The 36-hour work week/3-day weekend

[Andylusion]

Interesting thread and good conversation all around. To make this thread even better.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?

Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax - YouTube

The problem with all such programs is that it would not end up being a replacement, but an addition.

Such programs can only work, if there is an economic motive. The Friedman plan will in fact work, *IF* it replaces all the other welfare programs.

That would be great. But we all know how these things go. Everyone would be in favor of it, until they got to the "and now we cut welfare", and then everyone would start screaming about how we can't just throw single mothers and children out on the street to instantly die of starvation.

So a politically viable compromise would happen, where this program, and welfare, and food stamps, and subsidized housing, and it would end up being just another government handout in addition to all the other handouts.

To me it's the same problem as the national sales tax, or value added tax. If that tax were to actually replace other taxes, that would be good. But from history, we know that every country that either tried, or even succeeded in replacing income tax with VAT, the result has always been that they all ended up with both the income tax, and the VAT.

This is why I am against both.

Well the point is remove all welfare programs and spend the dollars on the negative income tax instead, i could be issued weekly to cut down on waste by those that cant handle their money. Those deemed mentally unstable, the money could go to payment at a group home. I don't understand why it would be an addition if the most costly existing welfare bureaucracies are eliminated to pay for this basic plan. It could save money eliminating extra govt. jobs. The states can also have their own plans to supplement or not if not needed, and their is also charity that will continue of course.


I see your point and admit that would be an issue if everyone voted for more spending. Perhaps it could be set at a steady rate that isn't easy to change somehow. States could have their own programs or not. Do you get to easily vote for social security to increase?

To me this is a win/win. Less govt. and those in need get assistance without spending a penny more than what is already. Also, everyone would get the same allotment-rich or poor.

Like I said... it would work... if they did it exactly as planned.

But how many times have we heard this before? If we do plan X, then we can eliminate plan Y. So the implement plan X, and start to phase out plan Y... and then they extend Y another few months.... then extend it another year.... then extend it 4 years.....

Then you end up with the infamous 1898 'temporary' 3% luxury tax on phones to pay for the Spanish American war, which was promptly ended in... 2006?

Do we trust that if we give government yet another hand out program, that they will eliminate all the other hand outs... and just as importantly, not bring the other handouts back?

I just don't know.

If you are simply asking whether the Friedman system would be better... then yes. I believe it would be better.

The question is, will the government, and the public, be willing to accept such a system, without all the other handouts? I just don't think so. I think even if we passed a bill to eliminate all the others, I think that would last 2 years, and the Democraps would get back the congress, and slowly bring all those programs back.

The only way it would really work, is if there was a fiscal crisis. When we have a 'near-Greece' experience, and government really grasps that money isn't an endless pool, that might be the time to try this.

 

[Andylusion]

I understand your confusion. You wonder if Large Corporations with massive profits employ terrible workers by accident or on purpose.

THE MESSAGE.

They fire or lose anyone that becomes efficient because they Eventually start to know their own self worth. And when people LEARN and become aware of self worth, it's bad for certain industries. It's why there is an attack on education.

Both of these two prior comments, are the absolute most stupid comments I've read for a while now.

The only fact we have right now, is that a Cici's Pizza hired a bad employee.

From that, 'large corporations' must intentionally hire lousy employees.

What the heck is wrong with leftists? How people can say stuff like this, and not hurt themselves getting out of bed in the morning, is beyond me.

Listen up sparky..... Most chain stores, are Franchises. The bad employee at Cici's, was never interviewed by a Corporate employee. He was likely interviewed and hired by either the owner of the Franchise, or the manager the owner put in charge of the franchise. And sometimes even that manager delegates hiring to a shift manager.

"Large Corporations", many times offer free training to become managers. Walmart even offers management training that is accredited, and qualify as college credit towards a business degree.

Does that sound like they are trying to prevent people from being aware of self-worth?

When I worked at the parts store, there was a guy there who went through the management training, and was working as Assistant Store Manager. Today he runs his own store. Good thing they prevented him from being aware of his self worth.

You people are a joke. You have no idea what you are talking about. The left claims to be against prejudice, and yet you do it all the time from a position of complete and total ignorance.

You do know that out of all McDonald's Franchises, 75% are owned and operated by people who started off as minimum wage crew members? Boy, McDonald's better step up their efforts of keeping employees from being aware of their self worth, because that's an awful lot of 6 Figure Incomes for people they wanted held down.

The dumbest things said on this forum sometimes. You need to sit down before you break something.

How can anyone take you serious when you mix comments and issues together in which don't go together, and then you take things in and out of context just to make a point that you create by constantly moving the goal post ? Then you fail at making your point stick because people can see right through such bull crap when you do this type stuff in which you do. I just shake my head when reading your post or responses, because I can see the game, your defenses, your biases, and your leanings that your have running all of the time.

