Should the government cap actors' pay?

[Cecilie1200]

Oh and Baruch - I agree with you 100 percent. The right to a lawyer is guaranteed in the Constitution. Hence lawyers should be public servants - paid accordingly ; just like teachers and cops.

That's why there are public defenders, who get paid according to a district's budget.

That reminds me, nobody has mentioned capping lobbyists salaries. We have public and private attorneys defending laws that are made by public lawmakers who are on a fixed salary, but written in many cases by private lobbyists who make millions unfettered by regulation.

You have difficulty with irony and sarcasm, don't you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What am I trying to rationalize here, Cecile? I am just playing some serious devil's advocate against the OP, so calm down.

we don't need corporations to produce everything we might ever need in our lives. That's what we have come to believe because we are inundated in a sea of corporations everyday (Subway, McD's, Nike, Sony, and on and on...) There was a time when corporations did not yet exist you know... and you could still eat and be clothed, etc... Imagine that!!!

Clearly, we DO need them to produce it, or we wouldn't have them doing it. At the very least, we obviously WANT them to do it, or they wouldn't exist.

There was, indeed, a time when there were no corporations, and everything was produced and sold by small, individually-owned businesses . . . and most of it could be purchased only by the rich. Go back and consider the appalling rates of poverty and malnutrition that existed, and how much lower the standard of living was for everyone. One of the major reasons for the invention and rise of corporations is that their founders realized that they could make huge amounts of money by harnessing the greater purchasing and production powers of conglomeration, thus making it possible to lower prices, sell to a larger customer base, and target quantity sales.

Consider the food industry. Right now, in any town in America, a poor family can just la-di-da down the street to a supermarket - in many cities you can do it any time of the day or night - and stock up on a wide selection of inexpensive cuts of fresh meat and cheap produce. Would that be possible if we went back to mom & pop farms and mercantiles? Hardly. For many people from that era, just the idea of meat in every meal would have been an unimaginable luxury.

Or consider the pharmaceutical industry. Oh, I know, people LOVE to ***** about how much their medications cost, but how many breakthroughs and treatments would we be living without if there were no pharmaceutical companies able and willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars per illness on research and development? I suffered my entire childhood and adolescence with near-crippling bouts of depression, until in my mid-twenties, psych meds that weren't worse than the illness they treated came out and allowed me to have a normal life with a job and a husband and a family and friends. Would that have happened if there had been no Eli Lilly to create Prozac? There are diseases that used to devastate entire populations at will that now exist only in laboratories because of the efforts of pharmaceutical and medical research companies.

The food industry has wiped out family farms.

So?

They produce en masse in horrid working conditions in order to stock grocery stores with "food" ladeled with preservatives we can't even pronounce.

Thanks, I've read "Grapes of Wrath".

It's easy to rail on about the wonders of "organic produce" and the horrors of mass-produced food when you're not poor. Those preservatives are one of the reasons we can manage to have fresh fruits and vegetables available for everyone, not just YOUR spoiled, privileged fat ass. Not everyone is an elitist snob shouting, "Let them eat cake!" Marie Antoinette.

Big Pharma "tests" almost all of its drugs overseas in human trials, knowing full well many of them contain dangerous, life-threatening components.

Well, then, we sure as hell wouldn't want to test them before giving them to people, would we?

But they have a huge influence over the minds of people who buy into the belief that one pill which will cost them $100 will do a better job than one aspirin.

Which pill would that be? The nitroglycerine pills that people with heart problems take? The pills that diabetics take to control their illness so they don't have to have daily shots? Oh, I know. The antibiotics with which we fight off hosts of infections that would otherwise ravage and kill people. Would those be the overpriced pills you claim could be replaced with a ******* aspirin?

Genuinely helping people with certain drugs costs a fortune. PROFIT first is the mantra of monopolistic conglomerates. If people get sick and/or die from use of one of their products, c'est la vie, they've made enough to cover any legal expenses.

Blah de blah ******* blah PROFITS!!! Get over it. Do I really give a damn if a pharmaceutical company develops a drug that'll save my life because they want a profit instead of because they're vying for canonization? Actually, I think I'd prefer the profit motive, because THAT one means they'll actually have the money to find the ******* cure, instead of just having tons of warm, fuzzy intentions.

