Over twice as much as my father did.
How much does (did) your father earn?Less than half of what I make. I will answer that one with a link to an article discussing studies:
Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune Thus far I see nothing about your questions that relate to morality; success and failure? Yes! Morality? No!
If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.
I hope that one day you at least try to understand economics. Wrong! If you earn $1 million it is paid to you from those for which you worked, or through investments you made by improving the productivity of the investment you chose to make. YOU DID NOT TAK THAT MONEY FROM ANYONE. INCOME IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Increased productivity creates wealth and your investment contributed to that increased productivity.You did not get their money. You earned money for your contribution to productivity which increased wealth by the amount of your production. Bullshit! The rich earning honest money has taken nothing from the less wealthy. Your ignorance of economics is showing. More bullshit, spread by people who don't understand economics.As a liberal (who happens to have an MBA with a major in Economics) I despise the RW pundits as much as I despise the left wing extremist pundits who put out the drivel you are preaching. Unholy horseshit
The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot
There is only so much corporate income in a given year.
Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.
The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. ItÂ’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.
Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.
The Zero-sum Nature of economics
%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution
Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board.
Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “
These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”
You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.[/QUOTE]
LBJ (JFK) used DEMAND SIDE NOT trickle down. Get honest
JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.
But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars.
A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.
Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.
