This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
The disparity between rich and poor
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Squishy, I really can't see why anyone would need that much money.
Because they wouldn't want the job otherwise.
If you're going to be the head of a multinational corporation, and get
interrogated by parliamentary committees
when some person 5 levels down from you screws up, get
attacked by protesters
while still needing to
front up to shareholders
, then you're earning your cash.
If companies could get equivalently talented, charismatic and/or responsible people to run their companies at a cheaper price, they would. The problem is, they can't, because nobody's willing to sacrifice their life to run a company like that without being properly compensated.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Again - the company is paying that much because there's noone else who can and will do the job for less. That's why they're being properly compensated.
Garbage collectors and 'construction' workers who do nothing more than hold stop/slow signs at night get paid more than the teachers who educate the next generation. Do they deserve the relatively high pay they get for the work they do? Yes, because somebody's got to do the job, and they're the ones who put their hand up for it.
Post by
Heckler
The people who have that much money have the most to lose if this Government falters, or this Country is invaded. They also (probably) make the much more use (directly or indirectly) of its services (infrastructure wise, transportation and such). Therefore it makes sense that they should pay into these things (infrastructure, national defense, etc) in a much larger proportion (per dollar earned) than others.
There's also the added benefit of protection from the political power that drastic wealth grants to an entity (although, again, this could be blamed on the structure which allows money to buy power). Is it not in the best interest of the People to protect the government from such power?
If companies could get equivalently talented, charismatic and/or responsible people to run their companies at a cheaper price, they would. The problem is, they can't. . .
I read a book recently (
this one
or
this one
) that postulated the reason stockholders are willing to pay CEO's such obscene amounts is truly because it's rare for someone to be have all the skills needed to be a CEO -- but he theorizes the main prerequisite "skill" is that you are a sociopath, willing to do
anything
for the good of the company (and yourself) -- anything at all. Interesting books =)
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Again, the company is paying that much because the board get to decide how much to take.
Firstly, not every company is like that. Secondly, it's primarily the US which operates in that sort of environment, and the other significant players in the world have
much better rules
. Thirdly, even once the better rules come on board, I'd be willing to bet that not all terribly much will change, as long as shareholders are getting their returns.
I'd rather two bin men, nurses and farmers to every investment banker anyday.
I had an old colleague of mine tell me that a friend once asked him how he could live with himself getting paid more than a doctor who saves lives. He put it quite simply - he helped the government fund the ambulances, the equipment, the hospital itself. Without the infrastructure that he helped to put in place, the doctors wouldn't be able to do their job. Everybody has their place in society, even if the lay person doesn't realise it.
They also (probably) make the much more use (directly or indirectly) of its services (infrastructure wise, transportation and such).
Hell no! The rich people don't have any more or less children on average than normal people (probably less, all things considered). They don't use local libraries or parks. They probably spend less time in transit, because time moving is time they're not spending making money.
The services they use more are typically paid-for services provided by other corporations (e.g. stock market / broking transactions, banking, airport services).
I read a book recently (
this one
or
this one
) that postulated the reason stockholders are willing to pay CEO's such obscene amounts is truly because it's rare for someone to be have all the skills needed to be a CEO -- but he theorizes the main prerequisite "skill" is that you are a sociopath, willing to do
anything
for the good of the company (and yourself) -- anything at all. Interesting books =)
I would entirely believe that! A lot of banks have psychometric tests (colloquially known as sociopath detectors) for new employees - the retail banks like to get rid of the sociopaths, but the investment banks actually look for them to hire!
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Pikey
I understand that you'd prefer to have two teachers, garbage collectors, or nurses instead of one businessman. But what if for every businessman who you drop the salary cap on, 30,000 people lose their jobs because the person in charge no longer has the same incentive to push the company? What if for every investor who is told they can't make any more money this year, 10 new medicines/enegry efficient engine parts/more advanced computer chips/safety mechanisms never get invented because suddenly all of the funding has dropped out of research? Are you willing to sacrifice actual production, technological advancement, and the livelyhood of hundreds of thousands of people so that you can feel better that no one is making too much money? Because the reason these people make so much is that their decisions and their money that they invest keep the economic infrastructure going. Would you really cap the salary/investment gain potentential of the top 1% if you knew that doing so would pull much more money out of the working class than add back to it? The question that people are asking is "do people need that much money?" What I ask you is "Can we afford to do without all of the jobs they provide and company growth that they fund?"
