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.

 

U.S. should copy Switzerland and consider a 'maximum wage' ratio, too

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


I don't care how much the wealthy have or make. I care about them being tax cheaters. The cheaters are the ones who abuse the tax code and don't pay their fair share, except to the tax lawyers. Why don't they give a big middle finger to our veterans, because the wealthy should pay a lot of taxes for that decision we made as a country together. It just can't be paid for on the backs of working people and the poor for the next 40 years.

And the wealthy sure seem to spend a lot of time worrying how much food assistance, medical, social security the poor and elderly receive. They even spend a lot of their money fighting those programs. Does that sound illogical to anyone else?




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 



This obsession with making absolutely everything exactly the same just seems really bizarre and creepy if you ask me.

Sorry, who are you addressing with this post?


You, I guess?


I haven't read anyone saying "we should make absolutely everything exactly the same." Who said that?


Oh, of course not. Incrementalism doesn't happen until we admit it's happening. And what good would come of admitting it before it's done it's thing?


Not one person in this thread has proposed leveling the "living field" so that every person has exactly the same life. That is like prison.


There you go. Now you have an inkling of what this is about.


We are discussing the possibility of stimulating the economy by ensuring that enough profit is redistributed into the system, so that there is money to spend.


No. You are discussing the elimination and complete subjugation of the individual. It's the same thing. Collectivism. This is what everything is about these days. The rights of the individual are being systematically erased. The human race is being turned into a giant ant colony. They cannot continue to support individuality to infinity. If you want to live in the society of the future, you will have to become a drone. No exaggeration at all.


I don't understand how the OP premise got turned into Communism. It isn't. NOR is it Socialism or Fascism.


Of course. It's all of them. Collectivism is the common bond. You can throw religion in there too if you want.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 



No. You are discussing the elimination and complete subjugation of the individual. It's the same thing. Collectivism. This is what everything is about these days.

Erm....yes.
I am NOT discussing the elimination/subjugation of the individual, and it IS NOT the same thing.

Collectivism? What's so wrong with wanting everyone to NOT STARVE? To have A ROOF?

Whatever.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Dont bother these "people" think is absolutes. You have to be for 100% Libertarians values were people suffer and stave due no help or you have to be for 100% progressive values were everyone has what they own conficated and you a evil goverment controlling your evey move.

They can comprehend a inbetween or middle, you have to be in one camp or another.

They all almost drone themselfs, forced into a away of thinking within there camp.
It wht nothing will change.

Me and you wildtimes are a rare breed that can see outside the box and see the hell and problems going on. It just the brain washed masses wont listen.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Aww man, all these rich jerks spending their money, building houses and condos, spending their apparent ill gotten gains on things that create and keep jobs for the middle class, they SHOULD be capped in what they earn compared to those puny beings below...

That way, they might reconsider that 5th house in the Lake District...


Next they'll lessen the ratio of monetary donations and philanthropy!!

Oh my!

edit on 23-11-2013 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   


The Swiss vote, for example, does nothing to increase average worker pay. It aims solely to clip cash from the very top of the economic ladder.


I would disagree with this statement. The top execs would find a way to increase workers pay in order to increase their own, being the greedy buggers they are.
THAT would open a whole 'nother can of worms!
Nugget



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I dont think a hard cap would work too well.

But a "soft" cap might?

Say the more ratio from bottom to top workers increases the higher the tax.

That higher tax can pay for the expenses socity pays when there are people stuck on minimal wage yet below the living wage and so have to seek charity or welfare.

On the other hand tax breaks for companys that keep a good low to high ratio. People of better wages mean less wefare and less expense plus more cash for them to spend on products.

There should be carrot and stick.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I don't mind what those at the top make as long as they are making it on their own with no help from the government to rig the rules in their favor. Unfortunately, Our foreign and domestic economic policies have all been about the government picking winners and losers and propping up the winners at the nations expense.

One thing I don't get about those against Big Government, and rightly so is they are against it for the concentration of power, control and wealth but yet when a business concentrates power and wealth to extreme levels it is ok with them.