And words cannot express how utterly disinterested I am in your bullshit, vague assumptions that all pharmaceutical companies don't give a good goddamn whether or not people die. You base this on what, other than your own half-assed ignorance and class envy because they dare to be rich and successful when you can't be? What evidence do you have that they just carelessly blow off illness and death? Would it be the numerous expensive recalls pharmaceutical companies have made over the years of problematic products? Or would your evidence be the fact that you saw an episode of "Law and Order" that featured evil drug companies?

I'll put the reality of the many good things corporations have brought to our society over your wispy imaginings based on Internet blogs and TV dramas any day of the goddamned week.

 

[jeffrockit]

you're ignoring the point and going to the extreme...

you think a failed CEO should suck millions out of a corporation in golden parachutes? or you think their pay should at least be linked to profitability?

So Affleck has never made any money on the crappy movies he has made? The point is he. and many of the Hollywood elite, are hypocrites as they make many times the money a gaffer on the set makes and still they preach about evil corps CEO's making money with a failing company. If the movie fails, they still make money...correct. While it may be a valid point, coming from just another millionaire actor in this country, most don't care to listen.

Kinda like Obama stating that all have to tighten their belts while he is not looking for money to make his house payment.

So tell us how your favorite conservative lawmaker has tightened his/her belt at home.

You miss the point completely as I never stated anything about conservative lawmakers. None has tightened their belts but you seem so blinded with partisanship politics that you want to play tit for tat. I am stating now that almost all politicians are driven by power greed. I was showing the hypocrisy of Obama's statement as he is not in the financial situation many americans are and yet he is asking those to "tighten their belts". He is chief of the party that just spent more money during their tenure than the 1st 100 congresses combined. That's not really tightening their belts, is it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Should the government cap actors' pay?
Is this a trick question? No the government should not put a cap on their pay. The government has no say in how much someone makes unless they are government employees.

 

[MikeK]

Should the government cap actors' pay?

The primary purpose of government is that of preserving the integrity of the Nation and insuring its survival as a democracy. If performing that function requires imposing expedient regulations on the distribution of the Nation's wealth when its fiscal health is in imminent jeopardy, then so be it.

So the question is redundant.

 

[westwall]

Ah gotta love that celebutard hypocrisy.

corporate CEO's DO make too much money relative to employees further down the food chain. it used to be a disparity of something like 6 to 8 times. now it's something like 30 times.

actors are used BECAUSE they make money for corporations. If you starr Brad Pitt in a movie, how much does his name bring to the box office? He creates wealth for the production company much like Derrick Jeter does for his team's owners. I view it as profit sharing.

unlike failed CEO's who get golden parachutes. when you screw up like he or Carly Fiorina did, do you get a check for millions of dollars and a pension? Or does your butt get shown the door?

How much wealth did Tony Hayward produce for BP?

Anniston hasn't had a hit in years and yet she still gets paid millions for the movies she's in.

There are lots of actors in the same boat. I do agree that there are CEO's being paid ridiculous amounts of money. I would set their base pay at say 8 to 10 times the average worker and then let them earn the rest based on performance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Should the government cap actors' pay?

The primary purpose of government is that of preserving the integrity of the Nation and insuring its survival as a democracy. If performing that function requires imposing expedient regulations on the distribution of the Nation's wealth when its fiscal health is in imminent jeopardy, then so be it.

So the question is redundant.

You shall only be paid x number of dollars no matter how much you think you deserve more. Is that what you want? Or is just other peoples pay that you want the government to regulate?

 

[chanel]

And if the CEO can only make 8 times the average worker, then the COO can only make 6 times, and the VP can only make 4 times... Be careful what you wish for people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And if the CEO can only make 8 times the average worker, then the COO can only make 6 times, and the VP can only make 4 times... Be careful what you wish for people.

Exactly my point. It's ok to have a cap on oither peoples money but hell no you can't touch my money. edit thats what the people who support this kind of thing will say.

A thought just came to mind. If a cap is placed on peoples salary where will the reat of the money go? TAXES ARE ALREADY OUTRAGOUS. They are not going to drop any taxes so where will the excess money go? The unions the politicans pocket?

