The risk of income inequality

[ScreamingEagle]

Well the corporations could choose to pay taxes rather than provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. It wouldn't be forced.

If companies don't provide these things then the government will continue to grow. We vote in this country so you can't just cut welfare and pretend that's going to fix everything. When companies don't provide it, the government will. I prefer that companies provide it.

don't you realize that the end consumer is the one who always pays.....? any product or service contains corporate taxes in the prices....

we need to cut taxes and regulations to the bone.....this will free up business and downsize government.....two goals that will free up Americans to become all that they can be....

That's why I say it can go to 0 for all I care. But I don't think employees of the largest companies in the country should be paid so little they collect welfare. Meanwhile CEO pay has gone from 20X the average worker to over 300X the average worker. As long as companies pay so little the government will grow.

if an ordinary person can create and build his own business without the interference of government and the burden of confiscatory taxes and invasaive regulations then he can call his own shots and most certainly get off welfare.....not everyone would rake in millions but if you work hard and smart anybody could become wealthy....good on the CEO who makes millions...

and with less govenment interference in business there would be more companies built and thus there would be more competition for workers which means their wages would go up...due to the market not directives from government...

under socialism and corporatism all you see is small companies going under and the big ones getting bigger....and welfare getting bigger and bigger....it's all about control....

 

[Brain357]

Again, would you rather they be paid ZERO? Every time you drive up the cost of labor, people lose their jobs. Always. So would those people at Walmart be better off earning zero?

Doesn't matter what the CEO pay does. Even if you collected all the executive pay, and doled it out to all the employees, it would end up pennies.

CEO pay is not the problem. If you confiscated the entire compensation package of Mike Duke, CEO of Walmart, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than 1/2 of a penny per hour. That's not the problem dude.

The only reason anyone should care what the CEO makes, is if they are greedy and envious people. It doesn't matter otherwise, and it won't help people on welfare.

The employees are already collecting welfare so what does it matter?

Oh it's not? Full executive pay was $62 million like I stated. That's a lot of money for guys paying employees so poorly. Now add in all the VP's and directors. Then add in the Waltons. I think it's would add up to enough to be something.

Again, $62 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $28.18 per employee per year. That's going to fix welfare? 54¢ a week is going to get people off food stamps? 1¢ per hour raise, is going to shrink the welfare roles, and reduce government in your book?

No it's not. CEO pay... executive pay.... whatever.... that's not the problem. You are not going to solve the problem you are outlining by this method.

The Waltons make about $3 billion a year in dividends for doing probably very little. Why don't you add that in too. Then lets come up with a number for VP's and Directors.

 

[Andylusion]

Sure Walmart can disappear. It's costing the government almost a million dollars for just one store in WI. That's a lot of corporate welfare. Meanwhile the execs are making millions and the Waltons are billionaires. Great situation if you love big government.

So you say let the government keep growing and let the rich get richer. I see.

So you are a complete idiot, that makes himself look stupid, by being an asshole on the forum. I see.

Either talk on here like an adult, or get off the forum idiot. I'm tired with you being a pathetic jerk.

I should talk like an adult? Your the one with the name calling and swearing. Sorry you don't like the truth.

Several times now you have accused me of taking a position that I have never advocated or taken. You are being a scum sucking brainless asshole. Period.

Have I accused you of:

"so you support the rich getting rich, and poor getting poorer. I see"

No, I have not, but you have done that to me several times. Either shut the hell up and get off the forum, and go to myspace with other stupid teenagers, or act like and adult, and don't accuse people of positions they don't support.

If you want to just start 'debating' by throwing random accusations around, that's fine, but I'm going to call you out for being walking pile of trash that you are when you do that. Grow up, or get out. This is an adult forum for adults. Not childish idiots.

 

[Brain357]

So you are a complete idiot, that makes himself look stupid, by being an asshole on the forum. I see.

