I was wrong

How does one get their wealth stolen from them? Esp. when they pay no taxes. While the rich may be getting richer (or were) so were the poor. How many poor people own cell phones and have cable TV? Do the poor in socialistic countries enjoy these luxuries?

When I was starting out, I worked two minimum wage jobs. It never occurred to me that someone had actually taken the money I never had. Liberal math again.

It is stolen from the devaluing of the dollar for one. But there are many other things. Where you fail and most on the right fail is with this fallacy that only the wealthy pay taxes. It is a spoof that you try to pull over everyone, and in many cases, you actually believe it, even if you are not one of those who are considered wealthy.

The problem you have is that when you discuss taxes, you only take into consideration federal income taxes, and yes, the wealthy do pay the bulk of these taxes. However, this only accounts for a very small percentage of overall taxes that people pay. While the wealthy pay a higher rate of income tax, they pay a much lower rate of payroll taxes because they stop paying SS taxes after $106,000. Now if they make exactly $106,000, then they will pay the maximum rate for SS, but beyond that, their percentage goes down with every extra dollar earned.

Beyond that there are sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, excise taxes, energy taxes and a few others. Everyone pays those taxes and they take a much bigger bite out of the income of someone earning $30,000 per year than they do out of someone earning $1 million per year. In the end, a family of four earning $50,000 per year will pay an equal percentage of their income, if not more, than a family of four earning $150,000 per year.

As taxes eat away at the low income earner, there is nothing left to save, while the wealthy have a huge percentage of their income available for savings. And with that, the rich get richer and the poor remain stagnant. And as the value of the dollar declines, the poor get poorer.

This is not rocket science; it is very easy to discern, yet so many of you completely fail to see this as you argue that the rich should not be taxed so much and that they already pay more than their fair share. Well, it's all poppey cock. The rich are not paying more than anyone else, and they are reaping the benefits while lower income earners are being raked over the coals.

http://www.aei.org/issue/26125
 
The CEO of Ford makes $20 million a year, and Ford hires 213,000 employees.

If they took the CEO's salary and distributed it to the workers, each worker would get a $100 bonus at the end of the year.

Would that $100 really make a difference in your standard of living? The rhetoric is nice, but it doesn't match the numbers. The level of responsibility you have in an organization is directly reflected in your pay. We can't all be CEOs.

This is why socialism always fails to live up to expectations...the raw numbers never match the rhetoric.

It goes beyond the CEO and you know it
The CEO sets the upper limit for management salaries. How many upper managers make in excess of $1 Mil a year?
And for what? Driving the company into the ground?
 
The CEO of Ford makes $20 million a year, and Ford hires 213,000 employees.

If they took the CEO's salary and distributed it to the workers, each worker would get a $100 bonus at the end of the year.

Would that $100 really make a difference in your standard of living? The rhetoric is nice, but it doesn't match the numbers. The level of responsibility you have in an organization is directly reflected in your pay. We can't all be CEOs.

This is why socialism always fails to live up to expectations...the raw numbers never match the rhetoric.

It goes beyond the CEO and you know it
The CEO sets the upper limit for management salaries. How many upper managers make in excess of $1 Mil a year?
And for what? Driving the company into the ground?
Good CEOs can make a company and its employees filthy rich. I don't hear Microsoft employees complaining about Steve Ballmer, who makes a tens of millions in stock options.

Why?

Because a good CEO makes everyone happy. It's the failed CEOs that ruin companies...and devastate thousands of employees. It's failed CEOs that make people turn to socialism.

This is why I am absolutely DISGUSTED with Obama's bailout of companies like GM and AIG...there's absolutely no need for corporate welfare. Failed corporations, just like failed small businesses, need to die.
 
What do the mega-rich do with their money? They couldn't possibly spend it all.

Invest it into companies, of course. Companies = Jobs

laughter.gif
Oh really?
Ya sure they didn't get insanely rich by moving companies OUT of the country?
No, they became insanely rich by making solid business decisions. When a socilistic government deems it unfair for them to be rich and decide that they will be redistributing those vast riches to people who are not deserving, then it just makes sense that they should move their companies and other assets out of this country.

