View Poll Results: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    44 66.67%
  • no

    17 25.76%
  • other

    4 6.06%
  • I do not know

    1 1.52%
Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 182

Thread: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

  1. #41
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    David's a little more patient than I am. I was summarizing.



    Because options incentivize officers to have vested interest in the company above and beyond normal expectations.

    Only thing I wish they'd change is if they exercise a call at a time when market prices are artificially inflated, they are penalized based on...I dunno, something more along an average market yield.
    the options i was granted over the years (a lot) are worthless. our ceo received bonuses instead of options for selling our company down the river. of course, all the significant employees received HUGE bonuses........while others saw their bonuses disappear. **** ceos.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  2. #42
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Because options incentivize officers to have vested interest in the company above and beyond normal expectations.
    That's not necessarily true.

    Options don't necessarily incentivize CEOs to have a vested interest in the company.

    Rather, options incentivize CEOs to have a vested interest in the company's worth in stocks.

    These are two separate things. They are separate because a CEO could perform actions that increase the worth of their company's stock but also hinders a company's long-term performance. For example, the first thing many incoming CEOs do to reform a corporation is to lay off employees. This makes the price of the corporation's stock rise as the corporation no longer has to pay those employee wages. But (depending on many factors) this may not be the healthiest thing for a corporation to do.

    Basically, my argument is that CEOs are just as likely to pursue short-term gains that cause long-term losses for the business than perform actions he feels are for the best benefit of the business.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  3. #43
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    Flat tax for all that make twice the Poverty level with no deductions, with a similar flat tax on business above a certain level and no deductions.
    Nothing would lead to a a two class system faster than a flat tax. What would be the point for the poor to work to become middle class since a flat tax places the greatest burden on them to put out the highest proportion of their discretionary income?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart
    That's not necessarily true.

    Options don't necessarily incentivize CEOs to have a vested interest in the company.

    Rather, options incentivize CEOs to have a vested interest in the company's worth in stocks.

    These are two separate things. They are separate because a CEO could perform actions that increase the worth of their company's stock but also hinders a company's long-term performance. For example, the first thing many incoming CEOs do to reform a corporation is to lay off employees. This makes the price of the corporation's stock rise as the corporation no longer has to pay those employee wages. But (depending on many factors) this may not be the healthiest thing for a corporation to do.

    Basically, my argument is that CEOs are just as likely to pursue short-term gains that cause long-term losses for the business than perform actions he feels are for the best benefit of the business.
    I know you're right and that's why I added my caveat as a "how it should be" thing. I know that CEOs try to hike up stock prices temporarily to allow themselves to look better and to profit. That was why I wanted some sort of penalty were they to do this artificially for the purpose to call an option and make a bulk of money that should not be allowed.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Windy City
    Last Seen
    09-21-11 @ 11:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    397

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Only thing I wish they'd change is if they exercise a call at a time when market prices are artificially inflated, they are penalized based on...I dunno, something more along an average market yield.
    Agree.

    Unfortunately under this setup (CEOs make a bulk of their salary from company profits), wealth will end up stratifying.

    When only the top tier of employees reap all of the company profit year after year, while the average worker salaries are treated more like commodities (and do not expand/contract based on company performance), all of the ‘gains’ from everybody’s hard work essentially goes into the pocket of just one small portion of the population. Again, give this enough time and you end up with a society where the bulk of a nation’s wealth is controlled by just a very small % of the population.

    Does anyone agree?
    Last edited by David D.; 09-19-11 at 12:06 PM.

  6. #46
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I know you're right and that's why I added my caveat as a "how it should be" thing. I know that CEOs try to hike up stock prices temporarily to allow themselves to look better and to profit. That was why I wanted some sort of penalty were they to do this artificially for the purpose to call an option and make a bulk of money that should not be allowed.
    The only problem with penalizing this the way you suggest is that it's awfully difficult to prove that that's what a CEO is doing.

    After all, employee layoffs may be a legitimate means to reform a business to make it more viable.

    Instead, I think a better thing would be to do what I mentioned before - make employees have more of a stake in the stock of a company by making employees shareholders. After all, while CEOs execute corporate policies the CEOs are chosen by shareholders. So by having the employees choose the CEOs there may be more equilibrium between Labor and Management for a business. Also, CEOs will be more beholden to the employees and will take steps to take care of them and their working conditions.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart
    The only problem with penalizing this the way you suggest is that it's awfully difficult to prove that that's what a CEO is doing.

    After all, employee layoffs may be a legitimate means to reform a business to make it more viable.

    Instead, I think a better thing would be to do what I mentioned before - make employees have more of a stake in the stock of a company by making employees shareholders. After all, while CEOs execute corporate policies the CEOs are chosen by shareholders. So by having the employees choose the CEOs there may be more equilibrium between Labor and Management for a business. Also, CEOs will be more beholden to the employees and will take steps to take care of them and their working conditions.
    Maybe it's because of my profession and background, but I could figure out, with an acceptable degree of error, whether a CEOs action is due to vocational prudence or because he's looking to bump his own bottom line. Wouldn't hurt if I had a few people with me to run leg work and decipher a few things (after all, major corporations have massive accounting staffs for a reason), but I like to think I have enough skill with reports, sheets, and forecasts to figure out which is at least moderately necessary.

  8. #48
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    That's not necessarily true.

    Options don't necessarily incentivize CEOs to have a vested interest in the company.

    Rather, options incentivize CEOs to have a vested interest in the company's worth in stocks.

    These are two separate things. They are separate because a CEO could perform actions that increase the worth of their company's stock but also hinders a company's long-term performance. For example, the first thing many incoming CEOs do to reform a corporation is to lay off employees. This makes the price of the corporation's stock rise as the corporation no longer has to pay those employee wages. But (depending on many factors) this may not be the healthiest thing for a corporation to do.

    Basically, my argument is that CEOs are just as likely to pursue short-term gains that cause long-term losses for the business than perform actions he feels are for the best benefit of the business.

    Great post sam and right on target....when CEO pays became tied to stock value is when all the shenanigans began, whether or not the stock gain was sustainable or had any relation to the companies long term health didnt matter, CEOs got paid and recieved bonus'

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    As I can only vote for the Buffet Rule - I will cast a YES vote. In reality the Buffet Rule should take into consideration the progressive income tax and the rate for millionaires should NOT be the same as others but at least twice as much and that includes getting rid of the Rich Mans Income Protection Exemption otherwise know as the long term capital gains tax..
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #50
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:34 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,172

    Re: Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

    MusicAdventurer: We've gone over this in other threads .. the answer to the question is applying the definition of the word fair in order to determine what a "fair share" is.
    Fair? Well, fair would be that we all pay income taxes at the same in amount. I pay $7,000 and the poor pay $7,000 and the rich pay $7,000. Yes, that is fair.

    Fair? Well, fair would be that we all pay income taxes at the same percent. I pay 20% and the poor pay 20% and the rich pay 20%. Yes, that is fair.

    Fair? Top 1% pays 40% and bottom 47% pay 0% for income taxes. Nope. That is not fair.

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •