vision-master wrote:I see, you are not poor.
an you despise us too....
It makes sense that the wealthy class would support becoming even wealthier! Except Warren Buffett, of course, who seems to have a conscience.
vision-master wrote:I see, you are not poor.
an you despise us too....
Pops wrote:And I guess that's your point, right? Having money and getting a break is morally superior to being hard up and getting one?
dsula wrote:Ludi wrote: What mechanism do the TeaParty have in mind to redistribute wealth downward?
If you're poor you don't pay taxes, you get tons of benefits, and are allowed to use the infrastructure (school, police, roads, army, etc.). Looks to me there's plenty of 'downward' redistribution going on already. What is it again? The top 5% carry 50% of the tax burden?
KingM wrote:Then there is a parasitic group on top that sucks up the productive wealth by extracting rents and other value transference from the people actually producing. They are far smaller in number, but far more efficient.
Lore wrote:The disparity is not between the rich and the poor, that has always been a wide gap, but between the wealthy and the middle class.
Ludi wrote:vision-master wrote:I see, you are not poor.
an you despise us too....
It makes sense that the wealthy class would support becoming even wealthier! Except Warren Buffett, of course, who seems to have a conscience.
dsula wrote:And I understand that there are high earners out there that deserve it.
LinkA chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 index company was paid, on average, $9.25 million in total compensation in 2009.
During the postwar boom, pay for U.S. CEOs remained fairly steady in real dollars until the 1970s. But under new tax policies, the 1980s saw the rise of stock options. Intended to tie executive pay to performance, they offered the potential for huge riches with little downside, encouraging risk-taking. In 1991, CEOs earned 140 times the average worker's pay. A 1993 attempt to cap compensation merely shifted more pay into options. By 2007 the median S&P 500 CEO earned in three hours what a minimum-wage worker pulled down in a year. And Great Recession or no, 2009 looks like more of the same.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z16Dgj8jdz
vision-master wrote:an the weathly has convinced you it's bc of all those poor losers who don't pay taxes.
Pops wrote:What makes people upset is stuff like this:LinkA chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 index company was paid, on average, $9.25 million in total compensation in 2009.
Pops wrote:
I mean I don't have anything against an orthopedist making $250k or a plumber either for that matter.
dsula wrote:I agree, but that's the exception. Small and medium size companies are the norm, maybe even owner operated. They deserve what the earn. Even if it's millions.
To solve your big company problem you don't have to tax at an insane level. Much better is to break up companies. Limit the size to a few 1000 employees, or limit their value. That's what solves the problem much better than high taxes.
deMolay wrote:As usual no body would answer the question. Especially Ludi. Just saying.
vision-master wrote:Tell us what happens?
vision-master wrote:Tell us what happens?
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests