View Poll Results: What should be the annual cap?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • $100K or less

    1 1.79%
  • $200K

    1 1.79%
  • $500K

    1 1.79%
  • $1M

    4 7.14%
  • That's none of our business.

    49 87.50%
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 98

Thread: Corporate Earnings

  1. #81
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,368

    Corporate Earnings

    Quote Originally Posted by Klown View Post
    The top 400 income earners in the USA take home about 300 million dollars per year EACH and pay about 18% tax on that income

    Now lets see - what crucial role can one person perform that requires them to be paid about $144,000 per hour?

    (minimum wage in the USA is about $7 dollars per hour - earnt by these greedy US workers)
    Old data, income for this group is actually down since 2009 and their rate is now closer to 20%.

    Of course this club of 400 keeps changing a lot and only 2% have stayed the same over the long hall.

    Even using your older numbers, it is actually about $35000/ hour. Of course you can only envision and 8 hour day because you have never signed the front of a paycheck.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  2. #82
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Quote Originally Posted by Klown View Post
    Actually I am not a Christian - but that is beside the point

    You are the one that needs to recognise the incompatibility between Christian morals and Corporate capitalism

    I am merely highlighting the reality that one cannot be devoted to Christianity and Corporate Capitalism at the same time - they need to choose or live a life of infinite moral hypocracy - which incidentally is what the US stands for


    Huh? Why me?

  3. #83
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Quote Originally Posted by Klown View Post
    The top 400 income earners in the USA take home about 300 million dollars per year EACH and pay about 18% tax on that income

    Now lets see - what crucial role can one person perform that requires them to be paid about $144,000 per hour?

    (minimum wage in the USA is about $7 dollars per hour - earnt by these greedy US workers)
    Just more of your messages shilling for the super rich in your stance that there should be unlimited tax deductions for the super rich, while demanding what you call "greedy USA workers" receive less and less.

    Let's hear some more of your crying puppy dog tears for the WalMart's $20+ Billion dollars each heirs with $16 Billion dollar income needing still more tax breaks than the $2.8 Billion per year Obama gave them in exemption for ObamaCare - because their wages below the poverty line are TOO HIGH in your opinion - you claiming they are "greedy USA workers."

    Your messages shilling for the super rich and spitting on working people are disgusting.

  4. #84
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    You have the certainty of a crusader when I see them as little more than unproven speculation driven by an agenda. Humor me and please point out one thing I can explore further about some proven damage caused by income "maldistribution" (if I'm using that word correctly).
    What you consider proven or not may speak to you more than the evidence, but much is written on it. I prefer books, and think you should visit a library. In in the meantime:

    “We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race,” said Sean F. Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist. Professor Reardon is the author of a study that found that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s, and is now double the testing gap between blacks and whites.

    In another study, by researchers from the University of Michigan, the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s.

    Education Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor, Studies Show - NYTimes.com

    The isolation of the prosperous, he said, means less interaction with people from other income groups and a greater risk to their support for policies and investments that benefit the broader public — like schools, parks and public transportation systems. About 14 percent of families lived in affluent neighborhoods in 2007, up from 7 percent in 1970, the study found.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us...ort-finds.html

    More controversially, unequal societies appear to have higher levels of social ills, from teenage pregnancy to violence and obesity, that affect quality of life across the board (New Scientist, 16 April 2011, p 50).

    Now there is another reason to decry growing inequality. Greater wealth correlates with selfishness and lack of empathy (see "Why money can't buy you love: the unexpected price of wealth"), which might help explain why the divide persists and the rich seem so reluctant to close it.

    Rich suffer as well as the poor in unequal society - opinion - 26 April 2012 - New Scientist



    Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States | BMJ

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #85
    Educator Klown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-14-12 @ 04:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    982

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Just more of your messages shilling for the super rich in your stance that there should be unlimited tax deductions for the super rich, while demanding what you call "greedy USA workers" receive less and less.

    Let's hear some more of your crying puppy dog tears for the WalMart's $20+ Billion dollars each heirs with $16 Billion dollar income needing still more tax breaks than the $2.8 Billion per year Obama gave them in exemption for ObamaCare - because their wages below the poverty line are TOO HIGH in your opinion - you claiming they are "greedy USA workers."

    Your messages shilling for the super rich and spitting on working people are disgusting.
    You support the unlimited theft of money by the rich who do nothing for it but you are morally offended when workers living on the minimum wage of $7.15 ask for a pay rise.

    You condemn ordinary workers for sabotaging the economy and growth because they organise themselves to get fair working conditions and pay but see no problem with the elite who do nothing and take everything.

    I suppose you still believe that the billions of dollars the royal family members get each year is well earned renumeration for their hard work and effort.

    You need to choose between Christianity and corporate capitalism, you cannot commit to both

    Unless you enjoy being a hypocrite

  6. #86
    Educator Klown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-14-12 @ 04:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    982

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Warren Buffett is advocating a big increase in income and capital gains tax for the rich

    Interesting how the poor folk who frequent this place will defend the rich elite, and support their lobby efforts to REDUCE their tax commitments and liabilties

    Delusional Spin Syndrome is alive and well in the USA

  7. #87
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,368

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    What you consider proven or not may speak to you more than the evidence, but much is written on it. I prefer books, and think you should visit a library. In in the meantime:

    “We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race,” said Sean F. Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist. Professor Reardon is the author of a study that found that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s, and is now double the testing gap between blacks and whites.

    In another study, by researchers from the University of Michigan, the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s.

    Education Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor, Studies Show - NYTimes.com

    The isolation of the prosperous, he said, means less interaction with people from other income groups and a greater risk to their support for policies and investments that benefit the broader public — like schools, parks and public transportation systems. About 14 percent of families lived in affluent neighborhoods in 2007, up from 7 percent in 1970, the study found.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us...ort-finds.html

    More controversially, unequal societies appear to have higher levels of social ills, from teenage pregnancy to violence and obesity, that affect quality of life across the board (New Scientist, 16 April 2011, p 50).

    Now there is another reason to decry growing inequality. Greater wealth correlates with selfishness and lack of empathy (see "Why money can't buy you love: the unexpected price of wealth"), which might help explain why the divide persists and the rich seem so reluctant to close it.

    Rich suffer as well as the poor in unequal society - opinion - 26 April 2012 - New Scientist



    Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States | BMJ
    You've made a huge leap from suggestion to proven, why is that? Maybe that suggests more about you than the evidence that you have presented.

    Let's look what you presented. The first piece has this: "family income appears more determinative of educational success than race"

    In the second piece: " the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s" references nothing about income distribution, just how wealth impacts college completion. From the National Center for Education Statistics: "Enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 11 percent between 1990 and 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, enrollment increased 37 percent, from 15.3 million to 21.0 million." Could it be with so many more people entering college that more are unprepared for the experience? I don't know, but it seems like it could be a legitimate factor.

    The third piece: Less interaction. I would think that with all these people going to college, there would be more interaction. Policies that support the broader public. Would that include encouraging hard work, two parent households, or even keeping ones neighborhood clean? It sounds more like, if you won't use public money for what we think is public good then you don't care about people.

    The fourth piece: "More controversially, unequal societies appear to have higher levels of social ills," From an opinion piece. I don't tend to equate "appear" with proven. As for the idea that wealth makes people more selfish and less empathetic. I think that the more people want to take your stuff, the more you want to hold on to it. I'm not even sure how to quantify selfishness and empathy. Heck, distance also has a factor. Someone in my neighborhood probably registers more in me than 10,000 people dieing in Japan. Is that selfish or a lack of empathy?

    Further, From the National:
    Our findings provide some support for the notion that the size of the gap between the wealthy and less well off—as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor—matters in its own right. This finding in no way diminishes the importance of measures to alleviate the burden of poverty. None the less, in an affluent society such as the United States, reliance on trickle down policies may not be enough—society must pay attention to the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

    Supporting notions, that doesn't sound like something being proven to me.

