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 am not a republican, but a libertarian/conservative. Actions have consequences, you vote for people who want to keep you dumb and poor, that is your "CHOICE", I make my own choices, and vote for the people who will allow me to keep more of my own money, see my avatar.No, not my arrogance, but by their actions to vote for the very people who keep them poor. When you are retarded enough to vote for people who want to hike up your taxes, cause your energy prices to necessarily skyrocket, make food harder to buy, you just are a stupid, mindnumbed idiot, who goose steps to the liberal beat. Then when those liberal elites talk about punishing those who didnt stay a victim of liberalism, you guys are out there cheering them on, not for making your lives better, but for making everyone else like you poor and miserable. Liberalism is all about misery and poverty, when they get everyone to achieve that , they have finally made it FAIR...you do realize that a mortgage has not only a tax deduction but a lower interest rate payment than a signature loan. But if your mortgage is 4% while you have dividend stocks paying 7 -10% you have just wasted a lot of money. yes, you are a victim of liberalism who doesnt know how to make money...
So, you call folks that you don't even "stupid" & "victim" based on what; your arrogance?
So, you want to tax the poorest Americans & you're arrogant.
You must be a Republican.
So, you make all of the above assumptions, apply them to me, again, someone you have never met, and you are not arrogant?
How in Hell could I (or anyone else) pay off a mortgage of over $100 large & be poor, as you claim?
You are either the most arrogant member here, replete with your barrel full of assumptions about someone you know nothing about, or you are the reincarnation of Miss Cleo, or maybe both.
You remind me of one of these born again Christians that comes across as better than anyone else; funny how you hate poor people.
I dont make assumptions at all, I have facts. Many of my friends, a lot of them black, before they met me, had no clue how to invest in the stock market, let alone start their own business. Today, most, but not all, have done very well for themselves, because like me, instead of bitching and moaning how unfair life is, they took their God given gifts and are now quite wealthy. It all starts with attitude, if you are a victim of someone, you will never be able to make something of yourself, but if you move on and up, the sky is the limit in this once again great country. Stay poor, stay miserable, dont listen, keep sticking your head up your butt, you will never make it here. My suggestion, move to Cuba, see what Socialism truly is like. You might like it.....
Stay poor? Never said I was poor.
Stay miserable? Never said I was miserable.
Sticking my head up my butt? Nope.
Why would I move to Cuba?
Your arrogance continues to demonstrate your contempt of those you have never met.
You really have superiority issues; you act like you are better than everyone else.
Are you a serial killer?
Oh; I got it. You are just a Republican.
And by the way: the thread is about TAXES ............. it aint about Uncle Henry's 101 Ways to Wealth Outside of Cuba.
Well, if I wasn't better than everyone else, then I would be a dirt poor miserable liberal like you. When you are a "winner" you can have great success. Did you know that a professional athlete considers themselves winners, not losers like you? A liberal Movie Star doesnt stew how much of a loser they are, they go out and make millions of dollars because they arent dirt poor miserable wretches, just hypocrite liberals, who say they love the poor and wasn't FAIRNESS, then close their gates to their walled in Mansions and only live amongst themselves...Again, you sure talk like a poor, miserable wretch, because of your envy of others who have more, I consider it a game, where I will one day be able to take on George Soros and bankrupt the mother fucker, like he has done to other countries. You can watch..No, not my arrogance, but by their actions to vote for the very people who keep them poor. When you are retarded enough to vote for people who want to hike up your taxes, cause your energy prices to necessarily skyrocket, make food harder to buy, you just are a stupid, mindnumbed idiot, who goose steps to the liberal beat. Then when those liberal elites talk about punishing those who didnt stay a victim of liberalism, you guys are out there cheering them on, not for making your lives better, but for making everyone else like you poor and miserable. Liberalism is all about misery and poverty, when they get everyone to achieve that , they have finally made it FAIR...So, you call folks that you don't even "stupid" & "victim" based on what; your arrogance?
