PA budget
 

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...get_would.html
Teachers, students and their families need to "share in the economic sacrifice" but wealthy people, who should be taxed more, don't have to. Bullshit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,162176.story

PA unemployment is still over 8%, but let's fuck over 1500 more middle class families by eliminating their jobs.

Republicans suck, and not in the good way.

Times are tough all over. Colorado has around 8.8% unemployment and the state legislature has been slashing programs left and right (no pun intended). It's a vicious cycle. The economic downturn means that there is less funding for things like food stamps and medical assistance for low income families, etc., etc. This, at the same time that the rise in unemployment has created a greater demand for these services.

Colorado State University has created an eye-opening program called the "Back Seat Budgeter." You can can click on this site and play around raising or lowering different taxes, eliminating programs or restoring their funding, etc. http://www.backseatbudgeter.com/Budg...ult.aspx?tid=1

It's kind of a cool way to mess around with the over all well being of the state. I started out by punching in the numbers for what I consider to be a mildly liberal agenda - restoring heath care funding to previous levels, no cuts to education, etc. I tried paying for this spending by raising taxes by about 2%, hoping my hypothetical Colorado tax payers wouldn't revolt and try to impeach me or something. I ended up $20 mill in the red.

So then I tried getting mean about it. I just kept all education, health care, etc at their 2010 funding - no cuts, no increases. And, ignoring Merc's and UG's screams of "Communist!," I raised Colorado income taxes by 5%, increased taxes on liquor and tobacco by a $1.00/bottle and .50/pack respectively. I increased the state sales tax by 5% and clobbered corporations with a 10% tax increase.

Even after all that, I was still $7 mill in the red and had thrown away the Colorado State constitution.

In the current economic climate there seem to be few viable options for liberals or conservatives.

A layoff of 1500 jobs will increase the unemployment figure by 0.01%.

Everybody else got laid off, let the state workers go.

One does wonder why they would be "different" from "normal" people. Or why their organizations wouldn't operate by the laws of economic common sense: when times are lean, you have to make cuts. No exceptions.

You know what kind of businesses don't follow the rules? Ones that fail. Only the government magically can continue to go into more and more massive debt. The reason is that a new boss will get hired on a periodic basis, so there is no accountability.

Unless the people actually wanted accountability.

Yet somehow we have people arguing FOR bad decisions.

I cannot comprehend the logic.

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

Silly Flint, that sounds like logic. Don't do that.

Numerous reporters, including Joe Klein of Time Magazine, note the curious. With Democrats and Republicans, workers and management, taxpayers and government, moderates and extremists, etc all in confrontation. How curious. Even the millionaire may be on strike against the billionaires. People who created this mess - ie Wall Street, financial organizations, financial instrument creators, corporate spin doctors and their finance departments, etc - are running scot free, unchallenged, and with record incomes. The number of people actually prosecuted is almost zero (even Enron executives almost went free).

I have said this often when we were creating these economic problems back in early 2000s. Money games mean economics takes revenge many years later. I believe I may have put dates to it such as 2010 and 2012.

Welcome to what happens when we let the richest and least productive segments of society create economic miracles using (Kennedy) tax cuts, putting social security into stock markets, liberate financial markets, subvert all regulation (especially the SEC), permit secret contracts rather than trade them on public markets, use war to make a stronger economy, welfare to this nations most unproductive industries (ie $25billion annually to ethanol), obstruct Basel xx, shorting pension funds while blaming the unions, solve problems by creating jobs with finance spin games, and claim US financial markets were smarter than the rest of the world.

Welcome to how almost everyone pays when we ignore what was obvious ten years ago. And notice how the few people most responsible for this mess are only spectators. Have seen their incomes increase easily 100% when the average American income dropped 2%. So who is, for example, government going after? Only the richests are not even seeing their tax rates go back to normal. People most responsible for this mess are the least under stress.

