If someone works hard to get to the top of a company, why should they be forced to give half or more of their wages away? What incentive would that give them to work hard and make it to that position?
Theone, if the ceo makes that much, why is it the government's job to do something about it? Shouldn't that be something that individual companies deal with, since it's their employees, not the government's?
And morebacon, right now, the top 1% pays nearly half of their income to taxes. However, I don't know much about cuts they receive, can you tell me about those? The middle and lower classes contribute between 2-15% of their income to taxes. I don't see how we're getting screwed with such an obvious graduated tax.
7
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
Could someone explain to me why someone making proportionally more money then another person matters? Theone, you state 400x more is unfair. But if the line level employee is making a living wage or earning enough to meet their obligations, why does it matter what someone else is making doing a different job? Serious question.
Wages should be proportional to the job someone is doing and the worth they bring to the company. I agree that the CEO brings a lot of added value, but is he really worth 400x more? This is something which is customary to the US and probably China as well. In my country the average is about 20x, which seems rather fair.
Pixie, the 1% have the power to move money around to avoid being taxed for it. I'm not saying all of them are doing it, but putting millions in offshore accounts or "charitable donations" keeps the money from being taxed.
Okay, here's how you reduce the amount of taxes being evaded: you reduce the taxes here. The Laffer Curve shows that in some cases, lowering taxes can actually increase overall tax revenue. The reason that people and companies move money offshore is because the corporate taxes and taxes on interest and income are high, which decimates savings and profits. By reducing taxes, the 1% has an incentive to move their money back to the states, thus bringing the revenue back to our government.
If you think Bernie's plan will only increase taxes for the top 10%, you're thoroughly deceived. Bernie even admitted it in an interview. And history in other countries that he says he wants to duplicate shows the same thing.
If everyone is so worried about being fair and equal about taxes then why shouldn't we have a flat tax for everyone no matter how much they make. (with possibly a tax break for those in poverty or making less than a certain amount)
Because 10% of your income is so much more important to you and your family's wellbeing when you make 20,000 compared to making 1,000,000 per year that 2,000 is groceries, heat, electricity, books , whatever... Im pretty sure however that most of us besides pacifist can still make due with 900,000 , but hey keep going with your trickle down economics... Really don't get how you can have any logical defense of a flat tax
Are you stupid? Tax break for the poor? How about better education and financial planning? If still after that people are poor then ok maybe tax exemption.
My issue is it's the millions of consumers who make them rich.. We obviously all can't live a self sustaining life( bring on the idealistic argument) and we need whatever gooda or services and many struggle in some capacity to fulfill all those needs.. For example the ceo of juicy juice makes 10 million year, but alot of people struggle to afford the bottle at $3 to guve our kids a good healthy option, they could lower the price to $1.60 bottle and he can make 1 million still live very comfortable and plush life but no greed wont allow it.. Now imagine this concept applied to every store every good how many more peeoples lives would be easier and healthier and happier
But that should be decided in the market, not by some government law. The more power you give to the government, the more freedom they have the power to take away from you. If you don't think juice should cost $3, then don't buy it. If the people as a whole don't think it should cost $3, and they stop buying it, then the juice company will need to lower their prices to stay competitive. It's how the free market works. It's called a democratic market. It keeps businesses in check without giving the government the power to step on everyone. The biggest reason we have inequality today is because the government has gotten so involved in businesses that instead of having to be competitive, businesses only need to suck up to government officials. That's what we need to put an end to. But with Bernie's plan, that will become the ONLY way a company can be successful, thereby destroying all smaller competition and small businesses.
DuckKnight, ThePacifist's argument is grounded in fact and proven in economics. Laissez-Faire economics argues that a society benefits the most when business are left to themselves without government intervention. As Adam Smith calls it, the economy is guided by an "invisible hand," allowing consumers and producers to making the choices that benefit the most possible people. Competition in businesses IS what gets the higher prices that you are looking for, and intervention from the government, like ThePacifist said, is what reduces this competition.
