Most of them have tax havens overseas anyways ..lol ..they will be saved.
Our politicians are probably one of them with money stashed overseas.
Our politicians are probably one of them with money stashed overseas.
May 7th, 2014 8:25 am
May 7th, 2014 10:16 am
Thank you.JHW wrote: ↑Sure, how about an example that's been in the news lately. The expansion of Target into Canada is widely accepted to have been a huge blunder, that has reportedly cost the company close to a billion dollars. Presumably there was a highly paid marketing / strategy team that put this plan together, and they still got paid (the CEO took the fall for it this week -- and was handsomely compensated with a multi-million dollar package despite being at the helm while billions of dollars of shareholder value was wiped out -- that's another story).
What bothers me more is the blanket statement that high-income earners got that way because of sacrifice and risk. That is usually true of entrepreneurs, but the degree of risk depends on what kind of financial shape they were in to begin with. Someone who inherits a profitable family business certainly doesn't achieve their income through their own sacrifice and risk. Many or most large companies allow employees to move up the ranks without a lot of sacrifice or risk. Probably many more examples out there as well.
May 7th, 2014 10:26 am
May 7th, 2014 10:28 am
Executive compensation, and people being rewarded for failing ventures are crazy examples, and I agree, there is not much fairness in this. I just gave examples of people who make it into higher paying jobs that have large barriers to entry. Inheritance or inheriting a business, well that's just the way the wiener rolls I guess, but this too is not the most common way to make lots of money. Of course not everyone who has a high salary goes through the same struggle to get it, but there are many, many who do, and I think they deserve to be rewarded when they succeed. I don't know how to make salaries justified to what people bring to the table, but I don't see why you should punish everyone because some people got a lucky break. People who make from the bottom up within a company may not have the same levels of sacrifice or risk, but they generally must have to do something either to get the job in the first place or to earn their promotions, no? They must have came qualified and started at the bottom, or worked hard, or taken extra courses, or shown some ability to allow them to get to a high station before Peter's Principle kicked in. Who am I to say what they are worth to their company. Obviously someone values their contribution.JHW wrote: ↑Sure, how about an example that's been in the news lately. The expansion of Target into Canada is widely accepted to have been a huge blunder, that has reportedly cost the company close to a billion dollars. Presumably there was a highly paid marketing / strategy team that put this plan together, and they still got paid (the CEO took the fall for it this week -- and was handsomely compensated with a multi-million dollar package despite being at the helm while billions of dollars of shareholder value was wiped out -- that's another story).
What bothers me more is the blanket statement that high-income earners got that way because of sacrifice and risk. That is usually true of entrepreneurs, but the degree of risk depends on what kind of financial shape they were in to begin with. Someone who inherits a profitable family business certainly doesn't achieve their income through their own sacrifice and risk. Many or most large companies allow employees to move up the ranks without a lot of sacrifice or risk. Probably many more examples out there as well.
May 7th, 2014 10:28 am
Sure, your airline pilot example is great, and I have no issue with it. What I object to (as previously mentioned) are the blanket statements that high income is the result of risk / sacrifice / hard work, or that high-income earners get the wages they do because of the value they add.
May 7th, 2014 10:33 am
But that is also a meaningless generality. I've dealt with people getting paid $25 or $35 an hour who definitely don't deserve that because they slack off miserably. Should we increase taxes by a large amount in that group making $50000 - $70000 because some of the people working in that group don't deserve what they get paid?JHW wrote: ↑Sure, your airline pilot example is great, and I have no issue with it. What I object to (as previously mentioned) are the blanket statements that high income is the result of risk / sacrifice / hard work, or that high-income earners get the wages they do because of the value they add.
There are clearly many cases where both of these statements are true, but also a huge number where they are not.
May 7th, 2014 10:39 am
Nowhere have I made an argument about what salaries people "deserve" -- I am only concerned here with refuting the blanket statements, made earlier, that high income is the result of risk / sacrifice / hard work, or that high-income earners get the wages they do because of the value they add.EugW wrote: ↑But that is also a meaningless generality. I've dealt with people getting paid $25 or $35 an hour who definitely deserve that because they slack off miserably. Should we increase taxes by a large amount in that group making $50000 - $70000 because some of the people working in that group don't deserve what they get paid?
May 7th, 2014 11:00 am
OK, I can agree that not everyone gets what they deserve and some get too much. But without risking a blanket statement most entities (people or corporations) won't accept less or give more than they have to. So artificial means of wage suppression or successful union actions aside, supply and demand play into compensation. Since people like money, they will compete for the best jobs. The reason you are able to obtain and hold a great job is because you were the best person available on the day they hired, and the compensation is the minimum required to attract someone who is both willing and able to handle that job. In theory, and theory isn't practice - but it leads in the right direction. Of course there are exceptions, but business has to keep going and can't screw around with minutia, so it makes a decision and moves ahead.JHW wrote: ↑Nowhere have I made an argument about what salaries people "deserve" -- I am only concerned here with refuting the blanket statements, made earlier, that high income is the result of risk / sacrifice / hard work, or that high-income earners get the wages they do because of the value they add.
Note that I am not trying to defend Wynne's tax plan. I think we all agree here (with a couple of exceptions) in the idea of a progressive income tax system. I will leave the discussions about where to set the brackets to others who are more familiar with the numbers than I am.
May 7th, 2014 5:35 pm
Sep 15th, 2014 8:25 pm