Join Early Retirement Today
View Poll Results: Raise Taxes For Those Making More Than $200,000? (Thread Not About Wage Control!)
Yes 15 31.91%
No 32 68.09%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-05-2007, 04:01 PM   #61
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Milton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
I'm not trying to fight my neighbor over his plasma or silly hummer, just the top 1-2%, let's start there.
There may well be a case to be made for increasing tax burden on 'the rich' (however are defined); but the above logic is faulty. See generally
Martin Niemöller: They came for the Jews then they came for me
__________________

__________________
"To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive". Robert Louis Stevenson, An Inland Voyage (1878)
Milton is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-05-2007, 04:09 PM   #62
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton View Post
There may well be a case to be made for increasing tax burden on 'the rich' (however are defined); but the above logic is faulty. See generally
Martin Niemöller: They came for the Jews then they came for me

seriously?
__________________

__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 04:16 PM   #63
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
I never used TP's company as an example...i was referring to the top 1-2% wealthy in the US...

Basic idea is that over a certain income, you have your food, clothing and shelter...let's pass some of that around before someone gets another yacht, benz or rolly - are we opposed to that? i'm not trying to fight my neighbor over his plasma or silly hummer, just the top 1-2%, let's start there.

Most of the top 1% are not making it in INCOME like you and me... they are making it in investments... and you do not think we should cap the ability of someone to earn big time on their investments do you?? (or maybe you actually DO which is even more disturbing)....

And if I have $100 mill it would seem to me that I should make in the neighborhood of $5 to $20 mill just on that base of assets alone. But you want to say NOOOO... that money should go to someone else (who does NOT invest anything) so they can live better... well, what is their skin in the game?? It is not their moping skill that is making the company money.

And then look at some of the mega rich... the Gates are donating billions..so is (dang... brain fart.. #3 guy)... and then Ted Turner gave away 1/3 of his wealth (IIRC)... so all of these people are giving away a VERY large percent of thier wealth.. what have you done?
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 04:18 PM   #64
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Milton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,060
It's a slippery slope. Once we start taking from wealthier others on the basis that "oh well, they have so much (and I have so little), they won't miss it anyway", where does it end?
__________________
"To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive". Robert Louis Stevenson, An Inland Voyage (1878)
Milton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 04:24 PM   #65
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,250
OHHH... This should probably be another thread.... but...

I think that we should have a SURTAX at the bottom of the tax form...

Your payment for the Iraq war (multiply 10% of line XX above).......

This should be 10% of the tax you owe.. everybody pays the same rate, but it is based on your tax so everybody's tax goes up 10%... all the people who don't pay taxes don't owe anything... and this is the total tax line just for the curious...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 04:38 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Milton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Your payment for the Iraq war (multiply 10% of line XX above).......
Would 10% be enough?
__________________
"To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive". Robert Louis Stevenson, An Inland Voyage (1878)
Milton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 04:40 PM   #67
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Most of the top 1% are not making it in INCOME like you and me... they are making it in investments... and you do not think we should cap the ability of someone to earn big time on their investments do you?? (or maybe you actually DO which is even more disturbing)....

And if I have $100 mill it would seem to me that I should make in the neighborhood of $5 to $20 mill just on that base of assets alone. But you want to say NOOOO... that money should go to someone else (who does NOT invest anything) so they can live better... well, what is their skin in the game?? It is not their moping skill that is making the company money.

And then look at some of the mega rich... the Gates are donating billions..so is (dang... brain fart.. #3 guy)... and then Ted Turner gave away 1/3 of his wealth (IIRC)... so all of these people are giving away a VERY large percent of thier wealth.. what have you done?
Geez, why all the vitriol?

I'm simply saying that it seems reasonable to limit the unfettered crazy ceo salaries, so that there was some increasing ability by those at the most bottom, to make a living, so that they can at some point, some day invest. I am aware that many of them do not have liquid $ - my sis's father in law is one of those...but i'm not talking about that tier, I'm talking about the tier w/ both the assets and the cash to live high on the hog.

Folks want to complain about taxes and social services spending, but yet, the minimum wage does not provide sufficient income for many to get by.

I'd much rather have better wages contribute to social well-being than free social programs, but alas, it seems the voting public does not compute increased wages with better living and less reliance on public programs.

I think Gates and a few notable others are exceptions and there have been many studies that show how middle and low income people donate FAR MORE as a percentage of their income than do more wealthy people (they just don't hire PR companies to let everyone know about it). Also, a lot of wealthy people donate to their alma maters and arts and not for things that benefit people outside of their status circle. I have worked with multi-millionaires who confess as much and now encourage their friends to do more.

