American CEOs get 354 times salary of workers. In most countries ratio around 80 to 1 (still too hi)

[2aguy]

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.

Again the very rich team owners are deciding to pay players.

Yes....the players volunteer to do a job....that job is very select in who can do it so it commands a very high wage...if you want that wage...pracitce.....if you want to pay that wage, earn enough money to buy a team and pay the players whatever salary you want....again...no need for government.....as long as no one is defrauded or lied to.......

 

[Anathema]

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....

Hang on, which is it? Does everyone pay the same rate OR do the rich pay more. You can't do both.

 

[2aguy]

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....

Hang on, which is it? Does everyone pay the same rate OR do the rich pay more. You can't do both.

Yes you can...if everyone pays 15% then 15% of 70,000 is going to pay less in taxes than 15% of 1 million dollars....so everyone pays the same rate in taxes, and the rich will sadly pay more.....

To really be fair...everyone should pay the same amount in taxes.......but that will never fly....too much jealousy.....

 

[depotoo]

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

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.

 

[Brain357]

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.

No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....

Yet their skills help make the company lots of money.

 

[Brain357]

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

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.

Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.

 

[2aguy]

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.

No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....

Yet their skills help make the company lots of money.

And the skills the CEO brings creates their jobs...and makes them money...and the owner of the company creates those jobs from nothing...using his skills...without the guy who creates the company, those employees have nothing.....so why punish the guy creating the job that gives you money.....?

 

[depotoo]

Which can be replaced by a thousand others.

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.

No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....

Yet their skills help make the company lots of money.

 

[2aguy]

Here we go.....John Stossel explains what fairness is.....

What s Fair - John Stossel - Page 1

President Obama calls inequality "the defining issue of our time." Really? Not our unsustainable debt? Not ISIS? The president also said, "No challenge? poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change!"

Politicians constantly find crises they will solve by increasing government power. But why is inequality a crisis?

Alexis Goldstein, of a group called The Other 98 percent, complains that corporations got richer but workers' wages "are lower than they've been in 65 years."

That's a common refrain, but it's wrong. Over the past 30 years, CBO data shows that the average income of the poorest fifth of Americans is up by 49 percent. That doesn't include all the innovations that have dramatically improved everyone's life. Today even the poorest Americans have comforts and lifespans that kings didn't have a century ago.

George Mason University economist Garett Jones says, "If I was going to be in the bottom fifth in the America of today versus the bottom fifth of America in 1970 or 1960, it's hard to imagine that anybody would take that time machine into the past."

And despite America's lousy government schools and regulations that make it tough to start a business, there is still economic mobility. Poor people don't have to stay poor. Sixty-four percent of those born in the poorest fifth of the U.S. population move out of that quintile. Eleven percent of them rise all the way to the top, according to economists at Harvard and Berkeley. Most of the billionaires atop the Forbes richest list weren't rich. They got rich by innovating.

Rich people aren't guaranteed their place at the top, either. Sixty-six percent fell from the top quintile, and eight percent fell all the way to the bottom.

That mobility is a reason most of us are better off than we would have been in a more rigid society, controlled by central economic planners.

 

[2aguy]

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

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.

Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.

They aren't......they are subsidizing Americans who don't have the skills to get the kind of job that will pay enough for them to live.......so....you want to cut them off.?.....that is one way to go.......and it would encourage them to find better jobs......

 

[Brain357]

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.

No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....

Yet their skills help make the company lots of money.

And the skills the CEO brings creates their jobs...and makes them money...and the owner of the company creates those jobs from nothing...using his skills...without the guy who creates the company, those employees have nothing.....so why punish the guy creating the job that gives you money.....?

Yes the tax payer shouldn't subsidize any of them.

 

[depotoo]

Workers should find a way to better themselves, rather than rely on others to do it for them. If they develop the unique skills and integrity of work ethic, they can demand more, as they become worth more. Unless, of course they work for the union, then they can't demand more from their employer even though they work smarter and harder than the next guy.

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

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.

Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.

 

[2aguy]

Workers should find a way to better themselves, rather than rely on others to do it for them. If they develop the unique skills and integrity of work ethic, they can demand more, as they become worth more. Unless, of course they work for the union, then they can't demand more from their employer even though they work smarter and harder than the next guy.

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

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.

Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.