Post by
pezz
They also (probably) make the much more use (directly or indirectly) of its services (infrastructure wise, transportation and such).
Hell no! The rich people don't have any more or less children on average than normal people (probably less, all things considered). They don't use local libraries or parks. They probably spend less time in transit, because time moving is time they're not spending making money.
The services they use more are typically paid-for services provided by other corporations (e.g. stock market / broking transactions, banking, airport services).
Don't forget healthcare, which the rich are much less likely to get through the public option. Oh and welfare. Typically people who measure their yearly income in seven figures don't take in a lot of welfare.
Post by
Heckler
I mean through things things like Roads, Utilities, FAA regulations, shipping, Federal Reserve control of the dollar, the court structure and legal system, border patrol, national defense, etc. (things that make up FAR more of the federal budget than "welfare" or the park system). Rich people (directly, possibly) and their corporations (indirectly, definitely) use these things far more than others (things that are state funded like schools, police, etc. I would agree should be funded by a regressive tax, and they are usually, a state sales tax). An example, Interstate-80 needs to be repaved every 3 months because of Truck traffic, not cars. Those trucks are there because of business, and the repaving is done with taxpayer funds. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just saying that basic infrastructure and logistic requirements (especially inter-state stuff which is usually federally funded) see much more use and wear and tear from industry, and it could be argued that supporting industry is their purpose (ie. not supporting family road trips).
Also, person-to-person, I'm willing to bet the tax exemptions of the average millionaire far outweigh the total welfare use of even the most abusive welfare leech. Personally, I consider at least some of those tax exemptions a
form
of welfare. But regardless, most welfare is done at the state level, and most states are funded by sales tax (regressive). And when you start stalking about the tax loopholes available to corporations, it gets much worse, corporate tax subsidies are basically exactly the same as welfare, government handouts (but since most everyone in this thread agrees that the current method of taxation is flawed, maybe you'd agree).
@ Healthcare -- I'm willing to bet that many rich people over 65 still use medicare when its available. And below 65, we don't have a public option (I'm a good example, I don't have health insurance and if I'm injured, there's definitely no public option for me to use except the emergency room, which I pay for out of pocket -- if I declare bankruptcy because of this, then it falls on someone else, but I'd hardly call that a public option).
@ Welfare -- I'm willing to bet that person-to-person, the average rich person uses about as much actual welfare (not tax exemptions like I said above) as the average middle class person (near zero). Both of which use much less than the average dirt-poor person, but that's the point.
Post by
pezz
Also, person-to-person, I'm willing to bet the tax exemptions of the average millionaire far outweigh the total welfare use of even the most abusive welfare leech. Personally, I consider at least some of those tax exemptions a
form
of welfare. But regardless, most welfare is done at the state level, and most states are funded by sales tax (regressive). And when you start stalking about the tax loopholes available to corporations, it gets much worse, corporate tax subsidies are basically exactly the same as welfare, government handouts (but since most everyone in this thread agrees that the current method of taxation is flawed, maybe you'd agree).
Now here is someplace I agree with you wholeheartedly. Complicated exemptions and loopholes are, at best, needlessly complicating our tax code to the point where a whole market has been created where you can pay people who have a clue what's going on, and at worst, a thin screen behind which politicians can exchange donations for tax dodges.
Post by
Heckler
Now here is someplace I agree with you wholeheartedly. Complicated exemptions and loopholes are, at best, needlessly complicating our tax code to the point where a whole market has been created where you can pay people who have a clue what's going on, and at worst, a thin screen behind which politicians can exchange donations for tax dodges.
