Neoliberalism in a nutshell: Target CEO's package matches package

[eyeball]

Riiiiiiiiight, cause governments have a long history of being fair to everybody.

No, people just have an unhealthy tendency to believe and put too much faith in that.

Governments never end up being the only ones with the money.

It's the power governments have that's at issue. People have an even unhealthier tendency to surrender it to them.

How are you going to make people think?

How are you going to force people to invent and create?

Redistribute power.

If a person can get away with the bare minimum they very much will if there is no reward for producing.

A very similar thing occurs when a person has way way more money and power than everyone else. I bet if most people could earn as much as ten times the average they'd be perfectly willing to strive to better themselves. When 17000 times is still not enough it's time to hit the socio-economic reset button and probably the cultural reset button sitting beside it.

[Ash74]

No, people just have an unhealthy tendency to believe and put too much faith in that.

It's the power governments have that's at issue. People have an even unhealthier tendency to surrender it to them.

Redistribute power.

A very similar thing occurs when a person has way way more money and power than everyone else. I bet if most people could earn as much as ten times the average they'd be perfectly willing to strive to better themselves. When 17000 times is still not enough it's time to hit the socio-economic reset button and probably the cultural reset button sitting beside it.

k.....uhm

Can I have a unicorn in this world?

The human greed factor is an absolute. Give the power to the people and the select people will abuse that power. It is the world we live in.

Not defending the 60 million. No rational person could. My argument is I have no right to tell a company what to do with their money. Neither do you but you want to confiscate it.

So we start taking money from CEO's

Than who is deemed rich

Than the middle class

Than because he has a nicer vegetable garden in his back yard.

Who draws the line?

[Michael Hardner]

k.....uhm

Can I have a unicorn in this world?

The human greed factor is an absolute. Give the power to the people and the select people will abuse that power. It is the world we live in.

Why is it that people who say greed is essential to humans also support greed-based systems ?

I wouldn't say greed is an absolute any more than I would say human goodwill is an absolute. You have your Mansons and you have your Jesuses but most are in between these markers.

[eyeball]

Give the power to the people and the select people will abuse that power. It is the world we live in.

So the problem is just a few select people but between the billions of us we can't do anything about them?

We deserve to go extinct.

[August1991]

Or, to frame this in terms of cars or houses... if some sucker came up to you and offered you an outrageous price for your car RIGHT NOW, why would you possibly give a crap what its resale value is going to be decades in the future?

Kimmy, if some sucker came up to you and offered you an outrageous sum for your writings/posts RIGHT NOW, would you refuse?

PS. After you cash the cheque, please direct the sucker to me.

[WIP]

Yes but than you run the risk of a talent drain like that in France. A 75% tax bracket chased many professionals out of the country.

Welcome to the world of the WTO and globalization! Assuming those "professionals" still have to work for a living, they would have to eat that 75% tax rate (if accurate) and get their tax lawyers to work finding them loopholes and tax shelters. The "talent" drain, is not any working person leaving to avoid taxes, it's the businesses trying to cut labor costs by outsourcing.

A long, long, long, long time ago, nations used to have the power to decide whether or not to allow imports, and if so, decide rates of tariffs and duties. And if a manufacturer decided to outsource manufacturing to a 75c an hour sweatshop paradise, they had to have some concern that they would get hammered when they were trying to import it back to the host nation. No more! Now corporations set the rules, and free to outsource labour to the lowest common denominator.

[WIP]

The human greed factor is an absolute.

Bullsh*t! We have a wide range of behaviours, and whether we are violent or peaceful, greedy or generous, are adaptive traits, NOT hardwired human behaviour! That's just bullshit made up by the psychopathic few who thrive in a system based on greed and deceit. If there is enough of a groundswell of support to dump this psychotic system we have today, it can be done! It will be difficult because of the enormous wealth and power that a handful of ruthless greed monsters have taken for themselves, but they are small in number, and losing allies among the vast majority of people. Fewer and fewer people believe their rhetoric and promises anymore. Edited January 26, 2015 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[Ash74]

Bullsh*t! We have a wide range of behaviours, and whether we are violent or peaceful, greedy or generous, are adaptive traits, NOT hardwired human behaviour! That's just bullshit made up by the psychopathic few who thrive in a system based on greed and deceit. If there is enough of a groundswell of support to dump this psychotic system we have today, it can be done! It will be difficult because of the enormous wealth and power that a handful of ruthless greed monsters have taken for themselves, but they are small in number, and losing allies among the vast majority of people. Fewer and fewer people believe their rhetoric and promises anymore.

and replace it with what?

Are you just going to steal the wealth back?