Oh and it's Little Cesar's, and not Cici's Pizza that had the bad employee.

The difference is, I've lived this. I've worked at these places, and I know how the system works. I'm still friends with a manager at a Wendy's, who I worked for back in the 90s.

You just make up crap. The only fact that you have presented, was a business hired a bad employee.

You know nothing about why, or how. You make up, just completely fabricate all the fake reasons you want, to fit with your ideology.

But you don't actually know ANYTHING about why that guy is there, or what corporate knows, or doesn't know about that employee.

You are just prejudice. You pre-judge companies, on situations you know NOTHING about.

Btw, thanks for the laugh about "how can anyone take you seriously". Coming from you, that's hilarious. Out of everyone on this forum... you are commenting on others taking someone seriously. You know the only reason I have not put you on my ignore list, is specifically because you make hilarious comments like that. I haven't seen a thread yet, that you have commented on, in which people were not just outright laughing at you, and then you want to question how people can take me seriously?

Oh that's a riot. Please continue. Go on.

 

[EverCurious]

.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?

I find the idea of negative income taxes intriguing but I see a major flaw in it. How does one determine the tax rate? In order to satisfy, and thus eliminate the welfare side of things, one would need to come to a dollar amount that is "enough" to incentive them to work, but enough to afford the necessities. So where do we arrive at that 'amount' from?

To base it on the Federal poverty rate is folly because cost of living varies widely across the country. For example, the COA in Alaska is high, but the COA of say Kansas is much lower, those dollars are going to go a lot further in Kansas than in Alaska - so you could have 'poor' folks in Kansas living like Kings while those in Alaska are barely getting by. Which would bring us back to the whole income inequality debate would it not? [I have to admit that the headline that flashed into my head at this thought greatly amused me: "California's Poor Riot: Mississippi’s Poor Can Afford Houses!"]

Anyway, you'd have to take that amount down to at least the state level, and honestly, even that's not enough cause the cost of living from city to city within a state varies as well. But setting that aside to continue, our 'federal' taxes would then be calculated based upon individual states? Or would all of it be put upon the 'states' themselves to deal with and there would be an additional tax on top of that to pay for the Military and what not?

Regardless of what level of COA tax rate adjustment you go with, I see potential for a continuous destabilization cycle if families and businesses began to migrate around the country; be it for the lowest taxes, or for getting the most of their money. I will refrain from getting into the web of intricate details I’ve contemplated and simply say that I see high potential for a number of troubling problems. Just to name a few of the major potential snarls; state economies, stability, schooling, segregation…

 

[TGN]

We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.

Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day

 

[dblack]

We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices. [/url]

Exactly. Why would we want to eliminate any of those choices?

 

[beagle9]

The problem with all such programs is that it would not end up being a replacement, but an addition.

Such programs can only work, if there is an economic motive. The Friedman plan will in fact work, *IF* it replaces all the other welfare programs.

That would be great. But we all know how these things go. Everyone would be in favor of it, until they got to the "and now we cut welfare", and then everyone would start screaming about how we can't just throw single mothers and children out on the street to instantly die of starvation.

So a politically viable compromise would happen, where this program, and welfare, and food stamps, and subsidized housing, and it would end up being just another government handout in addition to all the other handouts.

To me it's the same problem as the national sales tax, or value added tax. If that tax were to actually replace other taxes, that would be good. But from history, we know that every country that either tried, or even succeeded in replacing income tax with VAT, the result has always been that they all ended up with both the income tax, and the VAT.

This is why I am against both.

Well the point is remove all welfare programs and spend the dollars on the negative income tax instead, i could be issued weekly to cut down on waste by those that cant handle their money. Those deemed mentally unstable, the money could go to payment at a group home. I don't understand why it would be an addition if the most costly existing welfare bureaucracies are eliminated to pay for this basic plan. It could save money eliminating extra govt. jobs. The states can also have their own plans to supplement or not if not needed, and their is also charity that will continue of course.


I see your point and admit that would be an issue if everyone voted for more spending. Perhaps it could be set at a steady rate that isn't easy to change somehow. States could have their own programs or not. Do you get to easily vote for social security to increase?

To me this is a win/win. Less govt. and those in need get assistance without spending a penny more than what is already. Also, everyone would get the same allotment-rich or poor.

Like I said... it would work... if they did it exactly as planned.

But how many times have we heard this before? If we do plan X, then we can eliminate plan Y. So the implement plan X, and start to phase out plan Y... and then they extend Y another few months.... then extend it another year.... then extend it 4 years.....

