Purpose of any Company is Profits - screw the workers - Page 6

TheMercenary · 04-23-2009, 03:46 PM

None of that really supports your complaint that the top 1% are the problem. The top 10% also pay most of the taxes. The percents you are talking about are more likely the 0.1%.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 03:53 PM

WHATEVER dude. IF the bottom was paid more fairly, NO ONE would need to pay as much in taxes because we would need LESS government programs to support the ones at the bottom. If they were paid enough to actually support themselves, then why would we NEED foodstamps or welfare programs?

You really don't get where I am coming from, at all. And that bothers me, a LOT, because you know me.

Undertoad · 04-23-2009, 04:56 PM

Here's how it works, sug: income inequality increases during good times, decreases during bad times. The rich take profits when there are profits, and when there are no profits, they don't, you follow?

These studies end in 2005? Take it to 2008 and the numbers will be completely different.

And the rich people you hate so well all have 401ks and other retirement investments... all cut in half when the bubble popped. The poor, meanwhile did not have so many such things. So don't worry your li'l haid off about this issue. The bust solved it for you.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 05:10 PM

One was 2004, the other one was from 2008. But thanks UT, for trying.

Undertoad · 04-23-2009, 05:15 PM

The bust solved it for you, and you didn't notice it because you didn't know what to look for.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 05:22 PM

The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face?

Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.

classicman · 04-23-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I'm not holding my breath.

Please do it may solve a whole host of other issues.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Please do it may solve a whole host of other issues.

Was that really called for?

lumberjim · 04-23-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face?

Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.

Are you suggesting a salary cap in the private sector?

like.....no corporate employee can make over 500k per year, or something like that?

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Are you suggesting a salary cap in the private sector?

like.....no corporate employee can make over 500k per year, or something like that?

Not really. I would prefer something where the top dog can't make over a certain % of the average dogs. In addition, any bonuses should be tied to the health of the company in the form of stocks, to be paid out at a later date. That way, if the company does well, everyone does well, and the top dog wouldn't be making decisions that would be based on greed for himself, but rather what is in the best interests of the company as a whole.

lumberjim · 04-23-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Not really. I would prefer something where the top dog can't make over a certain % of the average dogs. In addition, any bonuses should be tied to the health of the company in the form of stocks, to be paid out at a later date. That way, if the company does well, everyone does well, and the top dog wouldn't be making decisions that would be based on greed for himself, but rather what is in the best interests of the company as a whole.

suppose for a moment that you start a company that sells widgets.

from the ground. you build this company up to the point that it goes public, and you sell 49% ownership in stocks and there is a board of directors and you are the CEO. The company makes $20 Billion profit every year.

Who decides how much of it you get to keep?

classicman · 04-24-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim

suppose for a moment that you start a company that sells widgets.

from the ground. you build this company up to the point that it goes public, and you sell 49% ownership in stocks and there is a board of directors and you are the CEO. The company makes $20 Billion profit every year.

Who decides how much of it you get to keep?

Sugar - You avoided this question - artfully so, but I am interested in hearing your opinion of who would have this responsibility.

classicman · 04-23-2009, 05:35 PM

Whatcha think their income/net worth changed % wise over say, the last 6 months?

Undertoad · 04-23-2009, 05:36 PM

How can you even say that with a straight face?

Because I studied economics in an accredited MBA program at a major university, and I remember the very lesson when the nature of this was explained. Thanks, Dr. Prendergast.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

How can you even say that with a straight face?

Because I studied economics in an accredited MBA program at a major university, and I remember the very lesson when the nature of this was explained. Thanks, Dr. Prendergast.

Then you should know the bust has solved nothing.

04-23-2009, 03:46 PM	#1
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	None of that really supports your complaint that the top 1% are the problem. The top 10% also pay most of the taxes. The percents you are talking about are more likely the 0.1%. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-23-2009, 05:35 PM	#13
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Whatcha think their income/net worth changed % wise over say, the last 6 months? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

04-23-2009, 03:53 PM	#2
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	WHATEVER dude. IF the bottom was paid more fairly, NO ONE would need to pay as much in taxes because we would need LESS government programs to support the ones at the bottom. If they were paid enough to actually support themselves, then why would we NEED foodstamps or welfare programs? You really don't get where I am coming from, at all. And that bothers me, a LOT, because you know me.

04-23-2009, 04:56 PM	#3
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Here's how it works, sug: income inequality increases during good times, decreases during bad times. The rich take profits when there are profits, and when there are no profits, they don't, you follow? These studies end in 2005? Take it to 2008 and the numbers will be completely different. And the rich people you hate so well all have 401ks and other retirement investments... all cut in half when the bubble popped. The poor, meanwhile did not have so many such things. So don't worry your li'l haid off about this issue. The bust solved it for you.

04-23-2009, 05:10 PM	#4
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	One was 2004, the other one was from 2008. But thanks UT, for trying.

04-23-2009, 05:15 PM	#5
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The bust solved it for you, and you didn't notice it because you didn't know what to look for.

04-23-2009, 05:22 PM	#6
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face? Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.

04-23-2009, 05:36 PM	#14
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	How can you even say that with a straight face? Because I studied economics in an accredited MBA program at a major university, and I remember the very lesson when the nature of this was explained. Thanks, Dr. Prendergast.

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