When it comes to economics, there is no justice. Economics takes revenge if a nation does not heavily regulate finance people. And hold their feet to the fire when spread sheets four plus years later report what they really did. Instead, the people must punished are common people who let the finance industry ply them with lies. Ie balloon mortgages. Ie borrowing money to buy a car. Ie credit cards with an outstanding balance. Ie tax cuts to the rich that create no jobs.

Or maybe there is justice? The people most harmed by this recession are the ones who all but wanted it by remaining silent. For example, knowing Saddam had WMDs, corporate welfare to drug companies to keep drug prices 40% higher. K Street where almost nobody got prosecuted. By not demanding heads in the White House and Congress. In fact many now hurt foolishly praised the people who were most harmed them. An overwhelming reaction I saw in the Cellar approved of what now we must pay for. Welcome to how economics takes revenge. And maybe the real criminals - the common man who voted for these people - is being properly punished.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Let's use the family analogy that repubicans are so fond of these days. Your family has four members in it. Do you each pay the same amount for your food, clothing, utilities, etc.? No. You pay much more than your children do. Why? because you make much more than they do. Are you being punished for your hard work?

Wealth people "should" pay more taxes because they've benefitted from government services, which have allowed them to attain wealth, because a strong middle class will make a strong America, and because everybody needs to feel some pain, not just those whose jobs are being eliminated and those whose services are being cut.

You'd have a system that gives incentive to reinvest capital. Workers would be paid more, businesses would become more efficient, prices would be kept lower, products and services would be better. Think the 1950s.

Current repubican policy reminds me of the christian church in the middle ages. Keep the commoners ignorant, hungry, poor, and scrared, and take care of the Titled, who will protect the church's interests.

So you're in favor of the obscene amounts paid to executives in the Banking Loan Industry and Wall Street Investment Firms? And these people actually got their taxes cut, BTW. Nor did they "make smart decisions" whether to provide for their families or in the best interests of the nation. Bah! Let them eat cake. :eyebrow:

So flibber flabber spaceship landed on treehouse jelly bean grape soda? I'm sorry, what were we talking about? There is a cloud that looks like an elephant, EMOTION, words, words, sentences: CONCLUSION! Sense, make, please.

But one reality makes a reality.

Kids think they should get every toy in the store. Parents have to tell them, "Money doesn't grow on trees." Be a parent, not a kid. If kids ran the world, we would be doomed. Parents are here for a reason. Don't be a kid. It makes it harder on us parents to keep society intact.

I chose to have children, they are my responsibility. And, I am teaching them to grow up and be self sufficient. The money that I earn in order to support my family is not being coerced from me when I support my own children (as it is when the government takes over the redistribution of MY earnings). This isn't an anlogy, this is a reality. I live this.

It will be ok, Flint. That was just the flying spaghetti monster gliding by.

It's the Politics forum, Flint. You should know enough by now to realize that it should be called the "RPG violent Resentments Forum." Take two aspirin and call UG in the morning.

fixed that for you :rolleyes:

It's not "redistribution of my earnings". It's investing in our national community. For example: nobody wants to be driving behind a care in disrepair and run over something that falls off it, or have another care in disrepair collide with you because it's brakes don't work. So we have standards for cars, and a department of transportation or motor vehicles to manage that. And we don't want to wait in long lines when we get our cars inspected.

When you reduce government/taxes, something gives, whether it be your children's education, police or firefighter coverage, or the safety of the car in front of you or behind you.

How do you make a second-rate nation out of a first-rate nation? Reduce government spending. Name a country that has gone through an austerity program and come out better for it.

I was simply addressing your malformed analogy of the family.

Wrong. Because I CHOSE to have children, and this is the natural consequence.

NOT because "I make more" than them. And how do people magically "make more" than others? By working harder, by saving money, by making years and years of tough choices. As a reward for this, you say they "should be taxed more." Why? WHY should they "be taxed more" than somone who does the bare minimum? Why would we reward laziness and punish hard work? That is a terrible idea! Think of what the outcome of that would be.

As children we earn an allowance. As adults we earn a paycheck. The harder we work, the more we do and the better we do, the more we earn. That is the system and it makes good logical sense.

I explained it.

That is the system throughout middle class, and upper middle class. But past a certain income point, it becomes not only possible, but self-beneficial, to play money games purely at the expense of others. This involves no additional work, no harder work, and no improved quality of output. We may debate where to draw that line (and for what it's worth I'd be willing to bet the line is far, far higher than the income of you or anyone you know,) but at some income level it becomes inevitable that individuals will use their wealth against other individuals in the same way that a company creates a monopoly against other companies. Additional taxes on income above that level is the moral equivalent of breaking up the Bells, and will not cause anyone to work less than they were already working.

You didn't do a good job of adressing the topic at hand. Here is how you could have done it:

Yet when I hear "wealthy people...should be taxed more" with no qualifying statements as to what that means, I think of a man who may have been working two jobs to support his family, but instead opted to cut some expenses and find a way to go to night school to get a degree, get a better job, and maybe, through years of applying good work ethic, save up enough money to make a few investments beyond college and retirement savings, and aquire some wealth. Nobody handed him that wealth, he fought for it tooth and nail. Maybe he looks now to the financial security of the future generations of his family. He has the right to do that.

Should we simply look at this "rich greedy bastard" who maybe drives a fancier car than us, lives in a very large house, and say "You have too much, we're taking some of that"??? That isn't right. That isn't ethical.

I think of someone who recieved a quality public school education, recieved a Pell Grant, or a low-interest government loan, went to a state college, started his business with help from the Small Business Administration, or took over his father's business. He certainly benefitted from having a government which he may not have contributed largely to as he accumulated his wealth. Now, if our society wants to maintain our education system, infrastructure, safety system, etc., the wealthy are the only ones who can support it. Asking the middle class to contribute more, or get less, is like trying to get blood from a stone.

Having sat across the table with an SBA representative, I can assure you this is fantasy.

I think of super rich. People who are so rich, you have no idea. They didn't "work" for their money. Their money worked for them. Look at the chart at this wikipedia link.
I'll put it in a low quality jpg below.

Most of us are on that little green line way down near the bottom. Flint is talking about the "rich" guy on the red line a bit higher up. Here on the Cellar, that guy is Merc. Holds a few jobs and has a lot of toys. Way above that are all the people on the blue line who are so fucking high up there, you can't even see them. They look down at us ants walking around and they think we really are ants. They respect us as much. They don't pay taxes. They own the politicians. They run the world. You talk about class warfare like it's a bad thing. These guys know nothing but class warfare and they are so good at it they have all of us lines down here at the bottom fighting each other over table scraps, and we don't even realize they are up there.

Be that as it may, I'll be goddamned if Spex and his ilk are going to give away MY table scraps.

Oh, they're table scraps now? I thought it was

Which is it? :eyebrow:

Context.

Of course there are some people who started with nothing and with tremendous work ethic, knowledge of how the world works, and luck have become extremely successful. These people are in the minority. There are also people that were born into mind boggling wealth and have not had to work a full day in their life and can still get richer. These people are also in the minority. Most people got into either the rich or super rich category by hard work, knowing (or being advised) how to play the system, and taking advantage of the social status they were born into. They deserve what they have but it must also be noted that they had a clear advantage over many people who were born into a lower class than them.

Taxing the rich can bring a lot of money into the state and pay for different programs or possibly prevent using up too many red pens on state and federal budgets. Is taxing the rich a better solution than cutting different programs and spending less? It depends on the situation. If the situation calls for less spending, then do it. It is "unfair" to the people who are losing assistance but that is reality. If the situation calls for higher taxes, possibly to the rich, then do it. It is "unfair" to those people getting taxed but that is reality.

When it comes down to it, everything about economic redistribution and class is unfair. It is unfair to the lower class that they, besides a few exceptions, don't have all the options that richer people have to become successful. It is unfair that the upper class have to take more of the tax burden because they, much more often than not, had strong work ethic and was able to play the system. There is no perfect ethical solution so I would much rather see solutions based from practicality as opposed to ethics.