Either talk on here like an adult, or get off the forum idiot. I'm tired with you being a pathetic jerk.

I should talk like an adult? Your the one with the name calling and swearing. Sorry you don't like the truth.

Several times now you have accused me of taking a position that I have never advocated or taken. You are being a scum sucking brainless asshole. Period.

Have I accused you of:

"so you support the rich getting rich, and poor getting poorer. I see"

No, I have not, but you have done that to me several times. Either shut the hell up and get off the forum, and go to myspace with other stupid teenagers, or act like and adult, and don't accuse people of positions they don't support.

If you want to just start 'debating' by throwing random accusations around, that's fine, but I'm going to call you out for being walking pile of trash that you are when you do that. Grow up, or get out. This is an adult forum for adults. Not childish idiots.

Cute tantrum. You need your binky?

 

[Andylusion]

The employees are already collecting welfare so what does it matter?

Oh it's not? Full executive pay was $62 million like I stated. That's a lot of money for guys paying employees so poorly. Now add in all the VP's and directors. Then add in the Waltons. I think it's would add up to enough to be something.

Again, $62 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $28.18 per employee per year. That's going to fix welfare? 54¢ a week is going to get people off food stamps? 1¢ per hour raise, is going to shrink the welfare roles, and reduce government in your book?

No it's not. CEO pay... executive pay.... whatever.... that's not the problem. You are not going to solve the problem you are outlining by this method.

The Waltons make about $3 billion a year in dividends for doing probably very little. Why don't you add that in too. Then lets come up with a number for VP's and Directors.

No... now you are just making up stuff. The waltons might have a increase in their wealth by $3 Billion, in the form of high prices for their stocks.

But there is no budget item of $3 Billion on the Walmart SEC filings labeled "payment to Waltons". It's not there. I posted the link. If you can find that, then by all means post me the page, and I'll look at it.

And if you want to add in VP, and directors, by all means. Maybe you can double the wage to 2¢ per hour raise.

Here's another question: Once you confiscate all the wages of the entire executive staff, and give it out to the employees...... do you think that those executives are going to continue working to maintain and grow the company?

Likely not. Know what happens when good executives leave, and only bad executives run the company? Where are all those WorldCom employees? Where are all those Enron employees?

Oh, that's right, they are unemployed. So your plan would raise the pay of employees by a few pennies, and then when bad management drives the company under, they all earn zero.

What will that do to welfare roles and the size of government?

 

[Andylusion]

I should talk like an adult? Your the one with the name calling and swearing. Sorry you don't like the truth.

Several times now you have accused me of taking a position that I have never advocated or taken. You are being a scum sucking brainless asshole. Period.

Have I accused you of:

"so you support the rich getting rich, and poor getting poorer. I see"

No, I have not, but you have done that to me several times. Either shut the hell up and get off the forum, and go to myspace with other stupid teenagers, or act like and adult, and don't accuse people of positions they don't support.

If you want to just start 'debating' by throwing random accusations around, that's fine, but I'm going to call you out for being walking pile of trash that you are when you do that. Grow up, or get out. This is an adult forum for adults. Not childish idiots.

Cute tantrum. You need your binky?

You need to just leave the forum. You are too much an immature baby to be here. This forum is for adults. You are obviously not. For the good of the forum, just leave.

 

[Samson]

Several times now you have accused me of taking a position that I have never advocated or taken. You are being a scum sucking brainless asshole. Period.

Have I accused you of:

"so you support the rich getting rich, and poor getting poorer. I see"

No, I have not, but you have done that to me several times. Either shut the hell up and get off the forum, and go to myspace with other stupid teenagers, or act like and adult, and don't accuse people of positions they don't support.

If you want to just start 'debating' by throwing random accusations around, that's fine, but I'm going to call you out for being walking pile of trash that you are when you do that. Grow up, or get out. This is an adult forum for adults. Not childish idiots.

Cute tantrum. You need your binky?

You need to just leave the forum. You are too much an immature baby to be here. This forum is for adults. You are obviously not. For the good of the forum, just leave.

Have EITHER of you ever posted on a message board before?

 

[Brain357]

Again, $62 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $28.18 per employee per year. That's going to fix welfare? 54¢ a week is going to get people off food stamps? 1¢ per hour raise, is going to shrink the welfare roles, and reduce government in your book?

No it's not. CEO pay... executive pay.... whatever.... that's not the problem. You are not going to solve the problem you are outlining by this method.

The Waltons make about $3 billion a year in dividends for doing probably very little. Why don't you add that in too. Then lets come up with a number for VP's and Directors.

No... now you are just making up stuff. The waltons might have a increase in their wealth by $3 Billion, in the form of high prices for their stocks.

But there is no budget item of $3 Billion on the Walmart SEC filings labeled "payment to Waltons". It's not there. I posted the link. If you can find that, then by all means post me the page, and I'll look at it.

And if you want to add in VP, and directors, by all means. Maybe you can double the wage to 2¢ per hour raise.

Here's another question: Once you confiscate all the wages of the entire executive staff, and give it out to the employees...... do you think that those executives are going to continue working to maintain and grow the company?

Likely not. Know what happens when good executives leave, and only bad executives run the company? Where are all those WorldCom employees? Where are all those Enron employees?

Oh, that's right, they are unemployed. So your plan would raise the pay of employees by a few pennies, and then when bad manage drives the company under, they all earn zero.

What will that do to welfare roles and the size of government?

You can find several sources giving similar estimates.
Why the Waltons?

Not going to confiscate anything. Just don't say they can't afford to pay employees when so few are collecting so much.

 

[Brain357]

Cute tantrum. You need your binky?

You need to just leave the forum. You are too much an immature baby to be here. This forum is for adults. You are obviously not. For the good of the forum, just leave.

Have EITHER of you ever posted on a message board before?

Quite a few times. Never gotten such a childish response from someone. Guess it means he is losing.

 

[Samson]

You need to just leave the forum. You are too much an immature baby to be here. This forum is for adults. You are obviously not. For the good of the forum, just leave.

Have EITHER of you ever posted on a message board before?

Quite a few times. Never gotten such a childish response from someone. Guess it means he is losing.

Not sure who is "losing" but I am sure you're both almost equally boring.

 

[Clementine]

Have EITHER of you ever posted on a message board before?

Quite a few times. Never gotten such a childish response from someone. Guess it means he is losing.

Not sure who is "losing" but I am sure you're both almost equally boring.

And yet they've managed to get your attention.

 

[Brain357]

Have EITHER of you ever posted on a message board before?

Quite a few times. Never gotten such a childish response from someone. Guess it means he is losing.

Not sure who is "losing" but I am sure you're both almost equally boring.

Well good thing your here then. Why don't you try to not be boring. So far your pretty boring.

 

[eflatminor]

Nobody has to give up income.

Here's the answer:

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

And thereby ensure that the most vulnerable among us are ABSOLUTELY prevented from getting a job. **** the young guy trying to get experience! To hell with the simple man whose skills do not warrant your government imposed price control on wages. Screw the old man hoping to stay engaged in the world! You know better...

Oh, and you can expect higher retail prices for the very items the people you're trying to help are most likely to buy. And, you can expect far fewer jobs as businesses now have the financial incentive to outsource overseas and/or replace basic workers with technology.

Well done...



But keep the corporate tax rate the same? Yea, pass. We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Making corporations pay even more will mean even fewer jobs.

Is your goal to get EVERYONE on the dole??? If so, you're off to a great start.



Because SS isn't already broke. My God man, who do you think pays for this shit?

You do realize that SS was originally intended for widows that had lived past their life expectancy, right? What makes you think SS should be a retirement plan?



