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.
That's irrelevant. CEOs shouldn't make 2,000 times more than their employees if you care about a vibrant economy.
1. How the CEOs getting paid is none of our business. They are not government officials but rather employees of private companies. That decision lays between the shareholders of the company and the said CEO.
2. A CEO can be paid anywhere between $0 to millions. Hell, I had been a CEO in some part of my life and I was never paid more than a few dollars a year. The highest paid CEOs are mostly working for multinational companies - think Fortune 500. The vast majority of CEOs don't get paid in millions - they are just white collar employees with a fancy title.
3. Should the CEOs working for big companies be paid that much? If I were a shareholder or employee of that company, I would think so. If that CEO doesn't do his or her job, I would be out of job or out of money. I frankly couldn't care less how much the CEO gets paid as long as I get paid. If I am not a shareholder, I'd better mind my own business before anybody tells me how I should or could do certain things.
4. Does a CEO working for a big company deserve to be paid in millions? Again, if I were a shareholder and I could get my promised return on my investment, hell yeah. I'd pay the CEO billions if that's what is going to take. It's an easy math. However, if I were not to get my share of return, I would fire his or her no matter how little the CEO is being paid.
5. Having said that, "CEOs shouldn't make 2,000 times more than their employees"? Well, are the employees managing a global company which thousands if not hundreds thousands other employees depend on? If not, why should they be paid any higher?
We've heard the tired old argument from the eat-the-rich crowd that the top income tax rate was 90%, but we still had a great economy. That, and how they just want to go back to the rates under Clinton, because the rich supposedly carried their weight back in the old days of higher marginal rates.
Do they really believe this because they don't understand how income taxes work, or are they purposely distorting how much of the tax burden was borne by higher income earners in the past?
It's time to put an end to the uninformed and/or disingenuous meme that the rich are somehow getting off easy these days.
Chart 3 is particularly interesting. It shows the percentages of income tax collected at the various marginal rates. As a percentage of total income taxes collected, the tax paid at the top rates today is higher than the tax paid at the top rates when the rates were as high as 90%.
If that's not enough, when tax rates were that much higher, the wealthy had loopholes/tax shelters that kept a great deal of income out of the hands of the IRS. It wasn't until the 80s, when Reagan lowered marginal rates, that the laws regarding tax shelters were reformed, so the wealthy could not so easily hide income from the tax man.
This idea that the rich actually paid a significant amount of income taxes at the 90% rate is nothing but class warfare propaganda.
When the 90% taxing came about, it was just after WWII, when this country was practically swimming in money. People had income, and a 90% tax rate didn't hurt like it would today. In fact, life was so good, the brats in the 60s had nothing to complain about, but that didn't stop them from pretending they had something to complain about, and we found ourselves surrounded by a bunch of skank hippies. And that's when things really started to go to hell in a hand basket.
When the 90% taxing came about, it was just after WWII, when this country was practically swimming in money. People had income, and a 90% tax rate didn't hurt like it would today. In fact, life was so good, the brats in the 60s had nothing to complain about, but that didn't stop them from pretending they had something to complain about, and we found ourselves surrounded by a bunch of skank hippies. And that's when things really started to go to hell in a hand basket.
Reagan was a movie star, during that period of being in the 90% tax bracket, yet he somehow managed to buy a nice home in Pacific Palisades and a ranch in the San Fernando valley, long before buying his ranch up near Santa Barbara.
Makes you wonder how he did it!!!
If I was taxed at 90% that's when I would lay off employees and close the doors. Anyone who thinks anyone would be willing to work for 10% is full of BS.
For those who complain expecting the producers to pay more, you need a reminder.
You could have all of the money in the world in 1900 and not be able to watch television, avoid polio, or lessened risk of dying from infection. You couldn’t fly anywhere in the world. You couldn’t pick up the phone and call family and friends, or, for that matter, hop onto Facetime and see them live.
Because of capitalism... people are encouraged to invent and produce, and by taking risks and if "SUCCESSFUL" they contribute to society. I'd say that capitalist have contributed to making our lives better with modern day conveniences and nice things yet the complainers want these people who already contribute to give more and more.
Why don’t people ever stop to think about the absolute riches and modern day convenience we have in our lives?
By the same token for those who complain about being poor or struggling in the middle class.
You could have all of the money in the world in 1900 and not be able to watch television, avoid polio, or dodge the risk of dying from infection if you cut yourself. You couldn’t fly anywhere in the world. You couldn’t pick up the phone and call family and friends, or, for that matter, hop onto Facetime and see them live.
Because of capitalism people are encouraged to invent and produce. Things because of capitalism, making your lives better. Why don’t people ever stop to think about the absolute riches we have in our lives?
Reminds me of a trip I took to Denver. A large group of liberal occupy bunch were protesting the "big evil corporations." Interestingly every single one of them was either wearing a shirt or watch, drinking soda or talking/texting on a cell phone, all of which are provided by the very big evil corporations.
Reminds me of a trip I took to Denver. A large group of liberal occupy bunch were protesting the "big evil corporations." Interestingly every single one of them was either wearing a shirt or watch, drinking soda or talking/texting on a cell phone, all of which are provided by the very big evil corporations.
Exactly. The cognitive disconnect is blatantly obvious among that crowd.
So someone who cannot work should left on the streets?
Please don't take things to the extreme. I don't believe even the hard core Tea Party bunch would think the people who can't work to be left on the street to die. Vast majority of us on the right would agree that we, as a whole, have some responsibility to take care even those lazy and unwilling people.
That is not to say there shouldn't be any restrictions or consequences. Personally I'd vote for welfare but the welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to vote, and if they have additional children, the children should be put into foster care upon birth.
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.