I'm guessing a lot of the arguing comes down to the following question. What makes someone successful? Hard work, successfully playing the system, environment someone was born into, some other factor, or any combination of the above?

See, I don't picture that guy at all. I picture the blue line guys that glatt is talking about. And I think it's very possible to set this hypothetical "extra tax" bar high enough--say, an income of $1 million per year--that we could easily deal with every current budget crisis, and then some, and still not hurt anyone who has worked their ass off to be where they are. The problem is that the blue line guys have convinced the red line guys that they are "wealthy" too, and that everyone is coming after them. The red liners need to realize that they are right next to the green liners, and that no one is even suggesting taking their money.

an income of $1 million per year

There won't be any revenues to tax, as all investment will immediately go overseas.

Not if overseas investments have domestic taxes added to them as well...? *shrug* IANATaxLawyer. But most of Europe has a significantly higher tax base than we have, and somehow they manage it without imploding. I'm certain it could be done, if people could be convinced to ever vote for such a thing.

I'm convinced. Although I don't consider a million a year to be wealthy, those are blue line bottom feeders. Not krill, but not swordfish either.

It's more like an economic truism: at some point, higher tax rates lead to lower tax revenues.

Some people do not see a need to make all that money if they are going to turn over more than half of it. Other people simply go where the money can be made more easily, which is more possible than ever on our flat earth. The loss of this activity leads to less investment, in turn fewer jobs, and eventually even brain drain as smart people start to emigrate. Then there is less money to tax, and tax revenues fall.

To really get higher tax revenues, what you want is maximum economic growth. Clinton did not really raise taxes much to rid us of the Reagan/Bush deficits. Growing the economy solved the deficit as it floated all boats.

From that it should follow that lower tax rates should lead to higher tax revenues.

Which ain't happening here. Colorado dropped its tax rate from a high of 5% in 1999 to 4.6% from 2000 to present. Employers have not exactly been treating this as a new Colorado gold rush. According to data that just came out today, Colorado's unemployment is at a record high, a "seasonally adjusted" 9.1% The ACTUAL unemployment rate is 9.9% ! Recovery? What recovery?

Lower tax rates should lead to higher tax revenues "at some point". If an economy is not at that point it does not follow. If other taxes make the bulk of taxes, a drop in state tax will not have as big an impact. Also, we were talking about tax revenues and not unemployment. Were there changes in tax revenues?

That is the popular myth. The only thing that leads to higher revenue is balanced budgets. Lower tax rates - if that is supposed to increase economic activity - is to pass that law that requires everyone to replace their lawn every year. It causes massive economic health - in the short term. And worst economics destruction in the long term.

Any such money game that makes a better economy is also why economics takes revenge - without exception - many years later. Kennedy tax cuts were a perfect example.

Taxes must be the same percentage for all. Currently, the richest among us pay the least in taxes. The people who make most jobs - maybe in the $80,000 to $250,000 rage - see no tax cuts. The people who most feed off the wealth are paying the least under a myth of trickle down economics. That obvious myth back then is proven even by the worst recession in 70 years. When the greatest tax cuts literally destroyed a potential surplus, then look at all that wonderful economic health and wealth.

Spinning myths is easy among a population educated by soundbytes. Reagan told everyone he cut taxes. And then we look what he really did. By increasing social security taxes, he actually increased taxes. But those educated in sound bytes only believe the original myth. Because so many only believe the first thing they are told. And get angry when challenged with the truth.

George Jr's tax cut have only done massive harm to the American economy. But the lies and myths are rampant. For example, the tax rate on some rich and on corporations is 35%. What they forget to mention is what they are actually paying once all the spread sheet games and tax exemptions are added. Most major corporations are paying well less than 20%. A surprising number in the Fortune 500 were paying no taxes. Warren Buffet said his receptionist was paying higher taxes then he. But Limbaugh, Beck, etc did not discuss that. So an overwhelming majority did not hear it.