The single largest reason that the rich move to third world countries is because of the socialists.

This is where you really overreach to make your point.
No one (aside from a few kooks) wants a "socalist" government.
I don't want someone else's money.
And I certainly don't want my hard earned money going to some lazy piece of crap.
But what has happened in this country is the systematic dismantling of the middle class through really unfair tactics made easier and easier through govt deregulation.
Nobody should be begrudged for making money. It's the American way! And American's love it.
BUT...when you decide to aggressively make EVEN MORE money in a way the hurts America IE. moving you companies to the third world, putting your money in the Caymans, you should be HEAVILY taxed to even the score.
 
every company has only so much money, that is allotted for payroll expenses...a certain percentage of their business goes towards paying their employees, their workers, that still keeps them profitable.

When a corporation or company is planning their Business...with a projected plan for the following year, and for the corporation that I worked for, we planned the following 5 years of expected business/sales along with estimated future expnses...payroll expense along with all other expenses, including what you estimate in Mark downs, is in the calculation in order for us to project our expected profit margin and profit dollars....

so, every company has a projected figure of what they can spend on their employee's salaries with the estimated projected sales.... This IS NOT DONE HAPHAZARDLY as some may think that are not in business or working for a corporation.

So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?

If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.

using an example of this company having 1000 employees....

If the corporation paid the CEO $5 million in salary and used the other 10 million to pay the other 999 employees, they on average would be getting paid $10, 010 dollars a year as salary while the one guy at the top took $5 million for his work.

MONEY IS LIMITED when it comes to payroll...it is NOT an unlimited supply.

So, when the ceo decides for himself, with the help of his board of Directors that he will pay himself the $5 million first, and then the rest is left for the other 999 employees, and when he says that he is worth 500 TIMES MORE than the 999 other workers individually....THAT is a sign of GREED and that is STEALING from the WORKERS that produced the 100 million in sales for the company.

It would have been more appropriate to pay himself $1.4 million a year in salary and let the 13.6 million left go towards the workers, giving the employees on average 36% more in pay, bringing them to $13,600 a year as salary average for the 999 employees verses $10,010 on average for the employees.

This makes no SHAREHOLDER any less profitable....the owners of the company no less profitable.

X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.


Care

And this is the reason we are already seeing a push for more unionization. Unions came into existence due to unfair labor practices. They lost much of their power when they became to strong. Now, we are seeing the opposite as labor is losing ground, so once again we will see more and stronger unions.
 
Ame®icano;1640052 said:
X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.

Care

Let's say your company of 1000 employees doesn't make any profit, or worse, them have loses. They try to stay above the water, lay off some workers, enforce paycuts, no bonuses, and is not working. Share holders and investors are not getting dividends, company is at the edge of survival, nobody's happy.

Then they hire new CEO who demands his bonus to be 1/3 of profit that company made. With his skills and decisions, company gets on his feet, workers get paid their salaries plus bonuses, shareholders are happy. Jobs are "saved or created". What's wrong with that?

Not a thing if compensation is directly tied to both short and long term results. However, what we are seeing is that these CEO's and upper management continue to be paid unreasonably high salaries even when their companies are showing losses. Upper management keeps their big salaries and they cut the pay or jobs from the lowest earners in the company which are the only ones actually doing any work.

It's a bit like the guaranteed contract in sports. A promising player is given a seven year contract worth millions and then turns out to be a bust. As the team continues to offer more and more players guaranteed contracts, ticket prices go through the roof and the result on the field is a terrible product. Finally, people stop buying tickets and the team finds itself in financial dire straits.
 
It's a bit like the guaranteed contract in sports. A promising player is given a seven year contract worth millions and then turns out to be a bust. As the team continues to offer more and more players guaranteed contracts, ticket prices go through the roof and the result on the field is a terrible product. Finally, people stop buying tickets and the team finds itself in financial dire straits.

If enough teams fail as a result of these guaranteed contracts, they'll stop offering them. Supply and demand. That is, of course, assuming the government doesn't bailout the failed teams before they learn. Unfortunately, our leaders in Washington do not understand this concept.

