• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Earnings

What should be the annual cap?

  • $100K or less

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • $200K

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • $500K

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $1M

    Votes: 2 4.0%
  • That's none of our business.

    Votes: 46 92.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
So what you are saying is that you are a Christian and insist upon people following your religious beliefs?

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
 
This isn't actually new, it has been done just like that, often. I think we even have had threads on it here. I think a lot has been written on it.

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).
 
Dimond and the ceo of AIG and Freddie and Fannie..and a variety of big banks that are being and have been investigated in the last 3 yrs and just got fined....

Ok, so at least you came up with a name we can discuss. So you think Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan should be in prison. Ok, what should he be charged with? I think it is important for people in prison to have actually been charged with something. I can find that JP MOrgan Chase settled for $722 a case involving Jefferson County, Alabama for influencing the county commissioners. Failing to comply with UK client money rules and for violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I can only assume that they did these things since they actually admitted to doing them. Are these the actions which you feel justify prison for Dimon? Or does just accepting TARP money justification enough?
 
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)
 
As much as they want as long as I get an under the table cut.
 
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.
 
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? :confused:
 
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.
 
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/middle-class-areas-shrink-as-income-gap-grows-report-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
 
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
 
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
 
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/middle-class-areas-shrink-as-income-gap-grows-report-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?
 
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.
 
Nobodies business. Also it's another regulation. The only thing this would solve would be sending more jobs overseas.
 
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.
 
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

You are the one in love with the WalMart Mega Billionaires and spit on WalMart employees. Disgustingly so.

I don't have to pick between Christianity and capitalism at all. Im not some religous zealot as you are in your messages. Whose picture is larger on your wall? Jesus or Sam Walton?
 
You are the one in love with the WalMart Mega Billionaires and spit on WalMart employees. Disgustingly so.

I don't have to pick between Christianity and capitalism at all. Im not some religous zealot as you are in your messages. Whose picture is larger on your wall? Jesus or Sam Walton?

Why do you advocate for the minimum wage in the US to be lowered to $2 per hour and frozen until 2035?

At the same time you want taxes for the top 400 in the US to be slashed to under 5%

What sort of in humane unchristian fascist slave Corpocracy do you want to impose on the American slaves?

Isn't the current fascist Corpocracy bad enough?
 
they can make whatever they can, just should be taxed appropriately.
 
The sky is the limit! If a company thinks that a CEO is worth the money and will help grow the company and bring in more revenue for their shareholders, then that is no business of anyone's but the board and their share holders. Setting a limit is an arbitrary limit and sets a horribly bad precedent for the future.
 
Corporations are increasingly up revenue not by production, but by selling off assets and buying-selling its own stocks.
 
Corporations are increasingly up revenue not by production, but by selling off assets and buying-selling its own stocks.
Uh-oh. Looks like we need a government take-over to make things right...
 
Uh-oh. Looks like we need a government take-over to make things right...

Either that or we need to figure out better things to make that people will buy here.
 
Either that or we need to figure out better things to make that people will buy here.
Pfft, leave it to the Feds. I'm sure the Prison System can come up with an effective compensation package for the inmates.
 
Back
Top Bottom