It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Millionaires to Obama: Tax us

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Millionaires saying "Tax us" is like someone who owns all the water in the world saying "Have glass of water".


OK, this is a nice gesture, but they should be looking at Bill and Melinda Gates who donate billions to help others.




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Here is something you need to grasp.

The people who get into key positions in a giant corporation don't care if that corporation get eaten by larger corporations. They don't care if the corporate entity survives, or if the business built primarily by the employees stays in business.

All the corporate executives care about is how large of a bonus they can get.

If a CEO can walk away with a 50Million dollar bonus, he doesn't care if the business dies, or gets shipped over seas. Only the people whose lives depend on that business where they worked for possibly decades, care if the business survives.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I know its very hard to run a business, I also know its very easy for corporations to exploit people in the name of profits and over inflated CEO and upper management salaries. Then when the average Joe fights for better wages and benefits the corporations cry foul and ship our jobs off. In return we get cheap hazordous products that fall apart in a week. BTW I'm all for simplifying the tax code, to get the wealthy to pay their fair share, say %17 w no deductions. Problem is if it extracts more money from these corporations, wont they just ship more jobs overseas to keep their profits? Question, would those corporations sacrifice some of their profits, CEOs sacrifice some of their salaries in order to keep jobs here and provide Americans w a living wage and benefits? That way average working Americans could have a better quality of life? Or to put it in Communist terms, would the ruling class give up its villas in order for the people to have a better life, I doubt it : (
edit on 23-11-2010 by conspiracy nut because: too many words was killing my profits, im thinking of sending this post overseas!

edit on 23-11-2010 by conspiracy nut because: spelling



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 
reply to post by poet1b
 


Why should they have to?

I'm not giving up my tiny one bedroom house so that the bum down the street can have it. I work for this, I pay for it through money I legally earned.

I know what's going on here.

I'm having an economic discussion, you're having a political discussion. And what you and poet need to realize is that you can't fix economic woes with political solutions. It hasn't worked yet, and it won't any time soon. You guys want egalitarianism from business and don't realize that egalitarianism is not what business does. That's what individuals should do. Business is there to make money, period.

As far as CEO salaries are concerned. When the US government bailed out the big banks and a handful of corporations it had discovered that CEOs were being paid top dollar for failure. Is this a product of a free and fair economy? NOPE. Does this have anything to do with taxation? NOPE! That is what we call fraud folks, and instead of addressing it as such, the US government rewarded it.

Is this dynamic something I advocate? No! Far be it for me to tell a corporation, the share holders thereof, and their boards of directors what they should do with their money, but if I were in the position to make such decision, everyone's pay would be attached to production, period. From the lowest employee who is relevant to operating the business, to the top most employee.

Does the above describe the vast majority of small to medium businesses? No. Hell even some big business aren't in this category. I'm an individualist. I believe in individual responsibility, liberty, and consequences for individual actions.

Collective punishment won't work here. You can use blanket statements like The "rich", or "all those CEOs", but at the end of the day what you're truly dealing with is individuals. What you two are advocating is pretty much the Robin Hood theory. And you know what? You don't deserve a "part of their pie" you do deserve, however, every bit of the pie you bake yourself.
edit on 23-11-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I'm curious - how many CEOs do you know? How many board meetings have you sat in on?

CEOs do not make company policy - they are executives. They are, effectively, managers of the department managers. The board sets company policy and makes decisions for the company (like Congress) and the share-holders also get opportunities to voice their opinions in a number of situations and corporate structures (like voting).

Of all - the share-holders are usually the ones most concerned with profits and impacts of corporate mergers. The more valuable their stock is, the more profit is in selling their stock.

Many CEOs and upper-tier executives/managers/administrators are the most dedicated to the founding principles of the company (often because they are part of the founding party or descendants thereof).

But, let's say a CEO gets a $1M dollar bonus. The company has 10,000 employees. Getting up in arms about executive bonuses and that it "should go to the employees" is asinine. Want your share of that bonus? That amounts to $100 for each employee (disregarding pay differential). Taking 52 weeks in a year, we'll say that's about an extra two dollars per week. Presuming you work full time, that's about $0.05 per hour increase.

Consider, also, the value that executives have. With all due respect - a trained monkey can do your job, even if you're a technician at a nuclear power plant. The executives usually built the management staff (or, being elevated to that position, are familiar with building teams) - their work is invaluable to the company and cannot be replaced by hiring another day-worker to be trained by a floor manager.

Also, it should be noted that experienced executives are targeted for employment by other corporations and businesses. The knowledge an executive has of the operations and politics of a corporation, the more valuable they are to the competition, and the larger incentives to switch-sides become.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


People who work hard and get a good education get screwed over all the time. People who are responsible and smart and do all the right things get fleeced in numbers that are insane. There are a lot of unfair laws that allow this to happen, so I'm sorry if I don't have sympathy for the rich and their tax issues. I especially don't feel sorry since many of them can afford accountants who will find them a bazillion loopholes, anyhow.