One of the best ways....defund democrats.....get rid of the democrat control of public schools...so people can actually get an education and get better jobs.....that is the key...and the democrats are preventing it.......

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"From 1978 to 2013, CEO compensation, inflation-adjusted, increased 937 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.2 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.

The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 295.9-to-1 in 2013, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s."
CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less Economic Policy Institute

Suppose we could use the French model and just put all their heads on pikes.

 

[Brain357]

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

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.

Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.

They aren't......they are subsidizing Americans who don't have the skills to get the kind of job that will pay enough for them to live.......so....you want to cut them off.?.....that is one way to go.......and it would encourage them to find better jobs......

Every full time job should be enough to live on. If the people at the top are making millions or billions, those at the bottom should have a living wage.

 

[Brain357]

Workers should find a way to better themselves, rather than rely on others to do it for them. If they develop the unique skills and integrity of work ethic, they can demand more, as they become worth more. Unless, of course they work for the union, then they can't demand more from their employer even though they work smarter and harder than the next guy.

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

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.

Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.

One of the best ways....defund democrats.....get rid of the democrat control of public schools...so people can actually get an education and get better jobs.....that is the key...and the democrats are preventing it.......

Where are these jobs? The largest employers are paying very little.

 

[2aguy]

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

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.

Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.

They aren't......they are subsidizing Americans who don't have the skills to get the kind of job that will pay enough for them to live.......so....you want to cut them off.?.....that is one way to go.......and it would encourage them to find better jobs......

Every full time job should be enough to live on. If the people at the top are making millions or billions, those at the bottom should have a living wage.

Why....? If you hand out donuts at a donut shop....and have 6 kids...should handing out donuts at a donut shop pay as much as digging coal.....or designing sky scrapers.......or running a billion dollar business......

And do you have any responsibility to match the number of kids you have to the amount of money you are making....or should you just get money regardless of how many children you choose to create?....on a donut, hand out salary?

 

[Anathema]

Yes you can...if everyone pays 15% then 15% of 70,000 is going to pay less in taxes than 15% of 1 million dollars....so everyone pays the same rate in taxes, and the rich will sadly pay more.....

To really be fair...everyone should pay the same amount in taxes.......but that will never fly....too much jealousy.....

Okay. Your original posting was a little bit confusing. You were talking about rates, and then talked about the rich paying more. I took that to mean a higher rate, not just a higher gross amount.

Everyone should be paying something and I'm all for a Flat Rate; though less than your 15% suggestion. I also suggest that there should be no deductions or other loopholes. Every American citizen should be paying their appropriate share. PERIOD.

 

[Brain357]

What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?

Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.

Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.

They aren't......they are subsidizing Americans who don't have the skills to get the kind of job that will pay enough for them to live.......so....you want to cut them off.?.....that is one way to go.......and it would encourage them to find better jobs......

Every full time job should be enough to live on. If the people at the top are making millions or billions, those at the bottom should have a living wage.

Why....? If you hand out donuts at a donut shop....and have 6 kids...should handing out donuts at a donut shop pay as much as digging coal.....or designing sky scrapers.......or running a billion dollar business......

And do you have any responsibility to match the number of kids you have to the amount of money you are making....or should you just get money regardless of how many children you choose to create?....on a donut, hand out salary?

Paying people enough so they aren't on welfare is not saying everyone should be paid the same. The top people will still be making millions.

 

[2aguy]

Yes you can...if everyone pays 15% then 15% of 70,000 is going to pay less in taxes than 15% of 1 million dollars....so everyone pays the same rate in taxes, and the rich will sadly pay more.....

To really be fair...everyone should pay the same amount in taxes.......but that will never fly....too much jealousy.....

Okay. Your original posting was a little bit confusing. You were talking about rates, and then talked about the rich paying more. I took that to mean a higher rate, not just a higher gross amount.

Everyone should be paying something and I'm all for a Flat Rate; though less than your 15% suggestion. I also suggest that there should be no deductions or other loopholes. Every American citizen should be paying their appropriate share. PERIOD.

I agree....I said 15% because it seems like most people agree on that amount....I'd be fine with 10%.....and to help the poor, I think there should be no tax on the first 35-40,000 dollars everyone earns...again...that would be fair because the poor would get it as would the rich.....that is fair....of course that amount could be lower.....