Break into their homes and shoot them for being wealthy?

It has been done. Never worked out as it was planned

[eyeball]

and replace it with what?

A system that isn't so deliberately sociopathic -one that rewards success differently for sure.

Are you just going to steal the wealth back?

Break into their homes and shoot them for being wealthy?

It has been done. Never worked out as it was planned

It works just fine in the short term, but I'd rather try taxing them legally through normal legislative means first. The rebellious revolutionary method is easier but you're right the plan eventually does break down. Because of the way power is distributed or redistributed. It's because that gets so out of whack that the wealth side of things follows and we always come back full circle.

So, we need to think a lot more about how we treat power. I say we treat it like we do the most dangerous substances we handle. Basically the closer you get to it the more transparent you and your life should be.

Absolute power = absolute transparency, otherwise roll out the guillotines.

Edited January 27, 2015 by eyeball

[Ash74]

A system that isn't so deliberately sociopathic -one that rewards success differently for sure.

It works just fine in the short term, but I'd rather try taxing them legally through normal legislative means first. The rebellious revolutionary method is easier but you're right the plan eventually does break down. Because of the way power is distributed or redistributed. It's because that gets so out of whack that the wealth side of things follows and we always come back full circle.

So, we need to think a lot more about how we treat power. I say we treat it like we do the most dangerous substances we handle. Basically the closer you get to it the more transparent you and your life should be.

Absolute power = absolute transparency, otherwise roll out the guillotines.

Ok, I do respect an idealist. It is good to have dreamers.

I too desire a better system. To have people starving in this day and age, for the sick to be turned away for lack of a good credit card, schools falling apart, roads crumbling,etc,etc,etc. But the bigger the government the bigger the failures. We can tax and tax but taxing the rich is not a very helpful tactic. Taxes on the lower and middle class brings in the most money. That is why they are always the first that pay with a tax hike.

The rich just leave. They have that luxury.

[eyeball]

No, the less transparent the government the greater the failure.

Thankfully we still have the old tried and true method of socio-economic correction. I really don't think it has to be that way but in any case let's get it on. I'd like to get this wrapped up in time for old age myself.

[Ash74]

No, the less transparent the government the greater the failure.

Thankfully we still have the old tried and true method of socio-economic correction. I really don't think it has to be that way but in any case let's get it on. I'd like to get this wrapped up in time for old age myself.

Well good luck with that. I will be in the crowd fighting against it

[Argus]

Thanks! Just more added proof that capitalism needs to be destroyed before it destroys us in the drive for greater and greater profits!

You can't destroy a system without having a replacement, and there is no replacement at hand.

[Argus]

Tell ya what....you find enough people who think the same way you do and get them to vote in the right people that will then change the current laws to the communist approach that you seem to favor and then I will actually take you serious.

High taxation for the wealthy is not a Communist approach. In fact, the tax rates in the US were over 70% for those earning more than $200,000 in 1983. In 1963 the rate was 90%. Despite this, you might recall, there were still plenty of rich people in big mansions.

Societally speaking, when a small elite is able to earn a vastly disproportionate amount of money, they attain a vastly disproportionate influence on the government and policies of that society. Naturally, they tailor those policies to fit themselves, and as they are a minute proportion of the population, that screws over everyone else. This is particularly so in the US, where bribery is legal and politicians need tens of millions of dollars in 'donations' for every election campaign.

I made about $100,000 last year on the stock market. If I'd made that in 1983 I'd have to pay 70% in taxes, if I sold any of them, that is. But since the taxes on dividends and capital gains were grossly reduced in the 1980s, and since I didn't sell much, I paid almost no taxes on it. Nor did I pay much on the $120,000 I made on the stock market the year before. These huge reductions in taxes on dividends and capital gains are even more responsible for the rise of the uber wealthy than the reduction in income tax rates. Together, they produce a system where an ever smaller group with ever greater wealth owns a higher and higher proportion of the country's assets.

So far in January I have 'made' $17,000 on the stock market. Some people have to work all year for that. And I'm not even rich. I'm not even close to being rich.

[Michael Hardner]

You can't destroy a system without having a replacement, and there is no replacement at hand.

The replacement will emerge quickly and to everyone's surprise...

Edited to add: Please visualize me saying this with artificial fog floating around me, lit candles, and me wearing a black cowl.

[eyeball]

Well good luck with that. I will be in the crowd fighting against it

I kinda had that figured out already.

[eyeball]

You can't destroy a system without having a replacement, and there is no replacement at hand.