I guess my view is that I'll be happy to talk about the unfair tax laws that inconvenience rich people after we tackle some of the unfair laws that allow the fleecing of the rest of us.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosticquasar
 


You just said what the problem is in your post. There are LAWS that cause these problems and stack the deck against you and I. This I certainly do believe. I'm not under the impression that lefty-progressive's are the only ones who engage in social engineering. This is why we need to cap the power these "super rich" co-opt when we hand it over to the government for 'safe-keeping'
.

The real problem? The American people regularly delegate their duty to government. Need to talk to your kids about sex? Sex Ed. Need to teach your kid about how money works? Let the school do it. Need to teach your kid how to cook? Let the school do it. Burglar in your house? Wait for the cops. Out of Work? Collect unemployment for a couple of years, no biggie. Not making enough money? Make the government take the other guy's money too, it makes ya feel good.

Some of the most successful businesses in the world were started during the great depression...What are we doing? Waiting for government to come through on jobs it can't create...How stupid are we?

I don't have sympathy for rich people either. I believe in the virtue of failure and recovery from failure.
edit on 23-11-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


If those jobs that these greedy Mega corporations shipped to China and India were still here in america that bum down the street would be able to afford a tiny one bedroom house for himself through his own hard work. Not one person has addressed why upper level management and CEOs profits have gone up threefold and the average workers wages have remained stagnant? I believe it is each individuals responsibility to work to further themselves. I just don't see the justification in keeping people around the world under slave wages. All working people should be paid a fair living wage,



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by poet1b
 

With all due respect - a trained monkey can do your job, even if you're a technician at a nuclear power plant.


This, right here, calls your opinion into serious question. The idea that executives are worth more or work hard enough to make 50 times what your average worker makes is mind boggling. The idea that people shouldn't be outraged by a company laying off thousands of workers while at the same time giving their executives tens of millions in bonuses is absurd.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


All working people, including CEOs with their millions, should be paid according to what they produce for the companies profit margin. Other wise the company can't keep the doors open and then the problem becomes layoffs.

Sure, we could fire all the CEOs at the first sign of trouble and give the little guy a shot...But I caution against letting your sales associate cashiering at the store front of "corporation x" take charge of restructuring the finances. Some things require experience, education, and the pay required to create an incentive to do the work. CEOs are often these people. Not all of them are corrupt shills out to steal from the public as a whole.

Much of the reason our corporation ship jobs overseas are the monopolies facilitated by the governments international trade deals. NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, so forth and so on. In the long run, these policies could ONLY have created the job drain we've been seeing for decades.

They call these deals "free trade" and there's nothing free about them...Hell there's nothing trade about them either.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gnosticquasar

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by poet1b
 

With all due respect - a trained monkey can do your job, even if you're a technician at a nuclear power plant.


This, right here, calls your opinion into serious question. The idea that executives are worth more or work hard enough to make 50 times what your average worker makes is mind boggling. The idea that people shouldn't be outraged by a company laying off thousands of workers while at the same time giving their executives tens of millions in bonuses is absurd.


I agree.

But I believe the solution is to tie all pay to production, along with factors involving experience, success rate(as it pertains to CEOs), skills, education, so forth and so on. But government can't do this. This is all up to the board of directors and shareholders. And if they care even one iota for their money, they'll force the change...And we've been seeing a lot of this over the last two years, albeit less than I'd like to see.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosticquasar
 


The mistake many people make is equating a college degree to intelligence and value. It has gotten to the point where a college degree is nothing but a liability to an employer. Only about 10% of the population really stand out as above-and-beyond; the rest are just good workers (dutiful and trainable), good managers (good personal skills and getting groups of people to work effectively), or good for nothing.

I can train a monkey or a ten year old how to do my job as an avionics technician. That multimillion dollar radar can be serviced by a team of ten year old children. There is not much thought involved - the manuals tell you what values are in tolerance, where to put the probes, and what is wrong when various readings are present.

I have an education that is sufficient to design the radar - but it's not necessary in doing my job. The only thing that is necessary to do my job is the capacity to read, interpret mechanical and schematic drawings (trust me - it's not that hard), and the discipline to follow directions. That's it. Eight years of schooling and fifty thousand dollars in debt? Not necessary.

The degree has become depreciated with an over-reaching demand and emphasis on obtaining more education than is necessary while expecting to be compensated for it by your employer. It used to be that a degree was what separated the 10% from the 90% - someone with a degree was not just a good worker, or a good manager - but a dynamic leader - a sort of avatar of the given field. Hiring someone with a degree meant hiring someone who would, more than likely, pay you back in improved function and leadership/growth of the business.