Then you end up with the infamous 1898 'temporary' 3% luxury tax on phones to pay for the Spanish American war, which was promptly ended in... 2006?

Do we trust that if we give government yet another hand out program, that they will eliminate all the other hand outs... and just as importantly, not bring the other handouts back?

I just don't know.

If you are simply asking whether the Friedman system would be better... then yes. I believe it would be better.

The question is, will the government, and the public, be willing to accept such a system, without all the other handouts? I just don't think so. I think even if we passed a bill to eliminate all the others, I think that would last 2 years, and the Democraps would get back the congress, and slowly bring all those programs back.

The only way it would really work, is if there was a fiscal crisis. When we have a 'near-Greece' experience, and government really grasps that money isn't an endless pool, that might be the time to try this.

Wow do we have another Rom Emanuel on our hands here ? Isn't this what they claimed Rom was saying to Obama about a crisis, and how it is that one "should never let a good one go to waste' ?

Be careful or those democraps in which you call them, because they just might call you out on being a hypocrite with speak such as this in which you had wrote above.

 

[beagle9]

We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.

Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day

The best one I think is the 4 day work week @ 40 hours a week, 10 hours a day. If anyone wants to volunteer for overtime up to 50 hours by working Friday, then so be it. This has already been proven to be a winner in so many ways if it works for the type of company that could employ this schedule as their standard operational procedure. It saves on gas, tires, the environment among many other positives that go along with it. Families spend more time getting to know one another again, companies keep their revenues up and so on and so forth. The power company I use to work for went to this schedule, and it works very well for them. Imagine the savings in it all. Aside from being greedy, it is a very nice schedule for construction, and any other that would take interest or try such a thing. Companies whom want to work more hours could create another part time shift in which would create more jobs in a job starved economy. It's time we get away from trying to work 1 person where 2 or even 3 should be or used to be once upon a time, and that is what I see in it all. I remember when my area supervisor stopped by our crew one day, and at this time they figured they could almost run the crew with two people instead of the four which was the norm, and he said " what are they going to do next, try to see if the truck can run itself " ??? I said " It looks that way doesn't it "? This was in the mid 90's when we started seeing some bad things coming down the pipe. It has gotten way worse since, and even up to and finally the economy collapsing. So many golden parachutes just flew away into the clouds, as we were all left to deal with the outcomes of it all.

 

[dblack]

Again, why does this need to be standardized?

 

[Andylusion]

.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?

I find the idea of negative income taxes intriguing but I see a major flaw in it. How does one determine the tax rate? In order to satisfy, and thus eliminate the welfare side of things, one would need to come to a dollar amount that is "enough" to incentive them to work, but enough to afford the necessities. So where do we arrive at that 'amount' from?

To base it on the Federal poverty rate is folly because cost of living varies widely across the country. For example, the COA in Alaska is high, but the COA of say Kansas is much lower, those dollars are going to go a lot further in Kansas than in Alaska - so you could have 'poor' folks in Kansas living like Kings while those in Alaska are barely getting by. Which would bring us back to the whole income inequality debate would it not? [I have to admit that the headline that flashed into my head at this thought greatly amused me: "California's Poor Riot: Mississippi’s Poor Can Afford Houses!"]

Anyway, you'd have to take that amount down to at least the state level, and honestly, even that's not enough cause the cost of living from city to city within a state varies as well. But setting that aside to continue, our 'federal' taxes would then be calculated based upon individual states? Or would all of it be put upon the 'states' themselves to deal with and there would be an additional tax on top of that to pay for the Military and what not?

Regardless of what level of COA tax rate adjustment you go with, I see potential for a continuous destabilization cycle if families and businesses began to migrate around the country; be it for the lowest taxes, or for getting the most of their money. I will refrain from getting into the web of intricate details I’ve contemplated and simply say that I see high potential for a number of troubling problems. Just to name a few of the major potential snarls; state economies, stability, schooling, segregation…

Actually if you watched the video, he covered that.

He suggested a 50% tax on the negative income, based on the standard deduction.

So you have the standard deduction, which is $12,000 for Married filing jointly.

You have an income of $7,000.

You take the standard deduction on your taxes, of $12K, which gives you a negative income of $5,000.

With the negative income tax at 50%, that would be $2,500. The government would send you a check for $2,500, bringing your income up to $9,500 for the year.

If your income was zero, and got the standard deduction of $12K, then you would have a tax rate of 50%, getting you a check for $6,000.

Now what this eliminates, is the current system where there is zero benefit for working. Under the current system, if you don't work, you get X amount of welfare. For every dollar you earn, you lose one dollar of welfare. Until your income surpasses the max amount of welfare, you are no better off fiscally, than if you had not worked at all. Which of course is exactly what people do.