So, you want to tax the poorest Americans & you're arrogant.
You must be a Republican.
So, you make all of the above assumptions, apply them to me, again, someone you have never met, and you are not arrogant?
How in Hell could I (or anyone else) pay off a mortgage of over $100 large & be poor, as you claim?
You are either the most arrogant member here, replete with your barrel full of assumptions about someone you know nothing about, or you are the reincarnation of Miss Cleo, or maybe both.
You remind me of one of these born again Christians that comes across as better than anyone else; funny how you hate poor people.
I dont make assumptions at all, I have facts. Many of my friends, a lot of them black, before they met me, had no clue how to invest in the stock market, let alone start their own business. Today, most, but not all, have done very well for themselves, because like me, instead of bitching and moaning how unfair life is, they took their God given gifts and are now quite wealthy. It all starts with attitude, if you are a victim of someone, you will never be able to make something of yourself, but if you move on and up, the sky is the limit in this once again great country. Stay poor, stay miserable, dont listen, keep sticking your head up your butt, you will never make it here. My suggestion, move to Cuba, see what Socialism truly is like. You might like it.....
Stay poor? Never said I was poor.
Stay miserable? Never said I was miserable.
Sticking my head up my butt? Nope.
Why would I move to Cuba?
Your arrogance continues to demonstrate your contempt of those you have never met.
You really have superiority issues; you act like you are better than everyone else.
Are you a serial killer?
Oh; I got it. You are just a Republican.
And by the way: the thread is about TAXES ............. it aint about Uncle Henry's 101 Ways to Wealth Outside of Cuba.
I am not a republican, but a libertarian/conservative. Actions have consequences, you vote for people who want to keep you dumb and poor, that is your "CHOICE", I make my own choices, and vote for the people who will allow me to keep more of my own money, see my avatar.No, not my arrogance, but by their actions to vote for the very people who keep them poor. When you are retarded enough to vote for people who want to hike up your taxes, cause your energy prices to necessarily skyrocket, make food harder to buy, you just are a stupid, mindnumbed idiot, who goose steps to the liberal beat. Then when those liberal elites talk about punishing those who didnt stay a victim of liberalism, you guys are out there cheering them on, not for making your lives better, but for making everyone else like you poor and miserable. Liberalism is all about misery and poverty, when they get everyone to achieve that , they have finally made it FAIR...So, you call folks that you don't even "stupid" & "victim" based on what; your arrogance?
So, you want to tax the poorest Americans & you're arrogant.
You must be a Republican.
So, you make all of the above assumptions, apply them to me, again, someone you have never met, and you are not arrogant?
How in Hell could I (or anyone else) pay off a mortgage of over $100 large & be poor, as you claim?
You are either the most arrogant member here, replete with your barrel full of assumptions about someone you know nothing about, or you are the reincarnation of Miss Cleo, or maybe both.
You remind me of one of these born again Christians that comes across as better than anyone else; funny how you hate poor people.
I dont make assumptions at all, I have facts. Many of my friends, a lot of them black, before they met me, had no clue how to invest in the stock market, let alone start their own business. Today, most, but not all, have done very well for themselves, because like me, instead of bitching and moaning how unfair life is, they took their God given gifts and are now quite wealthy. It all starts with attitude, if you are a victim of someone, you will never be able to make something of yourself, but if you move on and up, the sky is the limit in this once again great country. Stay poor, stay miserable, dont listen, keep sticking your head up your butt, you will never make it here. My suggestion, move to Cuba, see what Socialism truly is like. You might like it.....
Stay poor? Never said I was poor.
Stay miserable? Never said I was miserable.
Sticking my head up my butt? Nope.
Why would I move to Cuba?
Your arrogance continues to demonstrate your contempt of those you have never met.
You really have superiority issues; you act like you are better than everyone else.
Are you a serial killer?
Oh; I got it. You are just a Republican.
