People don't seem to understand this

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I swear, sometimes you redistributionists don't even think about what you're saying. Ok, so you put a salary cap on CEOs, then what, you think that money they would otherwise be getting would go to nowhere? Hah - it'll go to dividends for the stockholders, and the main stockholders are already rich. You want the CEOs not to amass wealth, but you are only putting it in another rich guy's pockets. Defeats the point, doesn't it?

Furthermore, if a CEO is at the cap, what's his motivation to make the company larger(meaning more people employed, meaning less people in poverty) and more profitable? He just has to keep it at the level to where he stays at the cap, which is easier to do than growing it. These people are usually in this for the money, and they work hard for that money. Just because you think they earn too much for what they do is no reason to tell their employers(the stockholders/board of directors) that they can't pay their CEOs oodles of money, because they DO think that their CEOs earned that money, down to the last penny.

Let's say because of high taxes, a company reduces a CEO's salary to a high, but not exorbitant wage.  The company is thus more profitable.  Let's say, as you do, that these profits are distributed in the form of large dividends to stockholders.  If these dividends are large enough and go to people who are rich, those rich people would similarly be taxed at a high level of income, so the government would still be the main beneficiary. 

If the profits are instead used to raise the salaries and wages of middle class employees, and thus the government does not benefit from increased taxes on the wealthy, that is fine with me.  If the profits are also plowed back into the company in the form of capital investments, that is also fine with me; these sort of investments create better products and cheap prices for consumers.  So in any case, the redistributionist goal is largely accomplished by steep taxes on the wealthy that create a de facto income ceiling.

Companies are free to continue to pay CEOs whatever they want, so if they think a CEO is worth it, they can pay him $100 million dollars a year.  So long as the government gets $95 million of it in taxes.

[ATFFL]

I swear, sometimes you redistributionists don't even think about what you're saying. Ok, so you put a salary cap on CEOs, then what, you think that money they would otherwise be getting would go to nowhere? Hah - it'll go to dividends for the stockholders, and the main stockholders are already rich. You want the CEOs not to amass wealth, but you are only putting it in another rich guy's pockets. Defeats the point, doesn't it?

Furthermore, if a CEO is at the cap, what's his motivation to make the company larger(meaning more people employed, meaning less people in poverty) and more profitable? He just has to keep it at the level to where he stays at the cap, which is easier to do than growing it. These people are usually in this for the money, and they work hard for that money. Just because you think they earn too much for what they do is no reason to tell their employers(the stockholders/board of directors) that they can't pay their CEOs oodles of money, because they DO think that their CEOs earned that money, down to the last penny.

Let's say because of high taxes, a company reduces a CEO's salary to a high, but not exorbitant wage.  The company is thus more profitable.  Let's say, as you do, that these profits are distributed in the form of large dividends to stockholders.  If these dividends are large enough and go to people who are rich, those rich people would similarly be taxed at a high level of income, so the government would still be the main beneficiary. 

If the profits are instead used to raise the salaries and wages of middle class employees, and thus the government does not benefit from increased taxes on the wealthy, that is fine with me.  If the profits are also plowed back into the company in the form of capital investments, that is also fine with me; these sort of investments create better products and cheap prices for consumers.  So in any case, the redistributionist goal is largely accomplished by steep taxes on the wealthy that create a de facto income ceiling.

Companies are free to continue to pay CEOs whatever they want, so if they think a CEO is worth it, they can pay him $100 million dollars a year.  So long as the government gets $95 million of it in taxes.

As long as I am the person in the government in charge of redistrubution of wealth, I am fine with it. 

If you don't trust me to do the job why should I trust you?

I say it again, you are the worst kind of Stalinist, the kind who has no clue how many you would kill.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD sounds like Huey Long now.

I like him a lot. Now THAT'S my type of Southern Democrat.

[John Dibble]

Tell me, BRTD, how much do you pay in taxes?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've never made enough to qualify and probably won't this year (probably will next year though), but I currently get about 15% of my paycheck removed in payroll taxes.

[John Dibble]

I've never made enough to qualify and probably won't this year (probably will next year though), but I currently get about 15% of my paycheck removed in payroll taxes.