Under the negative income tax system, for every dollar you earn, your welfare check is only decreased by 50¢. Thus every dollar you earn, increases your income. Your negative tax income, will decrease by 50¢ on the dollar until it no longer exists.

 

[Andylusion]

Well the point is remove all welfare programs and spend the dollars on the negative income tax instead, i could be issued weekly to cut down on waste by those that cant handle their money. Those deemed mentally unstable, the money could go to payment at a group home. I don't understand why it would be an addition if the most costly existing welfare bureaucracies are eliminated to pay for this basic plan. It could save money eliminating extra govt. jobs. The states can also have their own plans to supplement or not if not needed, and their is also charity that will continue of course.


I see your point and admit that would be an issue if everyone voted for more spending. Perhaps it could be set at a steady rate that isn't easy to change somehow. States could have their own programs or not. Do you get to easily vote for social security to increase?

To me this is a win/win. Less govt. and those in need get assistance without spending a penny more than what is already. Also, everyone would get the same allotment-rich or poor.

Like I said... it would work... if they did it exactly as planned.

But how many times have we heard this before? If we do plan X, then we can eliminate plan Y. So the implement plan X, and start to phase out plan Y... and then they extend Y another few months.... then extend it another year.... then extend it 4 years.....

Then you end up with the infamous 1898 'temporary' 3% luxury tax on phones to pay for the Spanish American war, which was promptly ended in... 2006?

Do we trust that if we give government yet another hand out program, that they will eliminate all the other hand outs... and just as importantly, not bring the other handouts back?

I just don't know.

If you are simply asking whether the Friedman system would be better... then yes. I believe it would be better.

The question is, will the government, and the public, be willing to accept such a system, without all the other handouts? I just don't think so. I think even if we passed a bill to eliminate all the others, I think that would last 2 years, and the Democraps would get back the congress, and slowly bring all those programs back.

The only way it would really work, is if there was a fiscal crisis. When we have a 'near-Greece' experience, and government really grasps that money isn't an endless pool, that might be the time to try this.

Wow do we have another Rom Emanuel on our hands here ? Isn't this what they claimed Rom was saying to Obama about a crisis, and how it is that one "should never let a good one go to waste' ?

Be careful or those democraps in which you call them, because they just might call you out on being a hypocrite with speak such as this in which you had wrote above.

The difference is, I don't actually *want* a crisis. I just don't see fundamental changes for the good being done without one. The public wants their freebies and programs and handouts. The left has in fact, won successfully implemented the self-centered view of society, where everyone demands everything they can get from mommy and daddy government.

And unlike the claims by the left, 2008 was not a crisis. The played it up as a crisis to push through tons of bad policies.

If the banks that failed, had been allowed to fail without government bailouts, and without stimulus packages that didn't work, and without endless useless regulations that accomplished nothing..... life would have continued. The "ENTIRE WORLD FINANCIAL MARKET!!!" would not have crashed.

The banks would have simply failed without sucking billions of dollars down the drain. That's all. In fact, it might have caused the economy to recover much faster, as we saw in Iceland, and Estonia.

The point of the "don't let a good crisis go to waste", was simply the Democraps wanted to shove a bunch of crap down the publics throat, and this fabricated panic and crisis, was a great way to "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".

 

[EverCurious]

You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)

There are a few flaws in your assumptive logic. I’m not sure if you have ever owned a business or not, but if you haven’t, then I think it needs to be understood that businesses are not mere “objects” to the owners as your argument implies. I can maybe buy a primarily “profit driven” argument for investor run companies. Still though, the truth is that the vast majority of companies actually care about their product and their business on a deeper level than just profit alone.

Let us look at your assumption from the top down:

Do you believe that Bill Gates doesn’t ‘care’ about Microsoft? Do you believe that Bill Gates wants for anything material? Now what is his supposed motivation for profit that would necessitate him to “convince people that they need to work for less”? I can’t really come up with anything but hatred or greed either, but I’m reasonable enough to dig a little further than mere presumption before I presume to know what motivates his pay rate system.

Now let us examine the biggest company in the world: General Electric. It’s a conglomerate (basically a collection of investors that bought up a bunch of smaller companies, for those who don’t know) so one can easily argue they are purely profit driven, but I debate that “profit driven” equals the type of greed and hatred you’ve implied in your assessment of capitalism.

Put it this way: when H&R Block makes suggestions that would lower your taxes, or increase your refund, and you follow the suggestions. Were you driven by hatred and greed, or simply making a reasonable and logical decision? I’d presume the former, but by your argument asserts the latter - that you were maliciously withholding money from someone else.

