the wealth disappears. It's up to the stock holders to buy low and sell high to profit.
The highest compensated CEO is #1 Stephen J Hemsley - Forbes.com . He made a little over $3M in salary and bonuses. The majority of the compensation comes from the stock price increasing. He has a vested interest in the company he is running. Like other executives, those are really just options so he can't run up the price and cash out. He has to keep the company profitable for 2, 3, 5 or 10 years before he can exercise those options.
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.
poor analogy