Stalin would be proud of you. What in the **** makes you think the US government has the power to dictate the price of goods and services? Exactly which enumerated power gives them that right?

Jesus man, you are one die hard collectivist. Rock on comrade...

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

And an isolationist to boot!

Wow, just wow.

The closest thing to what you espouse is North Korea. How's that working out for them?

If you had taken economics

I have a Master's degree in Economics. You?

you'd understand that all my plan does is put corporate tax (10% of the total collected by the government) directly into the pocket of workers to spend. Each $1.00 workers spend puts $1.70 directly into the economy.

More redistribution. Wonderful plan. And your dollar to 1.7 ratio is bullshit...pie-in-the-sky economic nonsense.

For small business, jobs will become more than plentiful since most employees will cost the company zero.

Let's just let that comment sink in for a moment.

Zero cost for employees, eh?

Do you see how ******* stupid you sound?

Guess not. How sad for you.

The corporate tax rate will be moot since employee expenses are deducted dollar-for-dollar. For instances, if you have a $50k tax liability and $60k in employee expenses, your tax bill is zero and you receive a $10k subsidy.

You know, we see every day how misguided it is to attempt to engineer our society through tax code. Whatever tax loopholes you want to give, another group feels they deserve the same.

I pass on ALL tax tax breaks. One flat across the board rate for everyone is the only fair way to do it.

Your Social Security issue is moot. You'll have tens of millions paying hundreds of millions into the system.

Ah, it seems you've fallen victim to the six most dangerous words in the English language: "It will be different this time".

Yea, pass on that too.

 

[Andylusion]

No I care about something that will actually work. Cutting welfare just for it to be raised back up 2 years later doesn't fix anything. In the 90's we had a strong economy and low unemployment. Now we have a stagnant economy and high unemployment. It won't work now.

Not sure of the cost of living in Ohio, but that is only $20,000 a year. That's poor.

But it won't work. What you are proposing won't work. Every time you force up wages, people lose their jobs. How much welfare will they collect when they are earning zero?

Yes, we have a stagnant economy with high unemployment.

What was the last economic policy we put in place, before this happened?

2009, minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.

Hello..... minimum wage kills jobs.

Why won't it work? I'm always hearing how we need to lower corporate taxes. I would offer 0.

I'm not proposing minimum wage. That is forcing companies to pay more. I would give them the opportunity to pay 0 corporate taxes in return for better wages. Quite the difference.

Again, a company is not going to jack up wages, when they don't know what their taxes would be, nor how much of that 'offer' they would get.

If you simply cut taxes, that would increase pay. But no company is going to increase wages, on the hopes that the offset in taxes will be worth it, when they don't know what their taxes will be.

 

[Samson]

Quite a few times. Never gotten such a childish response from someone. Guess it means he is losing.

Not sure who is "losing" but I am sure you're both almost equally boring.

And yet they've managed to get your attention.

Getting and keeping. Two different things.

***yawn***

unsubscribe

 

[Brain357]

But it won't work. What you are proposing won't work. Every time you force up wages, people lose their jobs. How much welfare will they collect when they are earning zero?

Yes, we have a stagnant economy with high unemployment.

What was the last economic policy we put in place, before this happened?

2009, minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.

Hello..... minimum wage kills jobs.

Why won't it work? I'm always hearing how we need to lower corporate taxes. I would offer 0.

I'm not proposing minimum wage. That is forcing companies to pay more. I would give them the opportunity to pay 0 corporate taxes in return for better wages. Quite the difference.

Again, a company is not going to jack up wages, when they don't know what their taxes would be, nor how much of that 'offer' they would get.

If you simply cut taxes, that would increase pay. But no company is going to increase wages, on the hopes that the offset in taxes will be worth it, when they don't know what their taxes will be.

Yes cutting taxes with no strings attached has a long history of working great.

 

[Andylusion]

The Waltons make about $3 billion a year in dividends for doing probably very little. Why don't you add that in too. Then lets come up with a number for VP's and Directors.