But let us step down a level to the CEO now.

It is not just a matter of how much actual work said CEO does that determines his pay scale. CEO(s) have the trust of the ‘company’ [be that the owner or the investors] that they are going to put as much of themselves into running that company as the owner/investors would themselves. This 'trust' does not come without substantial risks, a CEO has the power to completely destroy a company on almost every level.

Here are just a couple examples of CEO’s destroying a company [literally taken from the first 10 fount in a “List of Corporate Scandals” on Wikipedia, there are thousands more I’m sure]:

Qintex: CEO Christopher Skase was found to have improperly used his position to obtain management fees prior to the $1.5 billion collapse of Qintex including $700m unpaid debts.

Polly Peck: After a raid by the UK Serious Fraud Office in September 1990, the share price collapsed. The CEO Asil Nadir was convicted of stealing the company's money.


'Buying' this kind of 'trust assurance' is just the tip of the iceberg though. There is a long, often sordid, list of things that have to be considered when hiring a CEO, vs hiring an average Joe worker; ranging from protecting the company’s public image, to their experience, company loyalty, honor, dedication, and finally their raw talent performing the job itself. Let us consider some scenarios to clarify my point:

What can happen to a company if a CEO has an affair with his secretary? – PR mess and possible “abuse of position” lawsuit.

What can happen if a company CEO is caught expressing racism, opinions toward a specific sexual orientation, or opinions on specific religions? – PR nightmare and [likely] one or more “anti-discrimination” lawsuits from any <insert race/gender/religion/sexual orientation offended by CEO> that has been fired since the beginning of that CEO's hiring.

What can happen if a company’s CEO simply gets lazy and complacent [aka stops caring]? – In the best case, he’s chosen good employees under him that can maintain function, but he’s no longer ‘pulling for the team’ so there is a loss of potential income. In the worst case, the company starts failing. If the company's owner/investors catch it quick enough, they can let him go and "invest" in hiring a new one [while likely facing some media scrutiny.] If they don’t catch it in time they could fairly easily lose everything.

So, no, on the second count of your argument: a CEO de facto 'works' 24/7. While average Joe worker is free to express their opinions, beliefs, etc. anywhere, anytime, a good CEO is a) seeking a PR assessment board’s approval before expressing any personal opinions, or b) actually giving up their right to express their opinion for the good of the company. While average Joe worker is enjoying some mindless TV at home, CEO is on the other side of the planet in a lonely hotel room stressing about a merger meeting that could make or break the entire company. And so on.

There are way too many additional reasons for CEO pay rates for me to put in this already fairly long posting, so I’m just going to toss out a quickie on some of those.

There are not a lot of CEO’s out there and the raw truth is that is not some CEO degree out there that brings in a glut of new CEO's to pick and choose from. Most CEO’s started at the bottom and have worked their way up the ladder, thus acquiring experience and knowledge that you cannot get in any other way. Because of that, there is also competition between companies for CEO's that drives up their pay scale; you don’t want your CEO’s getting lured to a rival company because they will pay him better, for example. This means the pay rate you offer has to remain competitive in an already limited candidate pool.


Ultimately it behooves a company to pay their CEO’s a lot more because they are NOT average Joe employees. Good grief, just look at the number of average Joe’s that are working for mega company's, its millions in some cases… and then there’s that one CEO who is responsible, and held accountable, for the entire lot of it… Damn skippy the CEO makes a lot more than your dime a dozen average Joe workers who are, bluntly, readily available and far easier to replace.


You think CEO pay is outrageous and the income gap is too big now? Heh… Wait and see what happens as previous generation’s CEO’s retire and these companies start seriously fighting over the almost non-existent competence the current generation puts into the CEO pool. Sub-par education system, a piss poor attitude toward the company, poor work ethics, a sense of entitlement, AND have an impression that CEOs work less... mmm maybe I should apply myself and shoot for a small moon as a perk

 

[beagle9]

Again, why does this need to be standardized?

It doesn't really, but what people want is a way to combat greed, and that is why people begin looking for alternatives that may help the nation combat the greedy who have gone wild on them.

 

[beagle9]

You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)

There are a few flaws in your assumptive logic. I&#8217;m not sure if you have ever owned a business or not, but if you haven&#8217;t, then I think it needs to be understood that businesses are not mere &#8220;objects&#8221; to the owners as your argument implies. I can maybe buy a primarily &#8220;profit driven&#8221; argument for investor run companies. Still though, the truth is that the vast majority of companies actually care about their product and their business on a deeper level than just profit alone.