I rebutted your argument before you made it if you were literate and cared to under stand it and at NO POINT did i say government intervention is the answer, which we actually agree it is not.. As i said it applies to nearly every non luxury item, there are choices but so few all owned by a select few corporation that it is essentially a monopoly.. Not just juice but since you are so narrowminded allow me to ellaborate that your argument of just dont buy it doesnt work for basic human needs like fresh fruit, baby food, diapers, clothes, toothpaste, soap, any food you basically buy all which can be made affordable to the masses but are not because they CEO S AND SENIOR OFFICERS ARE MAKING MILLIONS every year and have more money than they can even spend in ten lifetimes.. No sane person can honestly say that this system is making the world run better
It's hard to follow your argument because your English is so bad, but you are diagnosing the problem incorrectly at its source. The reason those CEOs and senior officers can do that is because they aren't worried about competition because they have deals made with the government. It's called cronyism. That's where the government gets involved. If you think government intervention isn't the answer, then I guess somewhere in there we agree (again, it's hard for me to follow what exactly you're saying). The system we have isn't capitalism, and no it isn't working. What we have is cronyism, corporatism, and a mild brand of socialism. And it doesn't work at all.
You all benefit from the uber wealthy paying a high tax. When they pay more, you pay less and get better services. The problem is, you have this idea in your head that you will be a one percenter, but most of you will make less than $50,000 ...yet you are so busy defending those who are running your country, polluting the land and making more than $500,000 a year.
Guest: quick question. Over the last 20 years, as capitalism has spread more and more throughout the world, has the number of people living in poverty increased or diminished or stayed about the same?
Guest don't try these people here are all idiots. They all want to receive from the government and believe they won't have to give back. They see the surface but do not understand the deepness. So bote for Bernie. Let's see how much more this country can decline.
Ok pacifist.. Allow me to ask you a question as simply as i can.. Do you disagree that any corporation selling any number of goods or services ( i.e. target, walmart, stop & shop, gerber, apple, proctor & gamble) can lower their prices across the board and still have a profitable company that pays their lower tier and midlevel employees the same salaries? The only change would be the upper management and senior officers would cut their ridiculous salaries, yet still make enough money to live what the rest of us would consider a lavish and incredibly comfortable lifestyle.
The big businesses, yeah sure. But not the 27 million small businesses in this country who would hurt the most by Bernie's ridiculous plans. They would all have to raise their prices in order to pay his absurd taxes and minimum wage. They would be forced to let people go entirely. It's basic business principles. I'm sorry you're too thick to wrap your mind around this. You haven't presented any actual arguments here. You say you don't want government intervention, but you also disagree with my argument about market democracy. Yet this whole post is about Bernie sanders, and you're defending him, so it seems like you actually do what government intervention. You seem extremely uninformed when it comes to economics and business. And since you won't listen to people who are well educated, I won't continue to indulge you. I'm unfollowing this thread.
Wow you are a fucking moron, you make assumptions about me and once again plug in your standard bullshit and make a counter to an argument i never made you dolt.. Its a copout to say you can't understand my plain english when im talking about BIG BUSINESS and LARGE CORPORATIONS which has nothing to do with small business, actually iy does because those large corporations hurt the small business you fucking idiot
You brought up bernie time and time again i never said i was a supporter and my entire argument was that the government doesnt have the ability to solve this problem no matter how big or small moron
I didnt say they dont work hard or that most are incredibly bright and that they desrrve proper compensation, but when your profits come at the expense of the masses, why should they be taking in more money than can be spent reasonably in ten lifetimes simply because they run what are essentially monopolies
Its like you dont read my arguments at all you just immediately have the same old taglines, and that lack of conversation will lead to the lack of a sustainable world for the future generations
If you want to be equal to the rich people then you can go work your ass off for it. Better yet, why don't you go move to North Korea where everyone is equal, and they don't have shit
And morebacon, right now, the top 1% pays nearly half of their income to taxes. However, I don't know much about cuts they receive, can you tell me about those? The middle and lower classes contribute between 2-15% of their income to taxes. I don't see how we're getting screwed with such an obvious graduated tax.
Increased in quality because of capitalism or an advancement in science and texhnology?