If it wasn't for Obama, the upper management of GM and AIG wouldn't still be making millions after their total failure.
 
You people act as if the rich are keeping the less fortunate from becoming successful.

This is not a zero sum game. Just because they are rich does not mean that you cannot also be well off.

Unfortunately the facts do not back up your view. Over the last 30 years, the rich have become immensely rich and the rest of America has seen their wages stagnate or actually lose ground. You are correct that it is not a zero sum game, but the fact is that only the wealthy are seeing an increased share of the growing pie, so something is not working.
 
[
Unfortunately the facts do not back up your view. Over the last 30 years, the rich have become immensely rich and the rest of America has seen their wages stagnate or actually lose ground. You are correct that it is not a zero sum game, but the fact is that only the wealthy are seeing an increased share of the growing pie, so something is not working.

I can't understand why this is not totally apparent to anyone paying attention??
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately the facts do not back up your view. Over the last 30 years, the rich have become immensely rich and the rest of America has seen their wages stagnate or actually lose ground. You are correct that it is not a zero sum game, but the fact is that only the wealthy are seeing an increased share of the growing pie, so something is not working.
The average wages of the worker across the globe has been skyrocketing during this period.

If it helps ya bleeding-heart libs, consider outsourcing as a direct form of foreign aid. You like helping poor countries, right? Why not lift them out of poverty, and end hunger, by giving them your job?
 
Last edited:
There is considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy over the 1996 through 2005 period. More than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 1996 and 2005. About half (58 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another measure) of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005.
•
Median incomes of taxpayers in the sample increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. Further, the median incomes of those initially in the lowest income groups increased more in percentage terms than the median incomes of those in the higher income groups. The median inflation-adjusted incomes of the taxpayers who were in the very highest income groups in 1996 declined by 2005.
•
The composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005.
•
The degree of relative income mobility among income groups over the 1996 to 2005 period is very similar to that over the prior decade (1987 to 1996). To the extent that increasing income inequality widened income gaps, this was offset by increased absolute income mobility so that relative income mobility has neither increased nor decreased over the past 20 years.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
 
Unfortunately the facts do not back up your view. Over the last 30 years, the rich have become immensely rich and the rest of America has seen their wages stagnate or actually lose ground. You are correct that it is not a zero sum game, but the fact is that only the wealthy are seeing an increased share of the growing pie, so something is not working.
The average wages of the worker across the globe has been skyrocketing during this period.

If it helps ya bleeding-heart libs, consider outsourcing as a direct form of foreign aid. You like helping poor countries, right? Why not lift them out of poverty, and end hunger, by giving them your job?

Wait until they hit America up for their "carbon bill" because it's Americas fault they are using the energy to produce goods destined for America.
You fuckin' wait for it.
 
How does one get their wealth stolen from them? Esp. when they pay no taxes. While the rich may be getting richer (or were) so were the poor. How many poor people own cell phones and have cable TV? Do the poor in socialistic countries enjoy these luxuries?

When I was starting out, I worked two minimum wage jobs. It never occurred to me that someone had actually taken the money I never had. Liberal math again.

Exactly when did you start out? In 1968, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history. A minimum wage worker could afford his own apartment, his own car, and take night classes to improve his living conditions. Today a minimum wage worker can't even afford his own apartment. Minimum wage now has the lowest spending power in history and our economy is suffering, of course the uber wealthy don't care because they are the ones getting richer of the backs of the working poor.
 
every company has only so much money, that is allotted for payroll expenses...a certain percentage of their business goes towards paying their employees, their workers, that still keeps them profitable.

When a corporation or company is planning their Business...with a projected plan for the following year, and for the corporation that I worked for, we planned the following 5 years of expected business/sales along with estimated future expnses...payroll expense along with all other expenses, including what you estimate in Mark downs, is in the calculation in order for us to project our expected profit margin and profit dollars....

so, every company has a projected figure of what they can spend on their employee's salaries with the estimated projected sales.... This IS NOT DONE HAPHAZARDLY as some may think that are not in business or working for a corporation.