No... now you are just making up stuff. The waltons might have a increase in their wealth by $3 Billion, in the form of high prices for their stocks.

But there is no budget item of $3 Billion on the Walmart SEC filings labeled "payment to Waltons". It's not there. I posted the link. If you can find that, then by all means post me the page, and I'll look at it.

And if you want to add in VP, and directors, by all means. Maybe you can double the wage to 2¢ per hour raise.

Here's another question: Once you confiscate all the wages of the entire executive staff, and give it out to the employees...... do you think that those executives are going to continue working to maintain and grow the company?

Likely not. Know what happens when good executives leave, and only bad executives run the company? Where are all those WorldCom employees? Where are all those Enron employees?

Oh, that's right, they are unemployed. So your plan would raise the pay of employees by a few pennies, and then when bad manage drives the company under, they all earn zero.

What will that do to welfare roles and the size of government?

You can find several sources giving similar estimates.
Why the Waltons?

Not going to confiscate anything. Just don't say they can't afford to pay employees when so few are collecting so much.

If you want to pay them an extra 65¢ an hour, ok, but that still accomplishes nothing. 65¢ isn't going to roll back all the welfare roles, and shrink government.

Nevertheless, I take back that you were making up stuff. At least there are some estimates claiming the Waltons are making $3 Billion in dividends.

I will also concede that it is even possible, that they are in fact collecting $3 Billion.

I couldn't actually find anything proving that the Walton's owned 50% of the shares. Several claims, but no proof. I did find that a majority stake, 51% of the shares are owned by insiders. But "insiders" is not limited to the Waltons.

We do know what they have a holding company, with 1.6 billion shares of Wal-mart stock, and that likely brings them $2 Billion in dividends. But that is only 33% of the company. The other 17% of insider shares is divided up among all the insiders, not just the Waltons.

But all of that is beside the point.

They own this company. Should they not get a share of the profit of the company they built? Sam Walton started this entire thing from a tiny mom&pop dollar store. He built this company. He owned it, and gave it to his family. They own this company.

If you owned a car, and the car made money.... shouldn't you get a share of that money? Of course. And if you don't, you would not have bought it.

If you create a system by which the people who make these companies, can't make a share of the profit from their ownership........ well then they are not going to do it! And then 2.2 million people will not be employed.

Again, how much welfare are they going to collect while earning zero?

 

[Brain357]

No... now you are just making up stuff. The waltons might have a increase in their wealth by $3 Billion, in the form of high prices for their stocks.

But there is no budget item of $3 Billion on the Walmart SEC filings labeled "payment to Waltons". It's not there. I posted the link. If you can find that, then by all means post me the page, and I'll look at it.

And if you want to add in VP, and directors, by all means. Maybe you can double the wage to 2¢ per hour raise.

Here's another question: Once you confiscate all the wages of the entire executive staff, and give it out to the employees...... do you think that those executives are going to continue working to maintain and grow the company?

Likely not. Know what happens when good executives leave, and only bad executives run the company? Where are all those WorldCom employees? Where are all those Enron employees?

Oh, that's right, they are unemployed. So your plan would raise the pay of employees by a few pennies, and then when bad manage drives the company under, they all earn zero.

What will that do to welfare roles and the size of government?

You can find several sources giving similar estimates.
Why the Waltons?

Not going to confiscate anything. Just don't say they can't afford to pay employees when so few are collecting so much.

If you want to pay them an extra 65¢ an hour, ok, but that still accomplishes nothing. 65¢ isn't going to roll back all the welfare roles, and shrink government.

Nevertheless, I take back that you were making up stuff. At least there are some estimates claiming the Waltons are making $3 Billion in dividends.

I will also concede that it is even possible, that they are in fact collecting $3 Billion.