and I do believe I have and continue to do a lot. My whole life has been dedicated to improving policies to improve society - thank you very much and I have taken a BIG personal financial hit to do it. I just think we can do better...
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 05:04 PM   #68
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
I'd much rather have better wages contribute to social well-being than free social programs, but alas, it seems the voting public does not compute increased wages with better living and less reliance on public programs.
An increase in the minimum wage does nothing. Whether valid or not the end result is an increase in the cost of goods to the point that those making minimum wages still won't be able to afford anything. Additionally, those making more than the minimum wage suffer a loss in buying power. The people who are hurt the most are those receiving tip wages. Their hourly wage does not go up and their tips aren't going to be that much better. Typically those earning tip wages do not make a lot of money, some do, but most do not.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 05:10 PM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
Geez, why all the vitriol?
Didn't think I was... just a debate going on with passion..
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 05:15 PM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Milton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
Geez, why all the vitriol?
:confused: I thought we were having a pretty civilized discussion. :confused:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
I'm simply saying that it seems reasonable to limit the unfettered crazy ceo salaries, so that there was some increasing ability by those at the most bottom, to make a living, so that they can at some point, some day invest.
I am far from certain that there would be any significant 'trickle down effect'. In any case, CEO salaries are theoretically established by a free market, so personally I don't have much of a problem with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
I think Gates and a few notable others are exceptions and there have been many studies that show how middle and low income people donate FAR MORE as a percentage of their income than do more wealthy people (they just don't hire PR companies to let everyone know about it).
I don't know, but that sounds plausible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
Also, a lot of wealthy people donate to their alma maters and arts and not for things that benefit people outside of their status circle.
Not quite sure what your point is here. Obviously most people are going to donate to their favourite charity, university, hospital, church or whatever, rather than an organization or cause that they know or care little about. That doesn't make such gifts less welcome or worthy.
__________________
"To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive". Robert Louis Stevenson, An Inland Voyage (1878)
Milton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 05:47 PM   #71
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,255
I happen to know someone who was a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and is now a CEO of a Fortune 100 company. The guy makes many, many millions of dollars. Has for a number of years now.

He came from humble beginnings, earned a PhD and obviously was pretty good at applying his skills and education. He's an extremely bright guy, and very interesting to talk with.

I have a very tough time pretending that I am in any position to tell him how to spend the money that he earned.

BTW, considering his income, he is definitely LBYM. But those are some pretty nice 'means'.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 05:50 PM   #72
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Milton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,060
Related reading: Robert Frank, The Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few at the Top Get So Much More Than the Rest of Us.
__________________
"To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive". Robert Louis Stevenson, An Inland Voyage (1878)
Milton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 05:55 PM   #73
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
An increase in the minimum wage does nothing. Whether valid or not the end result is an increase in the cost of goods to the point that those making minimum wages still won't be able to afford anything. Additionally, those making more than the minimum wage suffer a loss in buying power. The people who are hurt the most are those receiving tip wages. Their hourly wage does not go up and their tips aren't going to be that much better. Typically those earning tip wages do not make a lot of money, some do, but most do not.
why is that the argument against increasing the min wage and not made against exorbitant ceo salaries?
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 05:55 PM   #74
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Didn't think I was... just a debate going on with passion..
Texas style passion
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 06:03 PM   #75
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
why is that the argument against increasing the min wage and not made against exorbitant ceo salaries?
Two reasons that I can see.

1) there are many more min wage workers than multi-million CEOs

2) It's consistent - either raising min wage OR limiting CEO pay is a move towards socialism. So, if one is against that trend, one is against both.

Me, I'm open to the min wage increase debate. I'm not sure if it is a good thing or not.

I'm in favor of more shareholder input on CEO pay, I think the BOD situation keeps it from being a totally free market.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 06:07 PM   #76
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton View Post
There may well be a case to be made for increasing tax burden on 'the rich' (however are defined); but the above logic is faulty. See generally
Martin Niemöller: They came for the Jews then they came for me
The Hitler card has been played.

EOT
__________________
eridanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 06:11 PM   #77
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Two reasons that I can see.

1) there are many more min wage workers than multi-million CEOs

2) It's consistent - either raising min wage OR limiting CEO pay is a move towards socialism. So, if one is against that trend, one is against both.

Me, I'm open to the min wage increase debate. I'm not sure if it is a good thing or not.

I'm in favor of more shareholder input on CEO pay, I think the BOD situation keeps it from being a totally free market.

-ERD50
I can see #1, but #2? how do you define socialism?

what if there were no minimum wage? oh wait, then we'd be in the same boat as Sweden? maybe it's not a bad idea...since it hasn't been raised, it may in fact have had the opposite effect of allowing some industries to keep wages unreasonably low.
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 06:13 PM   #78
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Two reasons that I can see.

1) there are many more min wage workers than multi-million CEOs
520,000 people were making minimum wage in 2006 1

"The average CEO of a large U.S. company made roughly $10.8 million last year" 2

If you cut their salary in half, you'd only need 519 CEOs to pay for the increase in minimum wage. That doesn't sound so bad.


I agree with Taleb. Successful CEOs are based on survivorship bias.


1) Who's Afraid of a Higher Minimum Wage? - washingtonpost.com
2) CEO-to-worker pay appears to narrow - Aug. 29, 2007
__________________
eridanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 06:34 PM   #79
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
seriously?

No, just a big funny joke. And the Holocaust was just a funny figment of someone's imagination. Right.

Yes, seriously. Are you a Holocaust denier like Ahmadinijad?

And you wonder why so much what you call "vitriol" in some responses here. Some of us call it serious thinking about serious subjects.
__________________
Dreams Worth Dreaming are Dreams Worth Planning For. I Spent a Career Planning for Early Retirement.
RetireeRobert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 06:37 PM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Having a bad day Robert?

I think it's a stretch to use the "first they came for" in a discussion about taxes and CEO compensation.

I think Godwin just walked in...
__________________

__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Deferred Compensation anonymous_fred FIRE and Money 16 11-04-2007 11:36 AM
Finding good professionals EddieG FIRE and Money 7 07-20-2007 09:18 AM
Asset Allocation Question - Deferred Compensation b3bobster FIRE and Money 1 11-06-2006 04:51 PM
Goldman earmarks compensation of $542,000 per employee Gone4Good FIRE and Money 14 09-18-2006 02:30 PM
Question for the CPA’s and Financial Professionals? PsyopRanger FIRE and Money 10 07-05-2006 08:40 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:47 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.