Let us look at your assumption from the top down:

Do you believe that Bill Gates doesn&#8217;t &#8216;care&#8217; about Microsoft? Do you believe that Bill Gates wants for anything material? Now what is his supposed motivation for profit that would necessitate him to &#8220;convince people that they need to work for less&#8221;? I can&#8217;t really come up with anything but hatred or greed either, but I&#8217;m reasonable enough to dig a little further than mere presumption before I presume to know what motivates his pay rate system.

Now let us examine the biggest company in the world: General Electric. It&#8217;s a conglomerate (basically a collection of investors that bought up a bunch of smaller companies, for those who don&#8217;t know) so one can easily argue they are purely profit driven, but I debate that &#8220;profit driven&#8221; equals the type of greed and hatred you&#8217;ve implied in your assessment of capitalism.

Put it this way: when H&R Block makes suggestions that would lower your taxes, or increase your refund, and you follow the suggestions. Were you driven by hatred and greed, or simply making a reasonable and logical decision? I&#8217;d presume the former, but by your argument asserts the latter - that you were maliciously withholding money from someone else.

But let us step down a level to the CEO now.

It is not just a matter of how much actual work said CEO does that determines his pay scale. CEO(s) have the trust of the &#8216;company&#8217; [be that the owner or the investors] that they are going to put as much of themselves into running that company as the owner/investors would themselves. This 'trust' does not come without substantial risks, a CEO has the power to completely destroy a company on almost every level.

Here are just a couple examples of CEO&#8217;s destroying a company [literally taken from the first 10 fount in a &#8220;List of Corporate Scandals&#8221; on Wikipedia, there are thousands more I&#8217;m sure]:

Qintex: CEO Christopher Skase was found to have improperly used his position to obtain management fees prior to the $1.5 billion collapse of Qintex including $700m unpaid debts.

Polly Peck: After a raid by the UK Serious Fraud Office in September 1990, the share price collapsed. The CEO Asil Nadir was convicted of stealing the company's money.


'Buying' this kind of 'trust assurance' is just the tip of the iceberg though. There is a long, often sordid, list of things that have to be considered when hiring a CEO, vs hiring an average Joe worker; ranging from protecting the company&#8217;s public image, to their experience, company loyalty, honor, dedication, and finally their raw talent performing the job itself. Let us consider some scenarios to clarify my point:

What can happen to a company if a CEO has an affair with his secretary? &#8211; PR mess and possible &#8220;abuse of position&#8221; lawsuit.

What can happen if a company CEO is caught expressing racism, opinions toward a specific sexual orientation, or opinions on specific religions? &#8211; PR nightmare and [likely] one or more &#8220;anti-discrimination&#8221; lawsuits from any <insert race/gender/religion/sexual orientation offended by CEO> that has been fired since the beginning of that CEO's hiring.

What can happen if a company&#8217;s CEO simply gets lazy and complacent [aka stops caring]? &#8211; In the best case, he&#8217;s chosen good employees under him that can maintain function, but he&#8217;s no longer &#8216;pulling for the team&#8217; so there is a loss of potential income. In the worst case, the company starts failing. If the company's owner/investors catch it quick enough, they can let him go and "invest" in hiring a new one [while likely facing some media scrutiny.] If they don&#8217;t catch it in time they could fairly easily lose everything.

So, no, on the second count of your argument: a CEO de facto 'works' 24/7. While average Joe worker is free to express their opinions, beliefs, etc. anywhere, anytime, a good CEO is a) seeking a PR assessment board&#8217;s approval before expressing any personal opinions, or b) actually giving up their right to express their opinion for the good of the company. While average Joe worker is enjoying some mindless TV at home, CEO is on the other side of the planet in a lonely hotel room stressing about a merger meeting that could make or break the entire company. And so on.

There are way too many additional reasons for CEO pay rates for me to put in this already fairly long posting, so I&#8217;m just going to toss out a quickie on some of those.

There are not a lot of CEO&#8217;s out there and the raw truth is that is not some CEO degree out there that brings in a glut of new CEO's to pick and choose from. Most CEO&#8217;s started at the bottom and have worked their way up the ladder, thus acquiring experience and knowledge that you cannot get in any other way. Because of that, there is also competition between companies for CEO's that drives up their pay scale; you don&#8217;t want your CEO&#8217;s getting lured to a rival company because they will pay him better, for example. This means the pay rate you offer has to remain competitive in an already limited candidate pool.


Ultimately it behooves a company to pay their CEO&#8217;s a lot more because they are NOT average Joe employees. Good grief, just look at the number of average Joe&#8217;s that are working for mega company's, its millions in some cases&#8230; and then there&#8217;s that one CEO who is responsible, and held accountable, for the entire lot of it&#8230; Damn skippy the CEO makes a lot more than your dime a dozen average Joe workers who are, bluntly, readily available and far easier to replace.