I couldn't actually find anything proving that the Walton's owned 50% of the shares. Several claims, but no proof. I did find that a majority stake, 51% of the shares are owned by insiders. But "insiders" is not limited to the Waltons.

We do know what they have a holding company, with 1.6 billion shares of Wal-mart stock, and that likely brings them $2 Billion in dividends. But that is only 33% of the company. The other 17% of insider shares is divided up among all the insiders, not just the Waltons.

But all of that is beside the point.

They own this company. Should they not get a share of the profit of the company they built? Sam Walton started this entire thing from a tiny mom&pop dollar store. He built this company. He owned it, and gave it to his family. They own this company.

If you owned a car, and the car made money.... shouldn't you get a share of that money? Of course. And if you don't, you would not have bought it.

If you create a system by which the people who make these companies, can't make a share of the profit from their ownership........ well then they are not going to do it! And then 2.2 million people will not be employed.

Again, how much welfare are they going to collect while earning zero?

Well I don't think the kids have ever done very much to earn it, but I agree they should make money. Again I have not said take from them, I'm just pointing out that if so few can make so much then don't tell me they can't pay more to workers.

Now if Walmarts corporate tax rate went to 0, would that give them money to pay the workers more?

 

[Andylusion]

You need to just leave the forum. You are too much an immature baby to be here. This forum is for adults. You are obviously not. For the good of the forum, just leave.

Have EITHER of you ever posted on a message board before?

Quite a few times. Never gotten such a childish response from someone. Guess it means he is losing.

Grow up or get off the forum child. This is a forum for adults. Either act like one, or leave.

 

[Andylusion]

You can find several sources giving similar estimates.
Why the Waltons?

Not going to confiscate anything. Just don't say they can't afford to pay employees when so few are collecting so much.

If you want to pay them an extra 65¢ an hour, ok, but that still accomplishes nothing. 65¢ isn't going to roll back all the welfare roles, and shrink government.

Nevertheless, I take back that you were making up stuff. At least there are some estimates claiming the Waltons are making $3 Billion in dividends.

I will also concede that it is even possible, that they are in fact collecting $3 Billion.

I couldn't actually find anything proving that the Walton's owned 50% of the shares. Several claims, but no proof. I did find that a majority stake, 51% of the shares are owned by insiders. But "insiders" is not limited to the Waltons.

We do know what they have a holding company, with 1.6 billion shares of Wal-mart stock, and that likely brings them $2 Billion in dividends. But that is only 33% of the company. The other 17% of insider shares is divided up among all the insiders, not just the Waltons.

But all of that is beside the point.

They own this company. Should they not get a share of the profit of the company they built? Sam Walton started this entire thing from a tiny mom&pop dollar store. He built this company. He owned it, and gave it to his family. They own this company.

If you owned a car, and the car made money.... shouldn't you get a share of that money? Of course. And if you don't, you would not have bought it.

If you create a system by which the people who make these companies, can't make a share of the profit from their ownership........ well then they are not going to do it! And then 2.2 million people will not be employed.

Again, how much welfare are they going to collect while earning zero?

Well I don't think the kids have ever done very much to earn it, but I agree they should make money. Again I have not said take from them, I'm just pointing out that if so few can make so much then don't tell me they can't pay more to workers.

Now if Walmarts corporate tax rate went to 0, would that give them money to pay the workers more?

Does that matter? Why does that matter?

If your parents bought us savings bonds, and put them in trust for your children.... as many often do, your kids haven't lifted a finger for those. Should they not be allowed to have them?

If your grand father gave you his 1967 Shelby mustang, and you hire someone to take it to auto shows where you win money and prizes for it.... is that wrong? You didn't 'work' for it, so it's somehow wrong?

Why?

Nearly every family farm, was passed down through generations since homesteading. Is that wrong? Should you not be allowed to give your children stuff?

Sam Walton worked his butt off making his company, and gave his children shares in the company he made. I don't see a problem with that, whether they 'worked for it' or not.