Now, what does a degree actually mean? Look at your fellow students in a university. How many of them would you pay to do a job related to their degree?

You know just as much as I do that enough of them are dumber than a box of rocks and still manage to achieve a degree. The degree has become the new high-school diploma with a technical field of focus applied to it. It has become depreciated in real value while becoming increasingly expensive.

Yes, there are plenty of cases out there where the hard working people and those with actual talent and skill get fleeced by those higher up the food chain. However, you seem to be using some very curious metrics to determine the relative skill and capacity of individuals. A good-for-nothing with a degree is still good for exactly that - nothing. A good manager with a degree is not suddenly going to become a good technician. Nor will a good technician suddenly become a good manager simply because he got a degree.

If you want me to be honest with you - the whole education system has royally screwed over every person in ways that even the most criminal employer could never achieve.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
It shouldn't matter how much somebody is worth in terms of what they pay for gov't services. It doesn't matter whether I make $50k or $50m to the number of cops, firemen, teachers, road workers, etc my share or services merit. We are all protected and serviced equally and we should be taxed that way as well.

Nothing is stopping these millionaires from writing a check to the treasury right now if that's what they want to do with the money they've earned.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
fair enough ceos and people in upper management positions are probably very smart, hard working people, that does not justify the fact that their salaries continue to skyrocket as the rest of the workforce remains stagnant. case in point, the overly estimated value of homes during the market boom. it might have been a beautiful home but the bubble burst when people realized the homes just werent worth that much. then some poor bloke gets stuck w a 350, 000 home thats not worth the money they owe on it. greed no matter what gordon gecko says, is not good.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


But greed should come with consequences.

The free market certainly does provide consequences. It's called failure. And if the failure was a product of malfeasance, jail. I like those rules, they're simple, they're direct, and they get the point across. What I don't like about government is that they create these huge regulatory structures and wind up aiding in the fraud.

In the late 80s, during the S & L crisis, thousands of people, including many CEOs, went to jail. Today, after all the fraud that has been uncovered over the last two years, Bernie Madoff has gone to jail. 1 Guy.

To me that signals something. If the government starts investigating the fraud, and actually doing something with it, many in government positions are going to get nailed too.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
In the end we need to come up with a way to make the system more fair and equitable. There are many technical issues that could be dealt with right away if we just pull the politics out of it..There's no Liberal or Communist or Conservative way to fix a car engine.



----------------------------------
Off Topic:



This is turning in to an awesome debate guys!




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosticquasar
 



This, right here, calls your opinion into serious question. The idea that executives are worth more or work hard enough to make 50 times what your average worker makes is mind boggling. The idea that people shouldn't be outraged by a company laying off thousands of workers while at the same time giving their executives tens of millions in bonuses is absurd.


I'm going to sound very condescending and "elitist" for a moment, just to warn you:

You are used to the "little guy" mentality. $100K is a nearly incomprehensible amount of money to you, and to me. It's child's play to the types of businesses we are discussing; a $10M total bonus to executives is barely enough to keep 200 people on the pay-role. They got the bonus, in part, because they were willing to make tough and unpopular decisions that were beneficial to the productivity of the business. Businesses do not make money by paying people to stand around. If a business does not have work for people to do - then it does not have a use for those people, nor does it make sense to keep them on the active pay-role.

Think of it this way - the company lays off a hundred managers and four hundred line workers. They would not lay those workers off if they were necessary for the function of the business - IE - work for them to do. Do you propose the company keep an extra two hundred people around (in lieu of executives) to stand around and goof off where they stand a chance of damaging equipment and materials (or consuming materials in boredom-driven experimentation). The mentality of the average worker is not of duty to the employer but of an entitled mentality - regard for corporate property (everything they work with, usually) is non-existent.

Now - is that CEO worth 50x the salary of the average worker plus bonuses? I don't believe half the people alive are really worth allowing to reproduce, if that gives you any indication of what I think of the average person (and, therefor, the average worker). Thus - I would have to say that, no, I do not think they are really worth what they are paid. However, they are paid what is industry standard for their position.

It's called bargaining power - and you have to learn how to get it. The more likely it is another corporation would attempt to hire you away, the more you are likely to be paid for your position. Employees have a sort of supply and demand applied to them. Your average line-worker is expendable, for the most part (in the sense of they can be lost to competitive attrition). The higher up the chain you go, the harder it is to find someone to fill the job, and the more likely someone is going to out-bid you for that person's salary. In order to keep them, you'll pay more to ensure that doesn't happen. This will lead to an inflation of wages.

That is exactly what happened with college degrees. The degree was often used for placement in management positions and technical trades (where a technical certificate is really more valid for the type of position). Finding people to fill these positions was (and still is) a challenge, and businesses started competing for individuals with a degree. Eventually, this lead to someone having a degree earning a decent 50% over what was standard for the position - more in some cases. Businesses realized that someone with a degree had debts and would switch jobs for a 5% pay-raise. High attrition rates among management positions are unsustainable and will ultimately lead to a failed business. The only option is to increase price.

As for CEOs - at that level, the amount of information they know about the company's activities and future plans is potentially so damaging to the company that the board of directors is practically black-mailed by the CEO position, itself (not the individual seating that position). It is much like how people in the "nuke" programs within the military are compensated well above the other technical ratings because their training, alone, places them as high-profile targets for corporations looking to hire them away from the military. The military pays an arm and a leg to keep its personnel in that field and attempts to remain competitive to the civilian industry, because nuclear power in the military cannot function if there's a 95% attrition rate within the first contract interval.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




Humanity has become completely and totally morally bankrupt, as the defenders of greed on this thread have clearly proven.


At least I am not defending violence against my fellow man. Greedy people have way more morality than anyone advocating that we rob everyone with the point of a gun.

You support violence, theft, and intrusion. You have no legitimacy on the subject of morality.

Hypocracy is offensive.



If our federal government wasn't subsidizing corporations so much, most manufacturing would most likely be done locally.


Locally.... or not at all. The cost China payed for producing steal locally was the lives of millions during the "Great Leap Forward". Without the division of labor and trade, everyone would starve.



The answer is to tax people in accordance to what they get out of the federal government.


So if the government gave me no choice in what I "got out of them", I would still have to foot the bill. That is like a murderer charging the victims family for the cost of the bullet.



Drug companies should pay for the FDA to regulate their drugs, that give them their business.


The drug companies didn't ask to be regulated. You can't force a 'service' on someone and make them pay for it.



Banks should also pay for their privileges as well, and those are indeed enormous.


Privileges being the primary word. You think freedom is a privilege. That is unfortunate.



Costs are already through the roof, the problem is that the real cost is disguised by government subsidy of business.


I am not going to disagree with this, but the problem is that the government is involved at all.



Corporations should pay for the service that they get from government.


Limited liability shouldn't exist, neither should forced services from the government.

I am not on the side of the Corporations. I am on the side of freedom. In a free market, subsidies wouldn't exist and corporations couldn't. Corporations are a creation of the government.... is it any wonder they are acting in collusion? There are two classes of people in the world... and it has nothing to do with wealth. There is the parasite class and the host class. The parasite class relies on the subserviance and oppression of the host. You either use the power of government to get your way (politicians, corporations, lobbyists, and even many regular voters, etc), or the power of government is used on you to do what someone else wants you to do.



Ummm, we are what, $12,000,000,000,000.00 in debt,


No we aren't. We didn't spend the money. The United States of America did. I am not the government. I don't believe it is legitimate. I didn't vote for any of those a-holes. Our lives, our freedom has been stolen. Why should I think of the government as anything but an organized crime syndicate? They operate under the same premise and maintain their power through widespread violence. They are using us as livestock collatoral to fund wars, fund their friends, and our own oppression.


I can see where you are going with this. I, too, have major ethical problems with corporations, lobbyists, and the like.... But I diverge with using the same system of violence that these robber barrons use, to get back at them. I don't want to be like them. This is just trading one injustice for another(and even how palatable the injustice is, it is still injustice... the enemy of freedom). Violence cannot solve complex social problems without causing greater ones.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



With all due respect - a trained monkey can do your job, even if you're a technician at a nuclear power plant.


I don't have time for more of a reply, but this is probably the most ignorant statement I have ever read on ATS, and possibly the internet, and it is the mentality of people like you who think this way that makes me completely doubt humanity.

Most people are lost when they open the hoods of their cars, the vehicles they are completely dependent upon. Yet you think a trained monkey can work as a technician at a nuclear power plant?




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Though I doubt Aim's monkey premise, I do think it is interesting how computers, robots, and automated systems have replaced millions of jobs that previously required humans.

Jobs that exist now will not be done by humans in the near future. I am not saying monkey's will do them, but that no one will do them. All we would need is for a few great mechanics and some engineers to maintain the robotics and programming facilities. Production will be automated much like the Lego Factory in Denmark (definatly a cool place with virtually no human involvment).

We cannot think of the future of job markets in terms of the past because they will be unimaginably different(I have a feeling monkeys will not be involved). In the 1950's, they could never have forseen that the USA's manufacturing an production would greatly increase into the late 2000's while virtually all the jobs would be lost. The interesting part about all of the whining about the outsourcing of jobs to other countries is that the bulk of the jobs were taken by automated systems here at home.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join