A simple economic lesson... raise capital gains to 43% will do what?

[jc456]

They never respond to the pro athletes' salaries because that ruins their narrative. It kind of makes you wonder if it is a race-based thing. I am not sure. I am fine with athletes making WAY more than CEOs on average. If the market bears paying them that much, good for them.

I give two shits what anyone makes. I only control me. I advise my kids. I am now advising my grandkids.

 

[jc456]

We've done this many times. Obviously you being told 5 or 500 times will make no difference.

being told? I don't accept being told. I accept factual links. Belly up brother

 

[jc456]

That's not even foolish, that's just goofy!

right. My only response was what I posted because, that was just out there. OUT there.

 

[jc456]

And those who can are paid quite a lot because people like to watch them do it. It also bolsters my point, because like those who complain about sports stars getting paid a lot could not do what they do, those who complain about CEO's couldn't do their job either. I'm not sure where you think you're going with this, but you keep proving my point and making it obvious I wasn't making anything up, which was your original assertion.

the revenue over investment is exponential, that's why. Owners know that talent will bring in money, money, money, money. And not one of the demofks in here ever, ever, ever mentions them. I laugh.

 

[jc456]

Most people could not be an immunologist, an astronomer, or an astronaut either. But they dont get paid $20 million a year and dont get 9 figure exit packages for running a company into the ground either. So no, it doesnt prove your assertion that just because most people cant do a specific job, the person doing that job should get paid $20 million a year.

why do sports figures make more than all of them? There is an answer, one you're far to ignorant to understand.

 

[Markle]

Most people could not be an immunologist, an astronomer, or an astronaut either. But they dont get paid $20 million a year and dont get 9 figure exit packages for running a company into the ground either. So no, it doesnt prove your assertion that just because most people cant do a specific job, the person doing that job should get paid $20 million a year.

That's just foolish and immaterial.

Like anything else, it is the law of supply and demand. There are thousands of people that can fill and do fill the positions you use as an example.

CEOs are not the same thing since it was President Bill Clinton, who attempted to REDUCE the pay of CEOs. He was told, by his economic advisors that it was a stupid idea and would not work. Clinton put a ceiling on how much a company could deduct, as a business expense, what they paid their top people. What happened? Companies offered stock benefits etc., etc. for increasing profits or whatever.

Economic Policy

Bill Clinton tried to limit executive pay. Here’s why it didn’t work.​

By Dylan Matthews
August 16, 2012

You probably know that executive compensation has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. In 1991, the average CEO took in $2.6 million in total compensation. By 2011, that number had risen to $9 million. What you probably don't know is that this rise occurred in spite of changes in the tax code meant to stop it.

In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into law his first budget, which created section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The provision stated that companies could only deduct the first $1 million of compensation for their top five (later top four after changes by Bush's SEC) executives from their corporate taxes. The idea was to discourage companies from paying in excess of $1 million, as any additional compensation would be taxed. So why didn't it work?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/16/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-executive-pay-heres-why-it-didnt-work/

 

[hadit]

Most people could not be an immunologist, an astronomer, or an astronaut either. But they dont get paid $20 million a year and dont get 9 figure exit packages for running a company into the ground either. So no, it doesnt prove your assertion that just because most people cant do a specific job, the person doing that job should get paid $20 million a year.

I would like you to now quote exactly what I wrote and highlight the portion that says "the person doing that job should get paid $20 million a year". When you fail to do so, if you have any integrity at all, you will admit that you just made it all up, as you so cravenly accused me of doing.

I'll even save you and all of us some time. Here is what I originally said, and the challenge is now to find where I said "the person doing that job should get paid $20 million a year". Go ahead, take your time and read it slowly. I even copied it slowly to make it easier, but I won't wait forever.

"Most of those complaining about the CEO making so much money wouldn't last a week in his job."

 

[hadit]

That's just foolish and immaterial.

Like anything else, it is the law of supply and demand. There are thousands of people that can fill and do fill the positions you use as an example.

CEOs are not the same thing since it was President Bill Clinton, who attempted to REDUCE the pay of CEOs. He was told, by his economic advisors that it was a stupid idea and would not work. Clinton put a ceiling on how much a company could deduct, as a business expense, what they paid their top people. What happened? Companies offered stock benefits etc., etc. for increasing profits or whatever.