And by the way: the thread is about TAXES ............. it aint about Uncle Henry's 101 Ways to Wealth Outside of Cuba.
I am 100% against consumption taxes...too many taxes as it is. And it hurts the economy as there will inevitably be people who cannot afford/buy an item if there are additional taxes on top of it. Plus, it is too easy for businesses to get around.I don't care what the majority of Americans want in this particular case (though usually, I do).
Most Americans are not in the tax bracket in question - naturally they will be for raising the tax rate in a tax bracket they have nothing to do with.
The ONLY, truly fair tax is where every American (who is not poor - it is pointless to tax poor people) pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...including capital gains.
Raising taxes on anybody has an indirect effect on everybody.
If it's one thing I learned, it's that the rich guy never takes the hit. Come up with some tax scheme for companies, they simply increase the price of their products, freeze pay increases and benefits for their workers, move some or all operations overseas, and it's the little guy who always ends up paying or getting hurt.
Let's say you came across a small fortune: a small lottery winning, winning a huge lawsuit, being an heir of a wealthy relative. Now you have 200K to do with what you want. Would you risk that money in investments if government is going to take almost 3/4 of it if you make out? It's simply not worth the risk.
People investing money is what makes our world go round., Bring that to a halt and you do the same for our economy.
What are you talking about?
Where did I say anything about a 70% capital gains tax?
I am against the 70% tax...STRONGLY.
To be clear, I am talking about 0% tax up to the poverty line and a 20-30% tax on everyone else (including capital gains). With only two deductions - capital losses and charitable contributions.
That makes taxation 100% fair and makes doing one's taxes a 5 minute task.
And I am 100% against corporate taxation. All corporate taxes are passed on through either higher prices, lower wages/benefits and/or lower dividends to shareholders. The corporate tax rate should be 0%.
Corporations do not 'eat' corporate taxes.
And will the above reduce government income?
God...I hope so.
Government is far, FAR too big as it is - both in the military and social spending.
Some of both is necessary.
But the levels both are at are absolutely ridiculous.
Well the title of the thread is 70% taxation, that's why I brought it up.
Your suggestion is that we continue to have everybody else support those with lower income or no income at all. Why not everybody pay? I suggest a consumption tax. We have it here in my county. It's 8 cents on every dollar spent on anything outside of food.
I lived for years in Canada and they have a 'GST' tax (a consumption tax). And people got around that constantly. It's called 'cash' with 'no/phony receipts'.
The next question is how as a landlord am I supposed to continue renting my apartments if I'm not allowed any deductions? The only way to keep that business would be to double everybody's rent. Could you afford to pay twice as much for rent? Neither can my tenants.
After all, I deduct what I pay for utilities for those apartments, what I pay for insurance, what I pay for property taxes, what I pay for all the repairs or improvements, mortgage interest rates. By the time taxes are due, I have over a hundred deductions not including medical. Over 200 including medical.
Then after that, you want me to pay 20 to 30% on anything over $12,140 which is the poverty line for a single person.
I couldn't afford to keep the business, and I plan on using it to supplement my Social Security when I retire.
And I have been a landlord many times. I would not have had to raise taxes more than 20% at most if I could not have included any deductions. Tenants paid their own utilities and I rarely needed to repair the properties...because I did not buy dumps. I bought new/newer properties with new/newer appliances/HVAC equipment that needed little/nothing in the way of repairs/improvements.
And I am not going to waste one second more on your 'situation'...I DON'T MUCH CARE WHAT IT IS.
It's simple, the free market will work it out...supply-and-demand. If you have to raise your rent because you cannot deduct expenses - then everyone else will as well. And your relative level of competitiveness will remain the same.
Supply and demand will work everything out.
Besides, if you are for free enterprise - then you should be for the least possible amount of government intrusion into the private sector...including tax deductions.
No doubt you do not agree...so be it.
Good day.