You think CEO pay is outrageous and the income gap is too big now? Heh&#8230; Wait and see what happens as previous generation&#8217;s CEO&#8217;s retire and these companies start seriously fighting over the almost non-existent competence the current generation puts into the CEO pool. Sub-par education system, a piss poor attitude toward the company, poor work ethics, a sense of entitlement, AND have an impression that CEOs work less... mmm maybe I should apply myself and shoot for a small moon as a perk

You yourself have assigned his argument to a lot of things in order to set up your attack, but what he targets within his arguments are the guilty, and not the innocent. All the things in which you imply here are created and/or set up straw men, and you have done this all for the purpose of taking what he has said. and to roll off of it in defense of, even though it may not apply at all in the way that you have made it appear in a blanketed way. I don't think anyone here actually targets the innocent, but it is the guilty they are after always.

 

[beagle9]

But I know people who love that shift. Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem. We are not Communist Chinese. You can pick whatever job you want.

Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?

I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.

No... the solution was.... I quit. Found another job. We have freedom here. If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on. But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight? Maybe they like that shift? I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts. She loves it. Works 3 days on, 4 days off.

Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?

You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.

I think the point is, do we really need consensus rule on something like this?

Not really, because the guilty should be ousted, and the innocent should keep on keeping on doing what they do best.

 

[dblack]

You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.

I think the point is, do we really need consensus rule on something like this?

Not really, because the guilty should be ousted, and the innocent should keep on keeping on doing what they do best.

Guilty? What do you mean?

 

[Slyhunter]

.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?

I find the idea of negative income taxes intriguing but I see a major flaw in it. How does one determine the tax rate? In order to satisfy, and thus eliminate the welfare side of things, one would need to come to a dollar amount that is "enough" to incentive them to work, but enough to afford the necessities. So where do we arrive at that 'amount' from?

To base it on the Federal poverty rate is folly because cost of living varies widely across the country. For example, the COA in Alaska is high, but the COA of say Kansas is much lower, those dollars are going to go a lot further in Kansas than in Alaska - so you could have 'poor' folks in Kansas living like Kings while those in Alaska are barely getting by. Which would bring us back to the whole income inequality debate would it not? [I have to admit that the headline that flashed into my head at this thought greatly amused me: "California's Poor Riot: Mississippi&#8217;s Poor Can Afford Houses!"]

Anyway, you'd have to take that amount down to at least the state level, and honestly, even that's not enough cause the cost of living from city to city within a state varies as well. But setting that aside to continue, our 'federal' taxes would then be calculated based upon individual states? Or would all of it be put upon the 'states' themselves to deal with and there would be an additional tax on top of that to pay for the Military and what not?

Regardless of what level of COA tax rate adjustment you go with, I see potential for a continuous destabilization cycle if families and businesses began to migrate around the country; be it for the lowest taxes, or for getting the most of their money. I will refrain from getting into the web of intricate details I&#8217;ve contemplated and simply say that I see high potential for a number of troubling problems. Just to name a few of the major potential snarls; state economies, stability, schooling, segregation&#8230;

Actually if you watched the video, he covered that.

He suggested a 50% tax on the negative income, based on the standard deduction.

So you have the standard deduction, which is $12,000 for Married filing jointly.

You have an income of $7,000.

You take the standard deduction on your taxes, of $12K, which gives you a negative income of $5,000.

With the negative income tax at 50%, that would be $2,500. The government would send you a check for $2,500, bringing your income up to $9,500 for the year.

If your income was zero, and got the standard deduction of $12K, then you would have a tax rate of 50%, getting you a check for $6,000.

Now what this eliminates, is the current system where there is zero benefit for working. Under the current system, if you don't work, you get X amount of welfare. For every dollar you earn, you lose one dollar of welfare. Until your income surpasses the max amount of welfare, you are no better off fiscally, than if you had not worked at all. Which of course is exactly what people do.

Under the negative income tax system, for every dollar you earn, your welfare check is only decreased by 50¢. Thus every dollar you earn, increases your income. Your negative tax income, will decrease by 50¢ on the dollar until it no longer exists.

I like it. When you going to pass it?

Now is this gross income or taxable income after write offs?

 

[EverCurious]

You yourself have assigned his argument to a lot of things in order to set up your attack, but what he targets within his arguments are the guilty, and not the innocent. All the things in which you imply here are created and/or set up straw men, and you have done this all for the purpose of taking what he has said. and to roll off of it in defense of, even though it may not apply at all in the way that you have made it appear in a blanketed way. I don't think anyone here actually targets the innocent, but it is the guilty they are after always.