"I know about people who talk about suffering for the common good. It's never bloody them! When you hear a man shouting "Forward, brave comrades!" you'll see he's the one behind the bloody big rock and the wearing the only really arrow-proof helmet!"

Terry Pratchett, "Interesting Times"

[Citizen James]

Or at least, liberals don't seem to understand this. This just came up in another topic, and I can't take it anymore, so - YES, there are people struggling to make a living while CEOs collect their $9 million paychecks.

But those $9 million are meaningless.

There's this huge myth that there are billions of dollars sitting in banks right now that could be used to pay for this, that, and whatever else. It's just not true. A dollar is a share in the country's productivity.

You can shift more of an economy's productivity to be spent on one area rather than another, but you can not actually help anyone with dollars.

Because of the way prices are set, those 9 million shares in the nation's economy do not exist. Every rich guy collecting billions of dollars he won't spend is making every one of your dollars WORTH MORE.

Actually, the money is being used by the government - a little for the poor, a little for various pork barell projects, a lot to pay for war equipment.  The difference is that instead of getting it through taxes, it is loaned to the government through treasury bills, which means we will have to pay the loans back, plus interest.

Deficit financing is just tax hikes delayed.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

As long as I am the person in the government in charge of redistrubution of wealth, I am fine with it. 

If you don't trust me to do the job why should I trust you?

I say it again, you are the worst kind of Stalinist, the kind who has no clue how many you would kill.

I don't see any point in resorting to inflammatory name calling.  Your statement is grossly unfair and really not in keeping with the tone of the discussion.  I was hoping for a civilized and intelligent debate on economics, but I guess that's impossible on the internet nowadays.

[David S]

I've never made enough to qualify and probably won't this year (probably will next year though), but I currently get about 15% of my paycheck removed in payroll taxes.

Unless you are self employed they only take 7.65% for soc sec and medicare together. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html Your employer kicks in another 7.65% on your behalf but you never see that in your check stub.

Also you don't pay a penny in income taxes but you want to fund all kinds of giveaway programs using money from  those who do pay income taxes. Not very nice of you.

It would be poetic justice if you worked your tail off to become really rich only to see your assets seized and redistributed by some future BRTD.   

[ATFFL]

As long as I am the person in the government in charge of redistrubution of wealth, I am fine with it. 

If you don't trust me to do the job why should I trust you?

I say it again, you are the worst kind of Stalinist, the kind who has no clue how many you would kill.

I don't see any point in resorting to inflammatory name calling.  Your statement is grossly unfair and really not in keeping with the tone of the discussion.  I was hoping for a civilized and intelligent debate on economics, but I guess that's impossible on the internet nowadays.

I'm terribly sorry.  I guess you are another person who won't join a glorious commune run by me.

I have long said to BRTD that you cannot have Communism without some form of Stalinism or other totalitarianism at the top.  He denies that and says it can come about with out that.  He has yet to explain to me how it will.

Personally, I believe BRTD has the best of intentions and would be in the second purge.  You know, the one where the leaders kill off the people who agree with them on collectivism but disagree on the killing of the campitalists. 

I am sure the millions killed as a part of BRTD dream would take cold comfort in the fact that he will be put in his own mass grave.

This is why I continue to say BRTD is the worst kind of Stalinist, the kind who has no clue he really is a Stalinist (or a Maoist or another form of totalitarianism.)  He would bring them to power without realizing it and be able to do nothing once it was done.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

What does this have to do with BRTD?...you called me a Stalinist.

[ATFFL]

What does this have to do with BRTD?...you called me a Stalinist.

Major brain fart on my part there.

My apologies.

I had meant to reply to a previous post by BRTD, not you. 

You have never said you believe in direct, government control of wealth redistribution.  As such it is wrong for me to call you a Stalinist (or supporter of other totalitarian communist methods.)  I had accidentally replied to the wrong post and thus this mess was my fault.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We have wealth redistribution in the US. It's called taxation and government giveaway programs. No totalitarian. I just want to expand this.

Furthermore, it's possible to redistribute wealth before it is distributed in the first place by regulating the distribution. Wage caps and pay requirements can do this.