Anyone with sufficient wealth can reduce their tax rate to zero with the right kind of investing, for example tax free municipal bonds exempt from AMT.He said he had a lower tax rate than his secretary, which is easy to accomplish.
Which is not true but Progressives have nothing else.
I don't know anything about how Buffet invests his wealth but I would guess, most of it is split between a charitable trust and a trust for his kids, neither of which he pays tax on. With 87 billion pledged to charity, 37 billion is being paid to the Gates Foundation, his charitable contributions will certainly exceed his taxable income.
Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?
Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.
You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.
That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?
Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.
You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.
That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
That's why I'm such a steal for my employer. It would take three people at my rate to replace me, or two people at $2-3 an hour more, or one person at $5+. I know this, because before I was hired, they were paying three people exactly what I get now to do what I do. They hired me to replace one of them (who sucked), and then after they hired me, they got rid of the other two.
Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.
Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.
You go with that, Sparky.
Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.
Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.
If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."
Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.
Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.
What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary.
If he said that, he lied.
That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash.
If the alternative is sitting on a pile of cash earning 2%, I'd prefer a buyback.
They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings.
I don't want my companies to make stupid investments at inflated prices, just to use up cash.
So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut?
Because the highest corporate tax rate in the 1st world makes us less competitive.
Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments.
Your moronic claim never fails to make me laugh.
the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
I wonder, is that because the after tax profit is higher at a 21% tax rate than at a 35% tax rate?
Third choice should be. 3. Yes. My boss would have to lay me off due to taxes.I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.
The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.
Please vote in my poll.
It's true. Millions would lose their jobs if their boss or his company was taxed at 70 percent.
Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.
Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.
You go with that, Sparky.
Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.
Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.
If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."
Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.
Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.
What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.
Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.
Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".
The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.
I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.
Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.
You are so full of shit. It is the board members who set the CEO's pay, for if the CEO doesnt perform he gets canned, if he produces then he gets paid well. Why is it CEO's are bad guys who have to run a company employing possibly 10's of 1000s of people, yet a movie star(liberal) or pro Athlete, can make the same or even more, and you dont say a fucking word about them? Because you brain dead asshole liberals, only do what your liberal elites tell you to do. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...That' the story line. In reality, CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?
Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.
You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.
That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Who can change the pay? The board of directors of course, but who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn't do any board member's reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don't want your objection to "Joe's" pay coming up when its time to set your pay.
The people most directly effected is not the public but the shareholders. However, thanks to corporation law in states like Delaware where so many big corporations incorporate, shareholders that are not on the board have little if any input.
So don't think for a moment that hiring CEO's is anything like hiring other employees. There is of course exceptions, usually in smaller businesses where the CEO actually understands the business and often has been active in managing the business.
CEO's in our largest corporation often have no experience in managing the business. They manage the books, know little about products, or the people that create them. They are money people.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money
The money that is given out in Dividends is already taxed, before it goes to the Joe Public. So you want double taxation on the same money? Pandora's box and soon you want have anything left. God you dumbasses never quit....Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.
You go with that, Sparky.
Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.
Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.
If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."
Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.
Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.
What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.
Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.
Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".
The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.
I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.
Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.
It makes no sense to tax unearned income lower than earned income. I mean look at that damn statement. You pay less in taxes on money YOU DON'T EARN than on money you do. WTF. Stupid.
Here is an example. You are a doctor. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on college and medical school. You spent four long years in residency busting your balls. And now you have a thriving practice. The income that practice generates is taxed HIGHER than any income you derive from playing in the stock market. The government is actually ENCOURAGING you to speculate in the stock market rather than expand the business you were trained to do. That is FUBARED. Ronald Reagan said as much and he was right. And look at the wildly fluctuating stock market, that is a direct result of this ignorance along with the corporate tax cut. If you think about it for just one minute you might be able to figure out precisely who this ignorant idea of taxing unearned income lower than earned income helps and I will give you a hint. It is me, not you.