    Lastly, the correlation of the Robin Hood Index to mortality. This sounds serious. The Robin Hood Index: "The Robin Hood Index is conceptually one of the simplest measures of inequality used in econometrics. It is equal to the portion of the total community income that would have to be redistributed (taken from the richer half of the population and given to the poorer half) for the society to live in perfect equality."

    This is an interesting use of statistics with an interesting agenda. I didn't know that perfect equality was an economic term and not one of "equal under the law". It is a bit cliche but equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome. Furthermore, "Some economists argue that the size of the gap between the wealthy and less fortunate seems to be related to mortality." Argue and seems don't sound like "proven" to me either.

    My conclusion: You mean well in wanting to help others, but you seem to only view that help in economic terms. You look at studies and bless them them with the word "proven" and assume that others should just accede to your conclusion. Does one of those book things in something you call a library include a dictionary containing the word proven?

    See how irritating being dismissive of others can be to the receiver?

  8. #88
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    You've made a huge leap from suggestion to proven, why is that? Maybe that suggests more about you than the evidence that you have presented.

    Let's look what you presented. The first piece has this: "family income appears more determinative of educational success than race"

    In the second piece: " the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s" references nothing about income distribution, just how wealth impacts college completion. From the National Center for Education Statistics: "Enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 11 percent between 1990 and 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, enrollment increased 37 percent, from 15.3 million to 21.0 million." Could it be with so many more people entering college that more are unprepared for the experience? I don't know, but it seems like it could be a legitimate factor.

    The third piece: Less interaction. I would think that with all these people going to college, there would be more interaction. Policies that support the broader public. Would that include encouraging hard work, two parent households, or even keeping ones neighborhood clean? It sounds more like, if you won't use public money for what we think is public good then you don't care about people.

    The fourth piece: "More controversially, unequal societies appear to have higher levels of social ills," From an opinion piece. I don't tend to equate "appear" with proven. As for the idea that wealth makes people more selfish and less empathetic. I think that the more people want to take your stuff, the more you want to hold on to it. I'm not even sure how to quantify selfishness and empathy. Heck, distance also has a factor. Someone in my neighborhood probably registers more in me than 10,000 people dieing in Japan. Is that selfish or a lack of empathy?

    Further, From the National:
    Our findings provide some support for the notion that the size of the gap between the wealthy and less well off—as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor—matters in its own right. This finding in no way diminishes the importance of measures to alleviate the burden of poverty. None the less, in an affluent society such as the United States, reliance on trickle down policies may not be enough—society must pay attention to the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

    Supporting notions, that doesn't sound like something being proven to me.

    Lastly, the correlation of the Robin Hood Index to mortality. This sounds serious. The Robin Hood Index: "The Robin Hood Index is conceptually one of the simplest measures of inequality used in econometrics. It is equal to the portion of the total community income that would have to be redistributed (taken from the richer half of the population and given to the poorer half) for the society to live in perfect equality."

    This is an interesting use of statistics with an interesting agenda. I didn't know that perfect equality was an economic term and not one of "equal under the law". It is a bit cliche but equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome. Furthermore, "Some economists argue that the size of the gap between the wealthy and less fortunate seems to be related to mortality." Argue and seems don't sound like "proven" to me either.

    My conclusion: You mean well in wanting to help others, but you seem to only view that help in economic terms. You look at studies and bless them them with the word "proven" and assume that others should just accede to your conclusion. Does one of those book things in something you call a library include a dictionary containing the word proven?

    See how irritating being dismissive of others can be to the receiver?
    Dismissive? If you say so. But as I said, there is much on this, and suggest the library. Recent studies are limited, but there is move in books.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #89
    User Anrch-Cptlst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 09:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    100
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Nobodies business. Also it's another regulation. The only thing this would solve would be sending more jobs overseas.
    Gary Johnson 2012!!!

    There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - F.A. Hayek

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-08-14 @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,325

    Re: Corporate Earnings

    Quote Originally Posted by Anrch-Cptlst View Post
    Nobodies business. Also it's another regulation. The only thing this would solve would be sending more jobs overseas.
    Most Libs are silly enough to believe that either businesses will somehow stay despite aggressive tax hikes, or that the government can step in and do as good, or better, job in the first place.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 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
  •