Name what you would do to turn the economy around

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So if I start my own business you are going to limit what I can pay my employees?

The idea that CEO's simply fall into the positions that they are in is ludicrous.
The idea that all upper management people are over paid buffoons is silly
The idea that sports stars salaries matter to the economy is idiotic. As a matter of fact based on 98% of athletes spending habits they are the ultimate in economic stimulator's.
Fairness can come into play when people start getting off their asses, taking responsibility for their own situations and stop worrying about what someone else is making.

Charlie Finley lives...

Yes, if you are foolish enough to pay over a million a year. Not saying they are all baffoons, good ones should be compensated and would be at up to a million a year.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yes, if you are foolish enough to pay over a million a year. Not saying they are all baffoons, good ones should be compensated and would be at up to a million a year.

why a million? surely people could live on half that? or a quarter of that. i think you're being far too generous. the national average is 50k. i think we should limit top incomes to 100k. yep, that's a good round number.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why a million? surely people could live on half that? or a quarter of that. i think you're being far too generous. the national average is 50k. i think we should limit top incomes to 100k. yep, that's a good round number.

send the rest to enemy countries and we can be friends with the world!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yes, if you are foolish enough to pay over a million a year. Not saying they are all baffoons, good ones should be compensated and would be at up to a million a year.

So if I have a really great business and my chief executive is a integral part of its success, and say we had profits of...250 million dollars... He shouldn't be rewarded? I get to keep it?

So if I buy an NFL team for $300 million and get lucky enough to draft a Tom Brady who leads my team to Super bowls and increases the value of the team to say 1 billion dollars, I shouldn't be allowed to pay him more than $999,999?

I'm glad that you are the arbitrator of all salaries in the US and have decided that 1 million is the cut off point. You effectively want to place the entire country under a nationwide salary cap? I just hope I qualify for the mid level exception...

I would limit the owner of a business to two million profit a year and take the rest to fund wars and our excessive cocaine habit...










cause lets face it...only coke heads can f.uck s.hit up this bad.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So if I have a really great business and my chief executive is a integral part of its success, and say we had profits of...250 million dollars... He shouldn't be rewarded? I get to keep it?

So if I buy an NFL team for $300 million and get lucky enough to draft a Tom Brady who leads my team to Super bowls and increases the value of the team to say 1 billion dollars, I shouldn't be allowed to pay him more than $999,999?

I'm glad that you are the arbitrator of all salaries in the US and have decided that 1 million is the cut off point. You effectively want to place the entire country under a nationwide salary cap? I just hope I qualify for the mid level exception...

no, silly....by not paying your big guy so much, you have more to pay the low level workers. duh

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, silly....by not paying your big guy so much, you have more to pay the low level workers. duh

Trickle down has been proven not to work. The problem, I freely admit, is to find a way to deal with the super rich, excessive salaries is a first step...yes, I think a million a year is plenty for anyone. As I said, if you create jobs, start a new business, or create meaningful innovation, there would be no limit to profits. This concept will never gain popularity in my lifetime, or the lifetimes of my kids and grandkids...maybe someday.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Trickle down has been proven not to work. The problem, I freely admit, is to find a way to deal with the super rich, excessive salaries is a first step...yes, I think a million a year is plenty for anyone. As I said, if you create jobs, start a new business, or create meaningful innovation, there would be no limit to profits. This concept will never gain popularity in my lifetime, or the lifetimes of my kids and grandkids...maybe someday.

you say on one hand no limit to profits, while on the other talking about limiting salaries. you say trickle down doesn't work-so exactly what would be the point of limiting top salaries? all that money wouldn't go elsewhere, so i don't get why you're suggesting it!
like i said, the tax breaks should be to those with money who provide jobs to those who need them. not tax breaks for shelters to grow the wealth, which sits there-or pays for the likes of paris hilton. the rich are those with the means to provide jobs-the trick is to entice them to do so. cutting top salaries isn't how to do it-it's encouraging higher bottom salaries, and more of them. tax breaks for providing benefits, encouraging more employment-not making it more sensible to work the employees you have 80 hours a week to avoid paying ss, workmens comp, and other costs of hiring. it shouldnt be cheaper to pay overtime rather than to hire more, but it is. besides, i'd imagine those top salaries include stock options-start giving some of those to your employees-paying a bit more to those you have makes them happier, and more productive. congress needs to rethink job creation, and taxes.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you say on one hand no limit to profits, while on the other talking about limiting salaries. you say trickle down doesn't work-so exactly what would be the point of limiting top salaries? all that money wouldn't go elsewhere, so i don't get why you're suggesting it!
like i said, the tax breaks should be to those with money who provide jobs to those who need them. not tax breaks for shelters to grow the wealth, which sits there-or pays for the likes of paris hilton. the rich are those with the means to provide jobs-the trick is to entice them to do so. cutting top salaries isn't how to do it-it's encouraging higher bottom salaries, and more of them. tax breaks for providing benefits, encouraging more employment-not making it more sensible to work the employees you have 80 hours a week to avoid paying ss, workmens comp, and other costs of hiring. it shouldnt be cheaper to pay overtime rather than to hire more, but it is. besides, i'd imagine those top salaries include stock options-start giving some of those to your employees-paying a bit more to those you have makes them happier, and more productive. congress needs to rethink job creation, and taxes.

I agree! Limiting top salaries is just the first step, the trick is having those savings go toward a more equatable salary structure (I mentioned increases in salaries for those involved in direct care for example). I'm not smart enough to figure out the best way to do that but merely limiting top salaries is not the total answer. Somehow, we must entice the super rich to "spread the wealth" and I have no idea how we do that unless we tax all income over a set figure at 100% which has drawbacks as well. In a capitalistic society limiting wealth effects job creation, innovation and risk taking...we don't want to do that, at the same time we want to reduce the ever growing gap between the rich and the rest of society....I see a sane salary structure as but the first step.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree! Limiting top salaries is just the first step, the trick is having those savings go toward a more equatable salary structure (I mentioned increases in salaries for those involved in direct care for example). I'm not smart enough to figure out the best way to do that but merely limiting top salaries is not the total answer. Somehow, we must entice the super rich to "spread the wealth" and I have no idea how we do that unless we tax all income over a set figure at 100% which has drawbacks as well. In a capitalistic society limiting wealth effects job creation, innovation and risk taking...we don't want to do that, at the same time we want to reduce the ever growing gap between the rich and the rest of society....I see a sane salary structure as but the first step.

"Spread the wealth" is un-American. Make something of yourself and stop whining about what others make. The Govt doesn't belong in the "fairness" business because it most certainly isn't fair.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Trickle down has been proven not to work. The problem, I freely admit, is to find a way to deal with the super rich, excessive salaries is a first step...yes, I think a million a year is plenty for anyone. As I said, if you create jobs, start a new business, or create meaningful innovation, there would be no limit to profits. This concept will never gain popularity in my lifetime, or the lifetimes of my kids and grandkids...maybe someday.

You realize that the "super rich" usually dont work for someone else?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You realize that the "super rich" usually dont work for someone else?

And that is why I have no idea how to go about reducing the distance between the rich and the rest of us.