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.
One idea that Germany had was to give equivalent of $3,000 vouchers towards purchase of new cars for people getting getting rid of old cars, even if they were non running rustbuckets. The car companies could clear their inventory,and get cleaner , more efficient cars on the road.
Instead, we give them a bail out and 47,000 workers are laid off.
That's more money in one year than most of us will see or even need in a flipping lifetime. IT's excessive.
So?
Let me ask you this; and I hope you will give an honest answer TM: Would you support a government established limitation / cap on the total amount of money any American can earn per year?
Let me ask you this; and I hope you will give an honest answer TM: Would you support a government established limitation / cap on the total amount of money any American can earn per year?
I am not TM, but here is my answer: not everything has to be legislated.
Corporations and sports clubs have to get down to earth and stop paying these ridiculous compensations. Not because of legislation, but because paying that much money to an individual is not in their best interest. Board of directors have to be responsible and curb this practice that nobody (except the CEO or athlete) benefits from.
However, that by itself isn't going to fix our economy, but it's a symbolic move in the right direction.
I am not TM, but here is my answer: not everything has to be legislated.
Corporations and sports clubs have to get down to earth and stop paying these ridiculous compensations. Not because of legislation, but because paying that much money to an individual is not in their best interest. Board of directors have to be responsible and curb this practice that nobody (except the CEO or athlete) benefits from.
The point being - if someone (i.e. Athlete) can ask for, and recieve whatever the $$$ figure is - there is absolutely no reason IMO why they should not be paid that much.
And, why would you state that the compensation these athletes get is "ridiculous"?
The government should not interfere with compensation paid to anyone.
The point being - if someone (i.e. Athlete) can ask for, and recieve whatever the $$$ figure is - there is absolutely no reason IMO why they should not be paid that much.
And, why would you state that the compensation these athletes get is "ridiculous"?
The government should not interfere with compensation paid to anyone.
I still await TM's response though.
My answer.. is in some cases YES..
Like when these CEO's drive the company to Bankruptcy tanking the economy and then come crawling on their knees looking for tax payers money.. sorry..I don't need to subsidize your excessive lifestyle.
Yes.. when a company complains about giving health benefits to it's employees.. yet pays one of it's employees an OBSCENE salary in comparison.. just go back to the quote I provided on the difference between the average worker and a CEO.
YES.. like in the case of Health insurance companies when the amount I need to pay in premiums needs to go cover that greedy SOB CEO'S excessive salary...
Yes.. in some cases yes.
And what the hell is the matter with the board members on these corporations allowing these CEO's to make such ridiculous amounts of money!!
Yes, Yes, Yes.. in certain circumstances YES!!
I like that CEO's of companies getting gov't money can make no more than 500K a year!!
YES YES YES.. when the company is tanking, and those same companies are laying off workers yet their CEO who TANKED them still gets his freakin ridiculous salary AND his ridiculous bonus.. Yes.. the gov't should protect the workers from being ousted so that one man can have the entire damned pie! (so to speak)
Cause apparently the board members are a rich boy/girl circle jerk standing around stroking each other and awarding each other these outrageous salaries while the rest of middle american has seen their incomes DECREASE.. while the price of all those goods from those companies INCREASE just to keep that CEO in his ridiculous salary.
one man does not make a company.. and without it's employees that CEO would be standing on the street corner with a coffee cup. I think a lot of them have forgotten that.
Here is a simpler way to fix the economy: the answer is "pork," but not as much pork as Bush, Obama, and Congress have created. This figure has already reached over $1-trillion, I believe. So, all Bush, Obama, and Congress had to do was to arrange for every American to receive $1-million, tax free. The total pork would have been a figure between 300 and 400-million, not a trillion as it is now.
This way home owners (not the super rich of course) could have paid their mortgages, and bought a car or two, killing two birds with one stone: the housing problem, and the automobile industry problem.
Heres a better idea: Tell "W" to get back the about $800 billion he gave directly to Iraq when this country will never be a friend or democracy, get the money back that we gave to the banks and instead of the salary cap money going to smaller market teams if they go over,let it go directly to that states funds. We bailed out the banks now guess what they're going to do? They'll be more strict with lending which means less money going into banks.What they should have done was give the money directly to every family in the U.S. which based on my numbers (not exact) would be over $200k per family. Most would have paid bills,mortgages,bought food, clothing,cars and guess what...all industries would have had money coming in.The next step now is to rebuild relations with the world (previously messed up by "W") so we can once again open up trade.
Here is a better idea...live within your means. If this age old lesson were followed I bet we would not be in the situation we are in.
Crazy talk I know but, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. I thank my parents every day for instilling this way of life in me my whole life.
Great answer and like I said before if we gave the money straight to the people most would pay bills but many would just splurge.Some people will never learn and that we unfortunately have to accept.
The point being - if someone (i.e. Athlete) can ask for, and recieve whatever the $$$ figure is - there is absolutely no reason IMO why they should not be paid that much.
And, why would you state that the compensation these athletes get is "ridiculous"?
The government should not interfere with compensation paid to anyone.
I still await TM's response though.
The compensation is ridiculous cause:
1) Nobody is worth $278M or $100m or even $50. Nobody.
2) It creates social distortion and has implications more severe then evident at first glance.
3) Creating a society of extremely rich vs poor is a danger to democracy. There is no democratic society in the world with that mix. A strong middle class is the foundation of democracy.
I am not TM, but here is my answer: not everything has to be legislated.
Corporations and sports clubs have to get down to earth and stop paying these ridiculous compensations. Not because of legislation, but because paying that much money to an individual is not in their best interest. Board of directors have to be responsible and curb this practice that nobody (except the CEO or athlete) benefits from.
However, that by itself isn't going to fix our economy, but it's a symbolic move in the right direction.
Why should a corporation not pay CEO's, and workers the highest wages it can afford?
See, think of a corporation this way: your own small company (a donut shop, for example). There is a person in the shop who is an outstanding baker, supervisor, and best of all, he or she makes a huge difference in the sale of donuts. Without this person, the sales of donuts are a loss to you. Would you pay that person a high salary to prevent the person from moving to another donut shop that competes with yours, or would you let tis person go?
In a socialist nation, the government controls most of the private sector's business, from banks, to donut shops. For a good example, look at the Venezuela of today, where Chavez controls the banking industry, news media, etc.
A company or corporation has shareholders, and these are the ones who decide if they want to invest on a CEO that can increase earnings (their shares). If a CEO doesn't cut it, then he is replaced with one who does. If the shareholders agree to pay the CEO too much money, the company's revenues drop. It's not the government's business to tell a private company how much the shareholders should pay their CEO's.
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.
