ShootSpeeders
Gold Member
- May 13, 2012
- 20,232
- 2,370
- 280
- Banned
- #1
I'm a super-capitalist but even i think some govt intervention may be in order here. Ratio should be maybe 10 to 1.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm a super-capitalist but even i think some govt intervention may be in order here. Ratio should be maybe 10 to 1.
I'm a super-capitalist but even i think some govt intervention may be in order here. Ratio should be maybe 10 to 1.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
i don't see how that would increase wages for the average worker.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
And sports figures.If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
And sports figures.If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.