So a 1/4 back who gets 7 million a year is underpaid, how about the guy who sits the bench making $400,000 and never gets his butt onto the field? You are such a dimwit.You are so full of shit. It is the board members who set the CEO's pay, for if the CEO doesnt perform he gets canned, if he produces then he gets paid well. Why is it CEO's are bad guys who have to run a company employing possibly 10's of 1000s of people, yet a movie star(liberal) or pro Athlete, can make the same or even more, and you dont say a fucking word about them? Because you brain dead asshole liberals, only do what your liberal elites tell you to do. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...That' the story line. In reality, CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.
Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.
You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.
That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Who can change the pay? The board of directors of course, but who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn't do any board member's reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don't want your objection to "Joe's" pay coming up when its time to set your pay.
The people most directly effected is not the public but the shareholders. However, thanks to corporation law in states like Delaware where so many big corporations incorporate, shareholders that are not on the board have little if any input.
So don't think for a moment that hiring CEO's is anything like hiring other employees. There is of course exceptions, usually in smaller businesses where the CEO actually understands the business and often has been active in managing the business.
CEO's in our largest corporation often have no experience in managing the business. They manage the books, know little about products, or the people that create them. They are money people.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money
Professional athletes are underpaid because they labor in a monopsony situation. Everyone with any type of formal economic training knows this. While CEO's are overpaid because of stock options, corporate buybacks, and a board that does little more than rubber stamp any executive compensation packages.
You are so full of shit. It is the board members who set the CEO's pay, for if the CEO doesnt perform he gets canned, if he produces then he gets paid well. Why is it CEO's are bad guys who have to run a company employing possibly 10's of 1000s of people, yet a movie star(liberal) or pro Athlete, can make the same or even more, and you dont say a fucking word about them? Because you brain dead asshole liberals, only do what your liberal elites tell you to do. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...That' the story line. In reality, CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.
Because CEO's are more valuable to a company than workers. If companies could find the best CEO's to work for 100K a year, they would do it. But like actors and actresses, sports figures, musicians, they have an extreme talent very few other people have.
You and I both own widget companies. We both need a new CEO. One is willing to work for you for 5 mil a year. You don't want to pay that because your workers are earning very well. So I offer the CEO the 5 mil. Within a few years, I am able to sell widgets for much less than you, I take most of your customers, and you close up shop.
That's why they pay CEO's what they pay them, because if you don't want to pay them that money, your competitor just might.
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Who can change the pay? The board of directors of course, but who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn't do any board member's reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don't want your objection to "Joe's" pay coming up when its time to set your pay.
The people most directly effected is not the public but the shareholders. However, thanks to corporation law in states like Delaware where so many big corporations incorporate, shareholders that are not on the board have little if any input.
So don't think for a moment that hiring CEO's is anything like hiring other employees. There is of course exceptions, usually in smaller businesses where the CEO actually understands the business and often has been active in managing the business.
CEO's in our largest corporation often have no experience in managing the business. They manage the books, know little about products, or the people that create them. They are money people.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money
Professional athletes are underpaid because they labor in a monopsony situation. Everyone with any type of formal economic training knows this. While CEO's are overpaid because of stock options, corporate buybacks, and a board that does little more than rubber stamp any executive compensation packages.
You are so full of shit. It is the board members who set the CEO's pay, for if the CEO doesnt perform he gets canned, if he produces then he gets paid well. Why is it CEO's are bad guys who have to run a company employing possibly 10's of 1000s of people, yet a movie star(liberal) or pro Athlete, can make the same or even more, and you dont say a fucking word about them? Because you brain dead asshole liberals, only do what your liberal elites tell you to do. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...That' the story line. In reality, CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Who can change the pay? The board of directors of course, but who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn't do any board member's reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don't want your objection to "Joe's" pay coming up when its time to set your pay.
The people most directly effected is not the public but the shareholders. However, thanks to corporation law in states like Delaware where so many big corporations incorporate, shareholders that are not on the board have little if any input.
