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.
I don't care about the rich. They make more than the poor and the middle class because they exploit their labor. In the 1959's under Ike, the millionaires paid 90% income tax and the economy was booming. Let them pay 90% again. In countries like Japan, CEO's used to have a cap on their wages based on the a salary of the lowest paid worker. When I worked we were given a 2-1/2% average raise one year while the CEO awarded himself a $60 million dollar bonus for the year, accumulated from the low raises given to 15,000 workers. You just don't get it. If incomes are unfair, then taxes should be unfair too. If the millionaires pay 90% that is fair, because they make hundreds of times more than we do for the same 40 hours or 60 hours of work. They are only successful because they keep the lions share for themselves.
I can only assume that you worked for a public company, and thus thee CEO didn't "give himself" a $60M bonus.
However, about 1/2 the idea of your post I can agree with. A privately-held company, it's the owner's money, and he can do whatever he/she wants with it. Our society/government wasn't better because the rich paid a ridiculously high marginal rate. It was better because the gap between boss and a 5 year frontline employee wasn't that huge. It was better because typically we had career and intergenerational employment ... white collar employees rarely changed companies; blue collar moved up the "assembly line" and pay scale, and often their children worked for the same company.
There used to be an ethos that the better the employees did, the better the company did...and it was justified by satisfied customers who would buy more or pay higher prices for a better overall experience.
I can only assume that you worked for a public company, and thus thee CEO didn't "give himself" a $60M bonus.
However, about 1/2 the idea of your post I can agree with. A privately-held company, it's the owner's money, and he can do whatever he/she wants with it. Our society/government wasn't better because the rich paid a ridiculously high marginal rate. It was better because the gap between boss and a 5 year frontline employee wasn't that huge. It was better because typically we had career and intergenerational employment ... white collar employees rarely changed companies; blue collar moved up the "assembly line" and pay scale, and often their children worked for the same company.
There used to be an ethos that the better the employees did, the better the company did...and it was justified by satisfied customers who would buy more or pay higher prices for a better overall experience.
I agree with all that. And yes it was a public company. The board of directors awarded the CEO the 60 million dollar bonus. Of course the CEO was also the Chairman of the Board.
I agree with all that. And yes it was a public company. The board of directors awarded the CEO the 60 million dollar bonus. Of course the CEO was also the Chairman of the Board.
A public company means it’s publicly-traded but still privately-owned.
A government owned company is truly publicly owned assuming it is a democratic government.
So the board of directors of a publicly traded company can do whatever they want.
Status:
"I've got a fightin' side a mile wide but I pray for peace"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Florida
14,630 posts, read 9,617,984 times
Reputation: 11689
The rich never paid 90% in the 50's ... the tax laws are designed to promote investments, spending or philanthropy. The rich pay a lot of tax but spend a lot more.
Are you somehow under the false impression that those who live in national health care countries never die from cancer and end up losing everything, anyway?
What other country has medical bankruptcies? As far as I'm aware, America's the only country among our peer Nations where people lose everything they've worked their entire life for paying for medical bills. I have not heard about this in any other country so if you have please share some of those stories.
What other country has medical bankruptcies? As far as I'm aware, America's the only country among our peer Nations where people lose everything they've worked their entire life for paying for medical bills. I have not heard about this in any other country so if you have please share some of those stories.
Please explain to me why other people must be forced to pay for your medical expenses.
Please explain to me why other people must be forced to pay for your medical expenses.
Answer the question you challenged first. In what other countries do citizens go through medical bankruptcies or lose their life savings paying for treatments?
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.