Is that so? Well based on the above "argument only applies to the presumed guilty" claim: I will retract and agree instead that any company which remains in business to amass such vast wealth, must inherently have a good CEO who falls into the presumed "innocent" of the crime of capitalism and is therefore already doing right by the employees beneath him. Therefore, it can easily be seen that said CEO possesses a very rare skillset and well deser- BUHAHAHAAHAHA.... Sorry couldn't do it... *Composes herself*

Amusement aside, yea I am going to take a demerit/hit for editing fail on that one. I was hybrid responding to the overall vein of the thread as a whole with specific points of refute to specific flawed assumptions, but in the process of cutting out meat to save space/minds I muddled it all together. { meh, two hours of sleep in the past 48 hours - down rep me or w/e its called. }

I stand behind the bones of my argument for inequitable pay scales.

 

[Andylusion]

I find the idea of negative income taxes intriguing but I see a major flaw in it. How does one determine the tax rate? In order to satisfy, and thus eliminate the welfare side of things, one would need to come to a dollar amount that is "enough" to incentive them to work, but enough to afford the necessities. So where do we arrive at that 'amount' from?

To base it on the Federal poverty rate is folly because cost of living varies widely across the country. For example, the COA in Alaska is high, but the COA of say Kansas is much lower, those dollars are going to go a lot further in Kansas than in Alaska - so you could have 'poor' folks in Kansas living like Kings while those in Alaska are barely getting by. Which would bring us back to the whole income inequality debate would it not? [I have to admit that the headline that flashed into my head at this thought greatly amused me: "California's Poor Riot: Mississippi’s Poor Can Afford Houses!"]

Anyway, you'd have to take that amount down to at least the state level, and honestly, even that's not enough cause the cost of living from city to city within a state varies as well. But setting that aside to continue, our 'federal' taxes would then be calculated based upon individual states? Or would all of it be put upon the 'states' themselves to deal with and there would be an additional tax on top of that to pay for the Military and what not?

Regardless of what level of COA tax rate adjustment you go with, I see potential for a continuous destabilization cycle if families and businesses began to migrate around the country; be it for the lowest taxes, or for getting the most of their money. I will refrain from getting into the web of intricate details I’ve contemplated and simply say that I see high potential for a number of troubling problems. Just to name a few of the major potential snarls; state economies, stability, schooling, segregation…

Actually if you watched the video, he covered that.

He suggested a 50% tax on the negative income, based on the standard deduction.

So you have the standard deduction, which is $12,000 for Married filing jointly.

You have an income of $7,000.

You take the standard deduction on your taxes, of $12K, which gives you a negative income of $5,000.

With the negative income tax at 50%, that would be $2,500. The government would send you a check for $2,500, bringing your income up to $9,500 for the year.

If your income was zero, and got the standard deduction of $12K, then you would have a tax rate of 50%, getting you a check for $6,000.

Now what this eliminates, is the current system where there is zero benefit for working. Under the current system, if you don't work, you get X amount of welfare. For every dollar you earn, you lose one dollar of welfare. Until your income surpasses the max amount of welfare, you are no better off fiscally, than if you had not worked at all. Which of course is exactly what people do.

Under the negative income tax system, for every dollar you earn, your welfare check is only decreased by 50¢. Thus every dollar you earn, increases your income. Your negative tax income, will decrease by 50¢ on the dollar until it no longer exists.

I like it. When you going to pass it?

Now is this gross income or taxable income after write offs?

It would be after all deductions. After all, you can't really get to a negative income without deductions.

As it is, it's not likely to be passed. If it is passed, I would be willing to bet, it will just be an additional giveaway.

The economic incentive only works, if the lifestyle is sufficiently uncomfortable to motivate change.

If we leave all the existing programs in place, which many are already willing to live in such fiscal situations, then the negative income tax, will only serve as yet another source of welfare dependency.

But currently there simply isn't the political will to eliminate these handouts.

 

[Mathbud1]

We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.

Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day

The 4 hour work day you linked to seems to be advocating 4 hour days all week long. so a total of 20 hours worked for the week. The only way to do that is to cut income in half or double the cost for businesses. (keep wages the same but work half as much = half wages. double wages and work half as much = company has to hire 2 people instead of 1 to get the same amount of work at double the wages.)

 

[Andylusion]

We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.

Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day

The 4 hour work day you linked to seems to be advocating 4 hour days all week long. so a total of 20 hours worked for the week. The only way to do that is to cut income in half or double the cost for businesses. (keep wages the same but work half as much = half wages. double wages and work half as much = company has to hire 2 people instead of 1 to get the same amount of work at double the wages.)

It doesn't even end there. Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.

When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours. So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.

So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.

And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?

Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.