So don't think for a moment that hiring CEO's is anything like hiring other employees. There is of course exceptions, usually in smaller businesses where the CEO actually understands the business and often has been active in managing the business.
CEO's in our largest corporation often have no experience in managing the business. They manage the books, know little about products, or the people that create them. They are money people.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money
Professional athletes are underpaid because they labor in a monopsony situation. Everyone with any type of formal economic training knows this. While CEO's are overpaid because of stock options, corporate buybacks, and a board that does little more than rubber stamp any executive compensation packages.
How is one underpaid by playing a game they would play anyway even if they weren't getting paid?
You are so full of shit. It is the board members who set the CEO's pay, for if the CEO doesnt perform he gets canned, if he produces then he gets paid well. Why is it CEO's are bad guys who have to run a company employing possibly 10's of 1000s of people, yet a movie star(liberal) or pro Athlete, can make the same or even more, and you dont say a fucking word about them? Because you brain dead asshole liberals, only do what your liberal elites tell you to do. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...That' the story line. In reality, CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Who can change the pay? The board of directors of course, but who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn't do any board member's reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don't want your objection to "Joe's" pay coming up when its time to set your pay.
The people most directly effected is not the public but the shareholders. However, thanks to corporation law in states like Delaware where so many big corporations incorporate, shareholders that are not on the board have little if any input.
So don't think for a moment that hiring CEO's is anything like hiring other employees. There is of course exceptions, usually in smaller businesses where the CEO actually understands the business and often has been active in managing the business.
CEO's in our largest corporation often have no experience in managing the business. They manage the books, know little about products, or the people that create them. They are money people.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money
Professional athletes are underpaid because they labor in a monopsony situation. Everyone with any type of formal economic training knows this. While CEO's are overpaid because of stock options, corporate buybacks, and a board that does little more than rubber stamp any executive compensation packages.
How is one underpaid by playing a game they would play anyway even if they weren't getting paid?
Why professional athletes are actually underpaid
And how many employees does LeBron James have working for him? A CEO may make 2 or 3 million while having to deal with little snot nose bastards like you, having to make decisions that could make or break a business, while LeBron, who left high school to go straight into "basketball"(which was invented by a white guy, is this cultural appropriations by blacks), so not getting a degree, or managing anything other than himself. You libtards are such a predictable dumbass people, who only say and do what your liberal leaders tell you do to. They say "Corporations are Evil" so you hate them even when you friends and neighbors could be working for one. They say profits are "EVIL" so you hate profits, unless it is LeBron James who makes 77 million dollars of profit. You are such a dimwad..$77 million in total income for LeBron James — he of the World Champion Cleveland Cavaliers and arguably the greatest basketball player on the planet — seems like a lot of money for someone who “plays” a game for a living. But as is often the case, things are not what they appear. In reality, James and many other athletes are actually wildly underpaid — specifically when it comes to their on-field salaries.
The money that is given out in Dividends is already taxed, before it goes to the Joe Public. So you want double taxation on the same money? Pandora's box and soon you want have anything left. God you dumbasses never quit....Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.
Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.
If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."
Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.
Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.
What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.
Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.
Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".
The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.
I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.
Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.
It makes no sense to tax unearned income lower than earned income. I mean look at that damn statement. You pay less in taxes on money YOU DON'T EARN than on money you do. WTF. Stupid.
Here is an example. You are a doctor. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on college and medical school. You spent four long years in residency busting your balls. And now you have a thriving practice. The income that practice generates is taxed HIGHER than any income you derive from playing in the stock market. The government is actually ENCOURAGING you to speculate in the stock market rather than expand the business you were trained to do. That is FUBARED. Ronald Reagan said as much and he was right. And look at the wildly fluctuating stock market, that is a direct result of this ignorance along with the corporate tax cut. If you think about it for just one minute you might be able to figure out precisely who this ignorant idea of taxing unearned income lower than earned income helps and I will give you a hint. It is me, not you.
