Raising Taxes on Corporations that Pay Their CEOs Royally and Treat Their Workers Like Serfs

I will also point out Im not for high tax as dont think that will work on co operations they will just pay the cost onto the consumers and staff.

Competition, fierce and brutal competition were its next to impossible to grow let alone maintain a large business empire is likely whats needed. With draconian penalty for business interfering with politics and vice versa.

a reply to: NavyDoc
Ah.....typical response. Throwing everyone in with the bad apples. You don't know my kids. They are great human beings. Poor workers are not less human. If you want to live in that condition without a fight, that is your choice. RAISE the taxes and pay off these wars. I get it now. That the is position of the US, perpetual war, to enrich the fields for the Oligarchy. RAISE their damn taxes. My kids won't have to pay more taxes on $10/hr jobs.

a reply to: MOMof3

You still have no understanding as to how business operates.

Raising taxes on a company is offset by higher costs to the consumer, less people hired and companies leaving for tax friendly places.

originally posted by: crazyewok

When you have a choice between:
1) Work for local Co operation
2)Go on government welfare
3) Starve

For the current situation with world hungry, or for this scenario, where people live by only **rolling eyes** one place to work at. I give you Sam Kinison

It is neither my fault, nor my problem that someone chooses to live and remain in the magical land, where there is only one place to work. They have the freedom to move.

originally posted by: crazyewok
I would say ones choices are fairly restricted and limited and certainly not "free".

This is BS, plain and simple.
People are free to move anywhere within the US. The restrictions are self imposed. The financial burden is their own issue to carry.

originally posted by: crazyewok
No just pointing out the sad reality in some areas.

Then there is no "force" applied.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Like?
I only see three
1) Work for local Co operation
2)Go on government welfare
3) Starve

No wonder people are where they are. They need everyone else to solve their problems.
See above

originally posted by: crazyewok
Ok I guess one can try and relocate . But that option every year is getting thinner and thinner as Cooperation slowly spread out. Eventually there will be no were to hide unless something is done.

Not my problem. It is the persons choice to move for work, or not move and not work.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Like?

Already stated above.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Chooses due to extreme restriction of choose.

Its a very very fine line.

It like saying North Korans have a choose in there leader as they still have the choose between:
1) accepting dear leader
2) Horrible death for them and family.

Don't care about N. Korea. Not my problem.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Ok yeah they have a choice but like with co orps in some area its not much of one!

The choice is still that of the person.

originally posted by: Cabin

There's no easy answer for reversing this trend, but this week I'll be testifying in favor of a bill introduced in the California legislature that at least creates the right incentives. Other states would do well to take a close look.

The proposed legislation, SB 1372, sets corporate taxes according to the ratio of CEO pay to the pay of the company's typical worker. Corporations with low pay ratios get a tax break.Those with high ratios get a tax increase.

Leave it to California to work on getting what firms still stay in that State to consider moving to a more friendly State.

I'd have to seem some real world number crunching to see if such a strategy would be in the Stockholders best interests. I doubt the tax savings would be significant enough for the business to lower a CEO's compensation for such a thing.

If it were a net profit to the business to do so, it sounds like you would still want to tax them further for doing something that you claim is necessary (lower CEO wages) but results in more profit to the business, who you will then promptly want to tax more. Would not the incentive to lower a CEO wage result in more profit for the company in the proposed legislation? Not only do they lower Executive salaries, they get a "GASP" evil Tax Break. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Sounds kinda like a no win situation for a Business. Either way, you want to tax them higher, unless they fit your definition of social responsibility.

originally posted by: MOMof3
They are great human beings. Poor workers are not less human.

I have yet to see a job requirement of "Must be a great human being".
If they are poor workers, they don't deserve a high paying job.

originally posted by: MOMof3
If you want to live in that condition without a fight, that is your choice.

Oh, so a choice for that, but not for other items you disagree with. Very interesting.

originally posted by: MOMof3

RAISE the taxes and pay off these wars. I get it now. That the is position of the US, perpetual war, to enrich the fields for the Oligarchy. RAISE their damn taxes. My kids won't have to pay more taxes on $10/hr jobs.

Everyone should pay the same percentage. This is very easy and simple.

a reply to: macman

You know, perhaps raising the taxes on US oversea corporations that take advantage of developing countries so they can reap all the profits here in the US will sound better, don't you think?

They use cheap labor, manufacture crap and then come to the US and sell the crap like it was gold, I think those are the ones that should be targeted for greed.

But still it doesn't matter, legislation will never make it to the pen of the president because they own the government.

a reply to: macman

No. I don't believe any of what you say. I have heard that same rhetoric for twenty years. Got something new?

I have written letters, emails, to my state reps, my retired friends, and DC. Raise the taxes and pay for our mistakes.

a reply to: marg6043

No. The company has the freedom to move or stay.
Tariffs don't wont. Never have.

a reply to: MOMof3

You don't believe what exactly??
That higher taxes mean higher consumer costs?

Just because you bury your head in the sand, doesn't mean it goes away or doesn't exist.

You keep raising "Great Human Beings" and lets hear a report on them in 5 years to see how they are doing.

a reply to: macman

I will not be around in five years. Why are you concerned about my kids? They are not on welfare, They work like you, I assume you work?

originally posted by: MOMof3

I will not be around in five years.

Well that is sad. Who will propose such things here in your absence?

originally posted by: MOMof3
Why are you concerned about my kids? They are not on welfare, They work like you, I assume you work?

You brought them up. The question is, why did you use them as an example and then act surprised when someone expands upon your statement?

originally posted by: MOMof3
I assume you work?

Nope.

I live off the tax payer. Uncle Sam gives me money that has been taken from GE and Apple. I live on the beach, surf and eat really well because those Corporations pay taxes.........

a reply to: macman

That's ok. My poor kids got you covered.

a reply to: macman

Oh macman.......you're such a cute kid.

Have a good day.

a reply to: MOMof3

And I hope you read the sarcasm in my response.

a reply to: MOMof3

Thanks. I never thought of myself as being cute. But thanks. I know it is hard to tell from the avatar silhouette, but I am very very ugly. So, I appreciate the blind compliment.

originally posted by: wantsome
When Japan wrote their constitution after WW2 Franklin Roosevelt had them put it in that the highest paid worker of a company couldn't make X amount more then the lowest paid worker. Roosevelt tried to get the same thing done here but the Republicans fought it. He died before he could get it passed.

He died 6 months before Japan surrendered.
Your story sounds like a 'web tale'.

a reply to: Biigs

Except if the company doesn't reinvest and grow ... how does it become more successful so that it can afford to give you a raise and/or hire more workers?

So many people think that the only reason a company exists is to be a jobs program, but here you want them to just divide up all their profits to pay out to the existing employees in bonuses.

Those things do not jive well.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: NavyDoc
Ah.....typical response. Throwing everyone in with the bad apples. You don't know my kids. They are great human beings. Poor workers are not less human. If you want to live in that condition without a fight, that is your choice. RAISE the taxes and pay off these wars. I get it now. That the is position of the US, perpetual war, to enrich the fields for the Oligarchy. RAISE their damn taxes. My kids won't have to pay more taxes on $10/hr jobs.

Check the numbers. Your kids aren't paying any income tax on their $10/hour jobs.