That's the company's problem. It's not your problem, nor mine. Companies go out of business every day, for many different reasons. Welcome to America, and the free enterprise system.
No.
Sometimes.
"Roadrunner NG" wrote in news:4847d512$0$7697$ snipped-for-privacy@roadrunner.com:
the BOD of many companies is like a elite club;they often serve on several companies BODs,and I think they select who can be elected to the BODs.(the choices) So,the shareholders don't really get a lot of say in the matter,and the execs get to give each other huge salaries and bonuses,without regard to actual exec performance as shown by stock price and ROI.
It's seems like a vicious circle.
But the fact remains that many people(socialists) DO think the gov't should step in and cap exec salaries.
He is taxed the same as everyone else. If I make $13 million this year, I will pay the same tax he does.
If you mean the tax is progressive, you are right. It always has been.
Nope. It isn't the money being taxed, it is the transaction. If I earn a dollar, I pay tax on it. If I pay the dollar to the plumber, he gets taxed on it. If he buys groceries with it, the store pays taxes on the profits. Daddy Richbucks gets taxed when he earns a dollar. Then he passes it on to, perhaps, his no-good kid who never worked a day in his life. Now if I had to pay tax and the plumber had to pay tax and the grocer had to pay tax and even Daddy Richbucks had to pay tax, why should the no-good kid have to pay tax?
You must be an anarchist if you believe the state has no just authority to collect taxes.
If you are talking about estate taxes, I would point out that the person who had the earnings and life savings is dead. The only just thing would be to fill their yacht with the cash and the body, set it on fire, and push it out to sea.
As for being jealous, no I am not jealous. I am angry at the super rich who use their power to rape this country.
Like I said, I wouldn't dream of stopping them from pushing his salary well into the 80% bracket.
There is no other way, that I've ever seen. People start voicing their dissatisfaction (like the OP), a shareholders movement gathers steam, and finally they rein in the irresponsible management. A bit like the political process. Some want to stifle dissent, and label those that speak out as dissidents, trouble-makers, communists ...
Gib Bogle wrote in news:g2amqf$eme$ snipped-for-privacy@lust.ihug.co.nz:
McCain-Feingold is such an attempt.The "Fairness Doctrine" was another. Liberals tossing pies in conservative speakers faces or shouting them down are attempts to stifle;anti-free speech.
Or,like Communists/Socialists,they call for government to enact laws against it.
Nobody is stopping shareholders from speaking out,debating,or adjusting their exec salaries and compensation. It simply has not happened.
No, never heard of it.
I am no fan of Georgie's, but this was clearly a joke. He never claimed he wanted to be dictator. He deadpanned that things would be a lot easier to get done if he were.
Release your hate... It's not doing you any good...
Dan C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@moria.lan:
I have a stressful job, too. And a Master's. I make .01 percent of that and if I were in charge of a division that lost that kind of money, I'd be out on my ass in a heartbeat. Stressful job, yeah right.
Many a truth is spoken in jest.
Why is it hate when I point out that Bush acts like a dictator and endorsed himself for the position, but not hate when you accuse me of advocating dictatorship when I point out that $13 million might be excessive compensation for driving a company into the ground?
Gordon McGrew wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
that's just BDS;Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Bush did no such thing.That is just what you read into it. You're deluded if you believe Bush "acts like a dictator". He did a lot of diplomacy before he decided on action.Talk alone doesn't always succeed.
it probably is,but that's still no reason to involve gov't regulation,and you haven't suggested any -other- method of correcting "excessive compensation. You just whine that it's a "boy's club" and that shareholder voting is ineffective.
Pulease.
And the guys running the company are whom?
Correcting a typo, the above should read: "the government should
*not* dictate how much an executive is paid."
Or a sloppy typist. The corrected posting is consist ant with my previous statement.
Are you ignorant of math? The only limit is the amount of money in the company's bank account and any line of credit. If they are stupid enough to pay that much, why shouldn't the government tax it at 80%? We already have a tax on stupid poor people. It is called the LOTTO.
Aren't all the tax brackets arbitrary? If you want to lobby for a flat tax, knock yourself out. But don't tell me the government cant set arbitrary tax brackets.
And speaking of arbitrary, why is there an arbitrary limit (about $115,000 IIRC) on the maximum amount of salary taxed for Social Security?
Again, max salary limited only by company coffer.
Beats operating on the basis of what makes your buddies in the oil, defense, healthcare, etc. industries rich.
But if you like, I have a felling that if the maximum salary available on the open market were $2 million or so, these brilliant business minds wouldn't just go home and bake cookies.
Gordon McGrew wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Jim Yanik said;
GMG said;
Do I get a refund of tax monies of mine that go towards that program?
anytime government gets involved,the costs go wild and there's a huge amount of waste.Look at the Veterans Hospitals. Heck,govt couldn't even run the Senate or House cafeterias without losing huge amounts of money and providing poor service.Dianne Feinstein even admits it.
and creating such a social program means MORE government employment;another government bureaucracy wasting money.
Look at what a mess Social Security is.
I would gladly grant that, but you have to refuse any care you can't pay for. The hospitals have enough uninsured patients who can't pay for their medical care without have to deal with fools who had coverage available and turned it down.
Medicare is far from perfect but it does provide coverage for everyone over 65 - obviously the most expensive demographic for healthcare. It does so for a mere 2% income tax, a rate that is affordable to everyone. By contrast, if you are younger than 65 and seek private health insurance outside of employment, you could be paying $500 or $1000 a month or more or it might not be available at any price. If you don't have insurance, you pay triple what the insurance companies pay. If you have a serious illness or accident, you will be amazed how fast you can run up a half million dollars in medical treatments. No wonder more than half of the bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills.
The current private healthcare system in the US is in chaos. It is completely broken and the only people who are not aware of this are those who have the good fortune to not have been seriously ill.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.