This is not ok, especially when they wield enough power and wealth to buy politicians that we pay taxes to at the expense to the rest of the country.

in the earlier days of our country most business were local or regional because of the logistics problems and technology available then. They did not have the wealth and power to rig the rules in their favor. The concentration of power and wealth by government or by Big Business is a threat to the well being of this nation.

i say bring back policies to give more power to the small and local business and to increase competition and you would see these excessive compensation's come down when they are not lording over such a large share of various markets.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tinner07
 


You are correct that they will always find loopholes.
A big part of the problem is globalization of the market place.

I think the big multinational companies should be paying all by themselves for the construction and use of ports, interstate system and so on, thus giving more power to the local and regional business.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 



Aww man, all these rich jerks spending their money, building houses and condos, spending their apparent ill gotten gains on things that create and keep jobs for the middle class,

I think you're confused. How many people does it employ to build a luxury condo, a private jet, or a sprawling home or four that NO ONE BUT THE RICH CAN AFFORD?

The same number of people it would take to build affordable products that the public can have access to (IF they have enough money). You're totally missing the point.

The uber-rich HOARD their money in off-shore tax havens. Those who reward their employees and recirculate the profits into creating jobs, as you describe above, are not the culprits. The problem is those who stash it away for THEMSELVES. Anything over 12x the lowest employee's wages should be reinvested in the COMMUNITY, NOT in the stock market to multiply thanks to a computer. The rich would still have plenty of money, and the COMMUNITIES and SOCIETY would have better quality of life.

In fact, if those Hoarders were REQUIRED to reinvest their illegitimately-won "wealth", the problem would be lessened.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Cabin
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


When you work alone, of course. But when you work with others, you need consider them also, not take everything to yourself and leave scraps to others, despite them doing the hard work.

A company is a collective. Every employee contributes to the profit, not only CEOs, as salaries seem to show. They make the decisions, while employees realise the decisions. Without employees there would no profit, so they deserve their fair share.
edit on 21-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



Crap. This is nothing buy legislated communism. Mob democracy in action. Like the bastards that raided Dr. Zhivago's house.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Logarock


Crap. This is nothing buy legislated communism. Mob democracy in action. Like the bastards that raided Dr.
Zhivago's house.


So wealth distribution is only bad when its downwards. Wealth distrubution is good the other way?


Sorry both are bad. Wealth needs to flow both ways.

I dont agree with the swiss solution.

But something broken. Wealth distrubution going in the direction of the rich at the expense of the middle classes is dangrous.
edit on 23-11-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


We have legislated socialism for the rich in our country more than the other way around.
Why is it that the top elite have no problem using the government to enrich themselves and their cronies, but cry foul when people want to use that same government to reverse the trends that have been taking place for the past 30 years?



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

nugget1



The Swiss vote, for example, does nothing to increase average worker pay. It aims solely to clip cash from the very top of the economic ladder.


I would disagree with this statement. The top execs would find a way to increase workers pay in order to increase their own, being the greedy buggers they are.
THAT would open a whole 'nother can of worms!
Nugget


This discourse (I have certainly not read every post, so I could have missed something), and your comment, seems to be missing one of the keys players in this wage versus wage drama...that would be the shareholders.

Publicly-listed companies hire and pay CEO's at the wages/perks that they do because the shareholders believe those individuals will make them more money and/or increase the market value of the shares that they own. They would not tolerate a CEO that started raising wages across the board just so he could maintain some multiple spread up to his salary...that would in many cases end up costing the Company billions in extra worker salaries, so that the CEO could earn a few more millions.

In the case of private corporations, where in most cases the CEO is also the majority owner, he is not going to raise worker salaries to prop up his CEO salary. He is just going to take the lower salary under a scheme like this - and pay himself a larger dividend at the end of the year.