That's why it's called resetting, not destroying. You just need to destroy the establishment that's captured it, unless it sees the light, does the right thing and hands it back. Which would be a whole lot less painful for everyone. Edited January 27, 2015 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

.....In fact, the tax rates in the US were over 70% for those earning more than $200,000 in 1983. In 1963 the rate was 90%. Despite this, you might recall, there were still plenty of rich people in big mansions.

Nope....the highest marginal rate for U.S. federal income tax in 1983 was 50% of earnings above $109,500 (marginal rate). There was also a 20% rate for capital gains taxes. In 1963, it was 91% for earnings above $400,000, and capital gains taxes were 25%.

[Shady]

High taxation for the wealthy is not a Communist approach. In fact, the tax rates in the US were over 70% for those earning more than $200,000 in 1983. In 1963 the rate was 90%. Despite this, you might recall, there were still plenty of rich people in big mansions.

Those tax rates are a myth. Nobody ever payed 70% or 90%.

[Argus]

Nope....the highest marginal rate for U.S. federal income tax in 1983 was 50% of earnings above $109,500 (marginal rate). There was also a 20% rate for capital gains taxes. In 1963, it was 91% for earnings above $400,000, and capital gains taxes were 25%.

Meh, I was wrong about the 70% tax rate. It changed after 1981, but it was 70% in 1981 for earnings over $200k

In 1953 it was 91% for earnings over $200k

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

The rate of taxation on dividends was lowered in 2003 by George Bush. Prior to that it was taxed at the ordinary rate of income. Much the same happened in Canada.

Before the 2003 Tax Act, dividend income was taxed to individuals as ordinary income at their regular marginal tax rates. The act changed the tax rates applicable to dividends in an indirect manner. First, it increased net capital gains by qualified dividend income for purposes of applying the maximum capital gains rate. At the same time, the act reduced the maximum capital gain tax rates for individuals, as previously discussed. As a result, it effectively lowered the tax on individuals receiving qualified dividends to 15% (5% if they are in the 10% or 15% regular tax bracket). http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/1004/essentials/p36.htm

My point remains. Taxes on the wealthy were much higher in that not so distant past, and yet the economy flourished and the federal government managed to pay most of its bills. In fact, before George Bush's massive tax cuts the US had a balanced budget. So higher taxes on the rich are hardly a Communist plot.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Those tax rates are a myth. Nobody ever payed 70% or 90%.

I'm aware there are numerous ways clever accountants can get you out of paying the full tax rate. Why, if the tax rate is 90% maybe a really good account can knock that down to 50% or even 40%!

And if the tax rate is 30% then a clever accountant can knock that down to 15% or maybe 10%.

It's not like they eliminated all the loopholes and deductions when they cut the tax rates, you know.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My point remains. Taxes on the wealthy were much higher in that not so distant past, and yet the economy flourished and the federal government managed to pay most of its bills. In fact, before George Bush's massive tax cuts the US had a balanced budget. So higher taxes on the rich are hardly a Communist plot.

President Obama kept the Bush tax cuts in place for all but the highest marginal rate. The U.S. federal debt continued to grow despite balanced budgets. If higher taxes on the rich is such a great idea, then higher taxes on the not so rich should work too. You see, there are not enough filthy rich people to tax away the deficits and debt.

Edited January 27, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

I'm aware there are numerous ways clever accountants can get you out of paying the full tax rate. Why, if the tax rate is 90% maybe a really good account can knock that down to 50% or even 40%!

And if the tax rate is 30% then a clever accountant can knock that down to 15% or maybe 10%.

It's not like they eliminated all the loopholes and deductions when they cut the tax rates, you know.

The percentage of taxes paid are statistically unchanged. In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%. So I'm not sure what you're recommending.

[Argus]

The percentage of taxes paid are statistically unchanged. In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%. So I'm not sure what you're recommending.

Well if that's the case, Shady, then I guess there should be no objection to putting rates back the way they were in 1981, right?

[Argus]

President Obama kept the Bush tax cuts in place for all but the highest marginal rate. The U.S. federal debt continued to grow despite balanced budgets. If higher taxes on the rich is such a great idea, then higher taxes on the not so rich should work too. You see, there are not enough filthy rich people to tax away the deficits and debt.

The not so rich tend to be taxed reasonably well, though perhaps they could use an increase. Corporate taxes could definitely use a major revamp. Despite the claims by industry that US corporate taxes are higher than other nations, the effective tax rate is much lower, and it allows certain extremely profitable companies like Google and Apple to pay far lower taxes than they ought to. Tax inversion and the loopholes which allow companies to, for example, pay large sums to their foreign subsidiaries in order to reduce their US taxes need to be closed.

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2014/08/proposals_to_resolve_the_crisis_of_corporate_inversions.php#.VMf6Oi5UXgI