So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?

If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.

using an example of this company having 1000 employees....

If the corporation paid the CEO $5 million in salary and used the other 10 million to pay the other 999 employees, they on average would be getting paid $10, 010 dollars a year as salary while the one guy at the top took $5 million for his work.

MONEY IS LIMITED when it comes to payroll...it is NOT an unlimited supply.

So, when the ceo decides for himself, with the help of his board of Directors that he will pay himself the $5 million first, and then the rest is left for the other 999 employees, and when he says that he is worth 500 TIMES MORE than the 999 other workers individually....THAT is a sign of GREED and that is STEALING from the WORKERS that produced the 100 million in sales for the company.

It would have been more appropriate to pay himself $1.4 million a year in salary and let the 13.6 million left go towards the workers, giving the employees on average 36% more in pay, bringing them to $13,600 a year as salary average for the 999 employees verses $10,010 on average for the employees.

This makes no SHAREHOLDER any less profitable....the owners of the company no less profitable.

X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.


Care

so in your world the owner of a small company who risked his and his family's security to start a new business should only get the same pay as his employees?

Did you even read her post?
 
When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.

FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must “Tolerate the Inequality”

I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.

<<<

I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?

(A) So what?

(B) What percentages do YOU find morally "acceptable?"

(C) On what basis?

(D) When you use loaded terms like "our wealth being stolen from us," perhaps you'd feel obliged to share with the class HOW you come to your conclusion that earning wealth is stealing anything from anybody?
 
When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.

FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must “Tolerate the Inequality”

I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.

<<<

I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?

(A) So what?

(B) What percentages do YOU find morally "acceptable?"

(C) On what basis?

(D) When you use loaded terms like "our wealth being stolen from us," perhaps you'd feel obliged to share with the class HOW you come to your conclusion that earning wealth is stealing anything from anybody?

Nobody "earns" 500 times more than the average worker.
 
When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.

FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must “Tolerate the Inequality”

I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.

<<<

I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?

(A) So what?

(B) What percentages do YOU find morally "acceptable?"

(C) On what basis?

(D) When you use loaded terms like "our wealth being stolen from us," perhaps you'd feel obliged to share with the class HOW you come to your conclusion that earning wealth is stealing anything from anybody?

Nobody "earns" 500 times more than the average worker.

A spectacularly silly assertion. And flatly wrong.

What you are attempting to grunt out, of course, is your own childish economic/social philosophy. You are entitled to harbor such a vapid opinion, of course. But the fact that you harbor it will never make your opinion persuasive.
 
There is considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S.
Now I have to wade through all those pages to figure out how the statistics are deceiving thanks a lot.
Recall Mark Twain's adage
"There are three types of Lies; Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"

The discussion of mobility is clouded by so many factors
Except for the top and bottom, movement can be in either direction. Did a lot of people along the boundaries waver up and down and thus create the Illusion of true mobility? In any society there will be fluctuations of personal income. During the Middle Ages in Europe a good harvest could increase yields 40% above average, while a bad harvest could leave them a tiny fraction of average. Over a 10 year period a lot of peasants would shift among the "quintiles" because of the yearly vagaries of the harvest. Does this mean the peasants had social mobility?
No of course not. They were still peasants.

The same can happen now. Someone graduates from college and gets a job with their degree, switching out of the fast food industry. That makes for true mobility, but if they come from a family in the working middle class and join the ranks of the working middle class, how is that social mobility? They are still in the social class to which they were born, the working middle class.

When I was in college most of my fellow students were from working middle or upper class families. Despite affirmative action very few kids from poor families actually got degrees. Those are the ones who typify social mobility, and they were very few. I knew a lot more poor kids who couldn't make the grades and dropped from college owing a small fortune in school loans than who actually got middle class jobs. A LOT more.

But I knew two girls from really rich families. One got a GREAT starting position with her parent's firm, despite being pretty marginal in her field, and the other dropped out and 'daddy' gave her a $10 million trust fund so she wouldn't "have to do without the necessities" Sure she can only touch the interest, but.....
 

Forum List

Back
Top