This whole idea is as unworkable as it is a non-starter.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

jacobe001
reply to post by Logarock
 


We have legislated socialism for the rich in our country more than the other way around.
Why is it that the top elite have no problem using the government to enrich themselves and their cronies, but cry foul when people want to use that same government to reverse the trends that have been taking place for the past 30 years?


What do you think the root "Social" means...

Socialism is economical model, where people a´la government holds all the means of production (social ownership) , not individuals. In US near to everything is privitised - owned by individuals, which is the opposite of social ownership.

Answer to the top elite question. Due to no restrictions on size, some companies have simply become too big, so big that they are able to affect the largest economy (and via that the whole world economy). As these companies are so large in size, they are able have significant effect on government policies. If certain legislations are not passed, a few actions by a large corporation could lead the world economy to recession. Of course corrupt politicians play also role, but at the end nobody would have the balls to take a stance against any of such companies, as they would have to deal with the consequences of the crashed economy.

No company should become too big to fail, but this has already happened due to no regulations on the matter.


Please do not use words that you do not know the meanings of, like socialism.


edit on 23-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


What would be the net-worth of Walmart owners without the 2.1 million people working for them at slave wage. What would largest tech companies values be without the sweatshops in China?

Let me guess. Just the same as average Joes. A small group of people is not working more than 100 million people combined, that is bulls*it

I am not talking about communism, but yes, I would prefer that to legislated slavery, which the current system would lead to , unless something changes. Millions of slaves working collectively in order to enrich the masters - not much difference with the end period of feudalism, where slaves had certain rights, but still they got near to nothing from their time spent working, while the master enriched more and more from their work.

I am not talking about absolute equality, but something were things would be a bit more fair and at the end everybody would at least able to live comfortably, while the ones who work the hardest live with luxuries. Not something where the bottom can barely survive, while the upper ones are raking in the billions at the expense of the bottom.

1:12 is fairly reasonable proposal. earning 12 times more than another person means a large reward for working harder and at the same time not exploitting others by taking as much as you can, simply because you can.
edit on 23-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 



I am not talking about communism, but yes, I would prefer that to legislated slavery, which the current system more resembles and it will only get worse , unless something changes.

I am not talking about absolute equality, but something were things would be a bit more fair and at the end everybody would at least able to live comfortably, while the ones who work the hardest live with luxuries. Not something where the bottom can barely survive, while the upper ones are raking in the billions at the expense of the bottom.

This is such common sense, and so well-put. Thank you, Cabin, for being on the thread.

As per the OP, I totally agree with you. "Friend".



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 


And.....that's why I think we should do away with the stock market. "Investing money" is not a JOB. If you want shares, you WORK FOR THE COMPANY.

Non-employees do not hold shares. Period. The casino is now CLOSED.
Problem solved.

Have a nice day.
edit on 11/23/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/23/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


1:12 is a fine ratio. Really, if you own a multibillion dollar company, there is no reason why you should not provide your employees with a competent salary.

If an employee is paid roughly 20 grand a year, which is roughly what someone working minimum wage earns, his or her CEO would be paid at most 240 grand a year. Do you really need more than 240 grand a year to live comfortably? Most families can live luxuriously enough off of a combined income of roughly 100k. An individual can live comfortably off of roughly 50 grand a year.

Overinflated salaries are idiotic.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
It failed to pass in Switzerland. A lot of people worried that it would cause businesses to fold up and go elsewhere and that sadly is probably true. This seemed like a good solution to me but the reality of greed will make it useless. Switzerland has a relatively stable economy though resentment is growing very strong about the increasing wealth inequality... a relatively new thing to the Swiss. The conversation isn't over in Switzerland and shouldn't be anywhere else.

The Walton Family (16 people) are worth 150 BILLION dollars. Their stores (walmart) come into cities and towns all over the country, driving other businesses out... lack of other job opportunities in manufacturing etc.. makes Walmart one of the largest employers in the US, yet walmart refuses to pay its workers a living wage thus contributing to the collapse of the middle class. This is one of example of dozens, why do we let it happen? We have to figure this out.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join