It also allows people to scream and complain about the outrageous 35% tax rate they pay (which the ignorant masses blindly agree with; looking at you Tea Party), when in reality, its FAR less than that because they end up making so much of their income non-taxable one way or another.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I've started and stopped this response a couple of times, because I'm trying to get my point across without sounding snarky.
Hampton...I am going to guess that a big part of this is that English is your second language, but the majority of your arguments are coming across as...disjointed. I'm having issues maintaining a debate when, while the general tone of your argument is clear, the sentences don't seem to be expressing complete thoughts.
It also seems that your impression of how someone who is a multi-millionaire makes their money is that a single company is paying them a single paycheck, and that they should put a salary cap on that single paycheck. It's just soooo much more complicated than that, and you're not seeming to understand that some of it is a paycheck, some of it is interest, some of it is because they own properties and have rental income, some of it is that they're loaning money to other businesses and having their investment returned with profits.
I'd like to debate back and forth with you, but with the concepts that we're talking about, you need to have a basic understanding of economics and business structure to actually have a meaningful discussion. These basics seem to be so far outside of your experience, that the things we're trying to explain using them- you don't seem to be understanding them enough to even argue with the specific points we're making. I'm enjoying the back and forth with Pikey, Squish, Heckler, etc., even if they don't agree with me, because we're discussing ideas based on the way the system works. You're arguing ideas with no understanding of the system, so it's hard to really have any meaningful dialogue.
What I will say, is that the amount of venom you have for "rich people" is clear. It's more than a debate on fair distribution of wealth- you legitimately seem to have anger for the people who have more than you. You seem to not want to hear anything about the disadvantages of taking money away from investors, about personal income vs. money re-invested in business, or any of the other systems that are linked and would be affected by these changes you're suggesting- you just want what they have now. You have ignored or dismissed every suggestion that there are ways for someone to earn free or affordable college with grades, loans, economic assistance, military service, non-military civil service, etc. because the require work or sacrifice, and seem to believe that no one who makes a high income could possibly be working for it, or have sacrificed anything for it.
Some serious life advice, Hampton, aside from any ideological debate, is that if you're operating from a place of anger and resentment, it's hard to hear logic or think about how to work around it. Regardless of how hard we argue back and forth here, they will never put a cap on what a person can make in this country, and they will never make a huge increase in the minimum wage (and even if they did, you really wouldn't get much out of it for very long, but I digress). If you really want to get out of your economic situation, and really want to go to college, get a better job, and have a better life, then please stop looking at all that you don't have access to, and actually pay attention to what you do have access to. Look into AmeriCorps, try to get good grades, make an effort to research the grants and scholarships available, because if you really believe that people with perfect grades have nothing available then you haven't even done a google search. Go to work with the attitude of "let me work my way up" and not resenting that you're not at the top already. If you continue sitting in one place, resenting everyone else and refusing to accept any responsibility for your own success, then your life really isn't going to improve. And that would be sad, because the tools are available if you're willing to use them.
Post by
Orranis
Cool and relevant.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
255458
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
It's designed to prove a point and inform, not be a real life simulator. All of the hypotheticals are specifically designed to demonstrate the choices which must be made and the difficulties faced by the unemployed millions in America; and the overall point is to persuade those who are able to donate and help as well as to inform those who may need help that its available.
While the actual events of the 30 days are unlikely to happen in the way presented, the points made by each event are valid, and the overall message of the app is well delivered IMO.
Post by
Squishalot
I agree with Hospy - if you're all of the above, you sortof dug your own grave, really.
@ pezz, Heckler, I've got some further comments about tax laws and loopholes and why they're entirely reasonable, but I don't have time to respond at the moment. Maybe in the next day or so.
Post by
Heckler
@ pezz, Heckler, I've got some further comments about tax laws and loopholes and why they're entirely reasonable, but I don't have time to respond at the moment. Maybe in the next day or so.
I agree with many tax exemptions, there's just a few (especially of the corporate variety) that I think are ridiculous.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.