Economic Policy

Bill Clinton tried to limit executive pay. Here’s why it didn’t work.​

By Dylan Matthews
August 16, 2012

You probably know that executive compensation has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. In 1991, the average CEO took in $2.6 million in total compensation. By 2011, that number had risen to $9 million. What you probably don't know is that this rise occurred in spite of changes in the tax code meant to stop it.

In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into law his first budget, which created section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The provision stated that companies could only deduct the first $1 million of compensation for their top five (later top four after changes by Bush's SEC) executives from their corporate taxes. The idea was to discourage companies from paying in excess of $1 million, as any additional compensation would be taxed. So why didn't it work?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/16/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-executive-pay-heres-why-it-didnt-work/

You weren't supposed to notice that. It was supposed to be a Republican's fault and you just blew that out of the water.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I’m a bit late to the party buts always amazed me leftists want to tax the people making products more, increasing the price of that item, then can’t figure out why the poor who need those products to live can never get ahead. It’s mind boggling stupid in action.

 

[gipper]

That's not even foolish, that's just goofy!

Yet you’ve already admitted this.

 

[gipper]

I’m a bit late to the party buts always amazed me leftists want to tax the people making products more, increasing the price of that item, then can’t figure out why the poor who need those products to live can never get ahead. It’s mind boggling stupid in action.

They aren’t making shit. They’re just moving money around.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

They aren’t making shit. They’re just moving money around.

They think they are stealing from one group to give money to the next group without realizing it’s a giant circle. They tax the producers to help the poor, who then pay that tax through higher prices for the goods of the producers. It’s an amazingly simple concept the left just can’t figure out.

 

[pknopp]

They think they are stealing from one group to give money to the next group without realizing it’s a giant circle. They tax the producers to help the poor, who then pay that tax through higher prices for the goods of the producers. It’s an amazingly simple concept the left just can’t figure out.

You left out the trillions that the Fed has pumped into the markets. Tell us, who produced that?

 

[gipper]

You left out the trillions that the Fed has pumped into the markets. Tell us, who produced that?

Or the tax code that benefit them…or the numerous government subsidies that benefit them…or the numerous regulations that benefit them…or the huge government contracts that benefit them…etc.

 

[jc456]

Yet you’ve already admitted this.

Naw, he couldn’t write that kind of fked up

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You left out the trillions that the Fed has pumped into the markets. Tell us, who produced that?

The Fed did. They hold more of our debt than China. They print money and then charge us interest to borrow what they printed out of thin air.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Or the tax code that benefit them…or the numerous government subsidies that benefit them…or the numerous regulations that benefit them…or the huge government contracts that benefit them…etc.

Are you talking about the Fed, the rich? What group?

 

[gipper]

LoL

Are you talking about the Fed, the rich? What group?

Lol. You can’t tell? Lol.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

LoL

Lol. You can’t tell? Lol.

Nope.

 

[Rigby5]

That's just foolish and immaterial.

Like anything else, it is the law of supply and demand. There are thousands of people that can fill and do fill the positions you use as an example.

CEOs are not the same thing since it was President Bill Clinton, who attempted to REDUCE the pay of CEOs. He was told, by his economic advisors that it was a stupid idea and would not work. Clinton put a ceiling on how much a company could deduct, as a business expense, what they paid their top people. What happened? Companies offered stock benefits etc., etc. for increasing profits or whatever.

Economic Policy

Bill Clinton tried to limit executive pay. Here’s why it didn’t work.​

By Dylan Matthews
August 16, 2012

You probably know that executive compensation has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. In 1991, the average CEO took in $2.6 million in total compensation. By 2011, that number had risen to $9 million. What you probably don't know is that this rise occurred in spite of changes in the tax code meant to stop it.

In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into law his first budget, which created section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The provision stated that companies could only deduct the first $1 million of compensation for their top five (later top four after changes by Bush's SEC) executives from their corporate taxes. The idea was to discourage companies from paying in excess of $1 million, as any additional compensation would be taxed. So why didn't it work?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/16/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-executive-pay-heres-why-it-didnt-work/

There has never been a CEO in the US who was worth a tenth what they are paid.
Look at Bill Gates, he does not even know how to program, and pirated and patched the worst operating system in the world.