 

[mudwhistle]

Ah gotta love that celebutard hypocrisy.

corporate CEO's DO make too much money relative to employees further down the food chain. it used to be a disparity of something like 6 to 8 times. now it's something like 30 times.

actors are used BECAUSE they make money for corporations. If you starr Brad Pitt in a movie, how much does his name bring to the box office? He creates wealth for the production company much like Derrick Jeter does for his team's owners. I view it as profit sharing.

unlike failed CEO's who get golden parachutes. when you screw up like he or Carly Fiorina did, do you get a check for millions of dollars and a pension? Or does your butt get shown the door?

How much wealth did Tony Hayward produce for BP?

I don't know.

Will Ferrell has made one bomb after another yet he doesn't get shown the door.

 

[mudwhistle]

Should the government cap actors' pay?

The primary purpose of government is that of preserving the integrity of the Nation and insuring its survival as a democracy. If performing that function requires imposing expedient regulations on the distribution of the Nation's wealth when its fiscal health is in imminent jeopardy, then so be it.

So the question is redundant.

Why don't we just give the government all of our money and let them dole out what they feel we need to survive.

How's that sound?

If we allow them to place caps on our pay this will eventually become a reality. Also if we allow them to regulate pay-scales in specific jobs and not others a question of fairness arises.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Should the government cap actors' pay?

The primary purpose of government is that of preserving the integrity of the Nation and insuring its survival as a democracy. If performing that function requires imposing expedient regulations on the distribution of the Nation's wealth when its fiscal health is in imminent jeopardy, then so be it.

So the question is redundant.

Why don't we just give the government all of our money and let them dole out what they feel we need to survive.

How's that sound?

Those type people don't earn money and could care less

 

[MaggieMae]

The government should have a 99% tax on actor pay above $250,000, think of all the teachers and policemen we could hire.

It's only fair

OR we could tax the producers of World of Warfare and other video gamers who are responsible for several million Americans sitting on their asses 24/7 and pretending to be something they aren't.

The only people responsible for Americans sitting on their asses are those Americans. And what frigging business is it of yours what other people choose to do with their time?

Lighten up, sweetie.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh and Baruch - I agree with you 100 percent. The right to a lawyer is guaranteed in the Constitution. Hence lawyers should be public servants - paid accordingly ; just like teachers and cops.

That's why there are public defenders, who get paid according to a district's budget.

That reminds me, nobody has mentioned capping lobbyists salaries. We have public and private attorneys defending laws that are made by public lawmakers who are on a fixed salary, but written in many cases by private lobbyists who make millions unfettered by regulation.

You have difficulty with irony and sarcasm, don't you?

No, but apparently you do. See comment on World of Warfare.

 

[MaggieMae]

Clearly, we DO need them to produce it, or we wouldn't have them doing it. At the very least, we obviously WANT them to do it, or they wouldn't exist.

There was, indeed, a time when there were no corporations, and everything was produced and sold by small, individually-owned businesses . . . and most of it could be purchased only by the rich. Go back and consider the appalling rates of poverty and malnutrition that existed, and how much lower the standard of living was for everyone. One of the major reasons for the invention and rise of corporations is that their founders realized that they could make huge amounts of money by harnessing the greater purchasing and production powers of conglomeration, thus making it possible to lower prices, sell to a larger customer base, and target quantity sales.

Consider the food industry. Right now, in any town in America, a poor family can just la-di-da down the street to a supermarket - in many cities you can do it any time of the day or night - and stock up on a wide selection of inexpensive cuts of fresh meat and cheap produce. Would that be possible if we went back to mom & pop farms and mercantiles? Hardly. For many people from that era, just the idea of meat in every meal would have been an unimaginable luxury.

Or consider the pharmaceutical industry. Oh, I know, people LOVE to ***** about how much their medications cost, but how many breakthroughs and treatments would we be living without if there were no pharmaceutical companies able and willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars per illness on research and development? I suffered my entire childhood and adolescence with near-crippling bouts of depression, until in my mid-twenties, psych meds that weren't worse than the illness they treated came out and allowed me to have a normal life with a job and a husband and a family and friends. Would that have happened if there had been no Eli Lilly to create Prozac? There are diseases that used to devastate entire populations at will that now exist only in laboratories because of the efforts of pharmaceutical and medical research companies.

The food industry has wiped out family farms.

So?



Thanks, I've read "Grapes of Wrath".