We have spread sheet games that only accountants and the people who created this mess could love. They even have us arguing nonsense here. When the rich only get richer - and this only happened twice in American history - then the country's economy goes crap. A wealthy and healthy America means job creators - which are not the rich people - are not being punished as they are today by MBA concepts of "the purpose of a company is its profits" - and other lies.

Taxes must be increased as necessary to cover the debts. As Buffet said, the only tax cut is one that reduces spending. Starting in 2000, the people who most destroyed America did the opposite.

Now they have all their victims fighting among themselves inspired by political rhetoric, myths, and soundbyte logic.

The most heavily taxed should be financial institutions that even lie about creating jobs. Wall Street does not create jobs - except their own.

Iacocca defined the problem in 1979. He could maximize Chrysler's profits by turning it into a financial firm. Those least productive companies earn the highest profits while paying some of the least taxes. Even most of GE's profits come from money games - not from producing anything. Which is why I tell every kid to never be an engineer. Always do what will most destroy America. Be an MBA. Harm America. But have the best income and easiest life. Screw America - because that is what the powers that be are doing to have everyone else fighting among themselves. And yes, I am being in your face serious. Don't be productive. The least productive people - ie my peers in school who were the worst students - are also the richest. They become stock brokers or some financial equivalent. They even get the best tax cuts.

Both GHW Bush and Clinton raised the marginal tax rate on the top bracket. Bush took it to from 28% to 32% and Clinton raised that to 39%.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Q...0/taxrates.jpg

A huge part of the current debt is due to G Bush lowering it back to 35%, resulting in a loss of nearly $1 trillion in revenue over the course of his term.

By making it permanent, as the Republicans are proposing, the only result of the significant cuts in spending they are proposing will be to offset the continued lost revenue if the top tax rate remains the same.

Yes, spending cuts are a necessary component of the equation, but you cant balance the budget simply by cutting spending in the manner which is being proposed, which will not "grow the economy" but simply burden the middle class and working poor, many of whom are already living from paycheck to paycheck or worse.

Economic growth requires both investing by the govt (in both people and programs that incentivize growth, like R&D, education, etc to make the US more competitive once again) AND raising taxes on the top wage earners (restoring the Clinton era rate) and eliminating excessive corporate tax breaks.

Bush I got it, Clinton got it, Bush II did not, nor does the current Republican majority in the House.

And lastly, as to the notion that raising taxes on the rich by a few percentage points will act as a disincentive to aspire to more wealth, I never met anyone who doesnt want to make more money, even if it results in marginally higher taxes.

There is a reason why every advanced economy in the world has a system of progressive taxation, where the wealthiest pay a marginally higher rate......it works.

But surely you "get" the sentiment that I expressed.

You bring up an interesting dichotomy, though. Granting you funds would increase taxes, and that makes them bad. Not granting you funds makes them bad, too, because you would like government help to start a business. Damned either way.

So it's not about the facts, it's about me. :sniff:

I'm asking that everyone feels some pain. The commoners who are losing their jobs, or having their income frozen or reduced are feeling pain. They shouldn't pay any more. Now that the market is back to 12,000, the rich are not feeling any pain, and they should.

But "the rich" have worked hard to put themsleves ina position to be able to weather economic ups and downs. That is the point of acquiring wealth--to reduce the risk you are exposed to. What you are suggesting is to impose an artificial condition. In effect, to "undo" what they have done for themsleves.

My point is that you don't just "get" rich. If it hasn't been handed to you, nobody should be able to take it away.

Progressive taxation, where the wealthier pay a marginally higher rate may be an "artificial condition" in theory. But in practice, it is the only systems of taxation that has proven to be able to fund the cost of government, which is why it has popular support.

It is not the wealthy complaining they pay too much in taxes. It is a relatively small segment of society with libertarian principles who want a "fair tax" system that have never been successfully applied anywhere in the world.

Have you worked hard? Have you made the best decisions you could to put yourself in a position to attain wealth? My guess is that you put out as much effort as most "rich" people. Yet in the current climate, you will feel much more pain than the "rich" guy. You should not be left living paycheck to paycheck at a just-above-sustenance level when a guy who only works as hard as you and has reaped the benefits of our government gets to drive a Ferrari and summer on the Riviera.

Flint, my raw household income puts me in the 28% tax bracket. My effective tax rate for 2010 was 6.53%. I have a 401(k), a mortgage and 3 kids - 1 in college. I live paycheck to paycheck, with lots of debt. I don't have the resources to manipulate my tax liability. Do you think that someone who does have the resources to manipulate the system pays the same tax rate that you do? Does he pay his share? No. Is that fair? It seems to me that the middle class is footing the bill for the rich, not the other way around.

F&B. Your sources are always cherry-picking. Let's take your chart:

http://cellar.org/2011/highestmarginaltaxrates.jpg

And extend it further back in history:

http://cellar.org/2011/federaltaxrates.png

And now here's a chart of post-war tax receipts as a percentage of GNP:

http://cellar.org/2011/U.S._Federal_...e_of_GDP_1.jpg

Even when the top rate is set at 90%, the actual revenue collected out of the system is the SAME.

The inter-active budget I was using for Colorado showed tax revenues falling every time I cut taxes and climbing every time I raised them. But I think your statement is an over-simplification. Many other factors are going to effect tax revenues.

Can you show a chart of actual dollars, rather than as a percent of GDP? Adjusted for inflation, please. :blush:

Percentage of GNP IS adjusted for inflation by definition, and is a more accurate depiction than actual dollars.

The country has doubled in population in that time frame, so even if you do adjust for inflation, you also need to adjust for there being twice as many people paying in to the tax system. You need to express it as a percentage of GDP otherwise you'll see the line going up as the country (and government) have grown. UT is right, Spex.

The argument that raising taxes causes investment to leave the country doesn't appear to hold true.

http://www.muhlenkamp.com/upload/ima...al_figure1.jpg

I don't see any correlation between GDP and highest bracket tax rate.

Hard work, while important, isn't the main factor of financial success and it shouldn't be. It all comes down to playing the system. You will find people in all income categories that work tremendously hard but what separates them is what they are doing.

If you want to be financially successful you need to figure out how the world works and then be able to properly exploit it for your benefit. That will beat out hard work every time. It's not fair but it's how the world works.

This may be but A) you didn't post anything related to foreign investment and B) the nature of foreign investment is extremely different today than 30 years ago. Forbes tells us that most new Billionaires come from Brazil India China and Russia these days. The world has caught up and given investors something to invest in.

I tire. Believe what you want, as you will anyway.

If you want to be financially successful you either need to figure out how the world works and then be able to properly exploit it for your benefit, or figure out what the world wants and needs and deliver it for your benefit.

You've done nothing to prove that raising taxes on the rich will cause investment to immediately go overseas
As also you will.

Going back to the original topic... if the belief is that regular middle-class folks should not have to take a hit in this bad economy, and the reality is that they already HAVE, why should there be a "protected" class of regular middle-class folks who get special treatment? Seeing as they work directly for our government overlords, they get to experience an "imaginary" economy where everybody still has a job?

I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RAISE IN THREE FUCKING YEARS, YET THESE FOLKS HAVE THE AUDACITY TO COMPLAIN??? Give me a break.

I was simply pointing out that both Bush I and Clinton raised taxes on the top wage earners. Only to lowered by Bush II with, btw, no positive impact on economic growth and a significant contribution to the debt that will only increase more if those top rates are made permanent.

IMO, arguments that raising taxes on the wealthy stimulate economic growth and are a deterrence to working harder are baseless.

Debt reduction will require both spending cuts and increased revenue (taxes) and the burden should be spread across the board, with the wealthiest bearing the brunt of tax increases of a few percentage points on their last dollars earned (not on the entire income).

If you look at data, public employee pensions put more back into the local economy than they take out...something like $1.75 for every $1.00.

At the same time, income inequality in the US has soared to the highest levels in history.

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to...21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

I'm not even sure what that means, but I am positive it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I assume it was supposed to, since you quoted me. Is this "a thing" with the political forum, where we just make a series of unrelated statements?

I've been trying hard to address the topics raised in the original post, and it's fine of course if you don't want to talk about that, but don't quote me and then launch into a complete non sequitur. That's a waste of everybody's time.

IMO, the attack against public sector unions, at least as it is suggested by Republican state governors and legislators that it is for economic reasons and to balance a state budget is bogus. It is to break the unions.

Here is an example from WI on the impact of the public employees pension in that state:

I think it is relevant to the discussion. Certainly more so than comments that small tax increases on top wage earners are a deterrent to working harder or some such argument.

As to the topic raised in the original post, PA has only tax rate (correct me if I am wrong).

The budget shortfall can be covered by simply raising the rate on wage earners over $500,000 by 1 percent rather than on the backs of teachers.

IMO, the arguments against such a tax are ideological, not economic.

When you cut (or freeze) salaries of the middle class or cut the workforce, you increase the likelihood that many will temporarily turn to other government programs to meet basic needs, so where is the savings?

When you raise the taxes on the top wage earners by a 1 percent, where is the pain and/or sacrifice?

The following stats come from a frankly liberal web site edited by Steve Kangas.

However, Kangas cites a wide variety of sources for his research - from the extreme right wing (Christopher Jencks, a controversial researcher in the ‘70’s), to middle of the road, slightly right leaning Business Week to the liberal Claude Fischer’s book, Inequality by Design..

The following table is from Business Week – not exactly a hotbed of left wing thought.

CEO pay and other trends (original figures have been converted into constant 96 dollars)

1990 1995 Percent Change

Average CEO Pay 2.34 million 3.86 million +65%

Average Worker Pay $27,615 $27,418 -0.6%

Coorporate Profits 212 billion 317 billion +50%

Worker Layoffs 316,047 439,882 +39%



Note that company profits went up by 50% but the compensation of CEO’s rose a full 15% higher than that – to 65%. I think EVERY worker’s pay should be tied to the company’s profits. Even if only CEO’s reap the benefit of increased profits via increased pay, why they should they have gotten and additional 15% increase. Flint can sing the blues for these CEO’s all he wants, but, personally, I won’t be sending them CARE packages any time soon.

Also from Business Week:

I don’t care how much “merit” the guy at the top has. If the managers who work for him are incompetent or lacking in some way, the corporation is not going to do nearly as well. Middle managers work their tails off – the good ones do, anyhow. And their reward is income stagnation or worse yet, they get laid off.

Flint may call it “merit.” I call it greed.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

Always referring to "rich" people in a dehumanizing manner doesn't lend any further ethical weight to the concept of taking from them the sweat of their own brow. Compile your list of "they are evil and don't deserve their money because" A, B, and C reasons, but at the end of the day the fact remains that money is hard to earn. Money represents hard work. On a purely ethical basis, it isn't right to take from a man the fruit of his own labor. What you're doing is concocting an elaborate, narrative construct to convolutedly justify something which is plainly wrong.

Money is hard to earn for you and me - well, me anyhow. It's a lot easier to earn if you start from a base of a $million plus the way at least 1/3 of all CEO's have started. And how is getting a 65% raise "punishment," especially when your company shows "only" a 50% increase in profits?

If you set up the system: "'the harder you work, the less you can keep' what would happen?" If you'd read my post, you'd see I answered that. Middle managers, demoralized by stagnant earnings and increasing layoffs, no longer give the job their best effort. This is both bad for them and bad for the company. Or are you so wealthy, you don't give a damn about the middle class?
:rtfm:

I am talking about an individual man earning money to support his family. The better he can do, the more he is able to earn, the more he should be able to keep. If he manages to put himself in an advantageous position, then he has earned the right to be there.

That's not even what your own source says. Read more carefully: "An inherited fortune" --what does that mean? Your parents left you $5,000 and a Chrysler LeBaron?

At any rate, why is it okay to take a man's money from his CHILDREN? (the greedy bastards who inherited it from him)

You're quoting something I posted two days before the post that you're berating me for not reading.