Seems to me that you are very angry with having to pay a lot in taxes.. Want to know a way to not pay so much in taxes? Legally...The money that is given out in Dividends is already taxed, before it goes to the Joe Public. So you want double taxation on the same money? Pandora's box and soon you want have anything left. God you dumbasses never quit....Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.
If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."
Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.
Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.
What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.
Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.
Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".
The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.
I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.
Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.
It makes no sense to tax unearned income lower than earned income. I mean look at that damn statement. You pay less in taxes on money YOU DON'T EARN than on money you do. WTF. Stupid.
Here is an example. You are a doctor. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on college and medical school. You spent four long years in residency busting your balls. And now you have a thriving practice. The income that practice generates is taxed HIGHER than any income you derive from playing in the stock market. The government is actually ENCOURAGING you to speculate in the stock market rather than expand the business you were trained to do. That is FUBARED. Ronald Reagan said as much and he was right. And look at the wildly fluctuating stock market, that is a direct result of this ignorance along with the corporate tax cut. If you think about it for just one minute you might be able to figure out precisely who this ignorant idea of taxing unearned income lower than earned income helps and I will give you a hint. It is me, not you.
Screw your double tax bullshit. Hell, everybody gets double taxed. I bought a Zaxby's meal today. Dammit, I had to pay sales tax and I already paid income tax AND social security tax on the freaking money I gave them. Hell, I got TRIPLE taxed. Buy a car, you pay sales tax even though you paid tax on the money you bought the car with. Then you go to get the license plate and damn, you get taxed again. Safety inspection, shit, another tax. What is that, four freakin times now you got taxed on the same money. So your double tax argument on dividends is shit.
You are so full of shit. It is the board members who set the CEO's pay, for if the CEO doesnt perform he gets canned, if he produces then he gets paid well. Why is it CEO's are bad guys who have to run a company employing possibly 10's of 1000s of people, yet a movie star(liberal) or pro Athlete, can make the same or even more, and you dont say a fucking word about them? Because you brain dead asshole liberals, only do what your liberal elites tell you to do. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...That' the story line. In reality, CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.
Who can change the pay? The board of directors of course, but who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn't do any board member's reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don't want your objection to "Joe's" pay coming up when its time to set your pay.
The people most directly effected is not the public but the shareholders. However, thanks to corporation law in states like Delaware where so many big corporations incorporate, shareholders that are not on the board have little if any input.
So don't think for a moment that hiring CEO's is anything like hiring other employees. There is of course exceptions, usually in smaller businesses where the CEO actually understands the business and often has been active in managing the business.
CEO's in our largest corporation often have no experience in managing the business. They manage the books, know little about products, or the people that create them. They are money people.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money
Professional athletes are underpaid because they labor in a monopsony situation. Everyone with any type of formal economic training knows this. While CEO's are overpaid because of stock options, corporate buybacks, and a board that does little more than rubber stamp any executive compensation packages.
How is one underpaid by playing a game they would play anyway even if they weren't getting paid?
Why professional athletes are actually underpaidAnd how many employees does LeBron James have working for him? A CEO may make 2 or 3 million while having to deal with little snot nose bastards like you, having to make decisions that could make or break a business, while LeBron, who left high school to go straight into "basketball"(which was invented by a white guy, is this cultural appropriations by blacks), so not getting a degree, or managing anything other than himself. You libtards are such a predictable dumbass people, who only say and do what your liberal leaders tell you do to. They say "Corporations are Evil" so you hate them even when you friends and neighbors could be working for one. They say profits are "EVIL" so you hate profits, unless it is LeBron James who makes 77 million dollars of profit. You are such a dimwad..$77 million in total income for LeBron James — he of the World Champion Cleveland Cavaliers and arguably the greatest basketball player on the planet — seems like a lot of money for someone who “plays” a game for a living. But as is often the case, things are not what they appear. In reality, James and many other athletes are actually wildly underpaid — specifically when it comes to their on-field salaries.