It's easy to rail on about the wonders of "organic produce" and the horrors of mass-produced food when you're not poor. Those preservatives are one of the reasons we can manage to have fresh fruits and vegetables available for everyone, not just YOUR spoiled, privileged fat ass. Not everyone is an elitist snob shouting, "Let them eat cake!" Marie Antoinette.



Well, then, we sure as hell wouldn't want to test them before giving them to people, would we?

But they have a huge influence over the minds of people who buy into the belief that one pill which will cost them $100 will do a better job than one aspirin.

Which pill would that be? The nitroglycerine pills that people with heart problems take? The pills that diabetics take to control their illness so they don't have to have daily shots? Oh, I know. The antibiotics with which we fight off hosts of infections that would otherwise ravage and kill people. Would those be the overpriced pills you claim could be replaced with a ******* aspirin?

Genuinely helping people with certain drugs costs a fortune. PROFIT first is the mantra of monopolistic conglomerates. If people get sick and/or die from use of one of their products, c'est la vie, they've made enough to cover any legal expenses.

Blah de blah ******* blah PROFITS!!! Get over it. Do I really give a damn if a pharmaceutical company develops a drug that'll save my life because they want a profit instead of because they're vying for canonization? Actually, I think I'd prefer the profit motive, because THAT one means they'll actually have the money to find the ******* cure, instead of just having tons of warm, fuzzy intentions.

And words cannot express how utterly disinterested I am in your bullshit, vague assumptions that all pharmaceutical companies don't give a good goddamn whether or not people die. You base this on what, other than your own half-assed ignorance and class envy because they dare to be rich and successful when you can't be? What evidence do you have that they just carelessly blow off illness and death? Would it be the numerous expensive recalls pharmaceutical companies have made over the years of problematic products? Or would your evidence be the fact that you saw an episode of "Law and Order" that featured evil drug companies?

I'll put the reality of the many good things corporations have brought to our society over your wispy imaginings based on Internet blogs and TV dramas any day of the goddamned week.

Surely there's an expensive pill for your vile mouth, expressed through what are probably chewed off fingernails. I'll bet you can clear a room really fast.

 

[MaggieMae]

Should the government cap actors' pay?

The primary purpose of government is that of preserving the integrity of the Nation and insuring its survival as a democracy. If performing that function requires imposing expedient regulations on the distribution of the Nation's wealth when its fiscal health is in imminent jeopardy, then so be it.

So the question is redundant.

Why don't we just give the government all of our money and let them dole out what they feel we need to survive.

How's that sound?

If we allow them to place caps on our pay this will eventually become a reality. Also if we allow them to regulate pay-scales in specific jobs and not others a question of fairness arises.

THERE HAS BEEN NO LEGISLATIVE MOVEMENT TO CAP SALARIES!!!!!!!! What the **** is this argument about? The ONLY time the subject was even raised was when the CEOs of the very lending institutions that nearly brought this nation to its knees, because they did NOT have assets to cover their losses, decided to go ahead and pay themselves huge bonuses anyway. The end.

 

[Intense]

If the movie sucks, are we entitled to a refund?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mass. Tax Credits Used To Cover Movie Stars' Wages - CBS News

When actors receive money from our taxes shouldn't the government say what they should be paid?

It's no different than people saying the government should dictate salaries of CEOs of companies who took bail out money.

 

[westwall]

If the movie sucks, are we entitled to a refund?

We sure should be! I have walked out of several movies that were so bad I was astonished they made it to the screen.

 

[MikeK]

You shall only be paid x number of dollars no matter how much you think you deserve more. Is that what you want? Or is just other peoples pay that you want the government to regulate?

I have no fixed formula for adjustments in mind at this time and it will take the abilities of skilled economists to derive one. But it's clear that elimination of regulations which have taken place since Ronald Reagan took Office have severely upset the balance of this Nation's wealth distribution and adjustments needs to be made to restore that balance to the levels that attended the period of our greatest prosperity.

There is no good reason why a tiny percentage of the population should be permitted to exploit the aforementioned deregulations and hoard wealth in the multi-billions of dollars while one out of every forty-five working class Americans is facing mortgage foreclosure. Something is definitely wrong here and it needs to be fixed.

The status of the American Middle Class must be restored.