Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And sports figures.If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.
Again the very rich team owners are deciding to pay players.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
Hang on, which is it? Does everyone pay the same rate OR do the rich pay more. You can't do both.
I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.
Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....
What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?
I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....
Yet their skills help make the company lots of money.
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....
Yet their skills help make the company lots of money.
What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....
Yet their skills help make the company lots of money.
And the skills the CEO brings creates their jobs...and makes them money...and the owner of the company creates those jobs from nothing...using his skills...without the guy who creates the company, those employees have nothing.....so why punish the guy creating the job that gives you money.....?
What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?
I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....
And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....
If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.
Workers should find a way to better themselves, rather than rely on others to do it for them. If they develop the unique skills and integrity of work ethic, they can demand more, as they become worth more. Unless, of course they work for the union, then they can't demand more from their employer even though they work smarter and harder than the next guy.What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.
What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?
you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.
That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.
They aren't......they are subsidizing Americans who don't have the skills to get the kind of job that will pay enough for them to live.......so....you want to cut them off.?.....that is one way to go.......and it would encourage them to find better jobs......
Workers should find a way to better themselves, rather than rely on others to do it for them. If they develop the unique skills and integrity of work ethic, they can demand more, as they become worth more. Unless, of course they work for the union, then they can't demand more from their employer even though they work smarter and harder than the next guy.What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.
One of the best ways....defund democrats.....get rid of the democrat control of public schools...so people can actually get an education and get better jobs.....that is the key...and the democrats are preventing it.......
What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?
We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....
It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......
And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....
How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.
They aren't......they are subsidizing Americans who don't have the skills to get the kind of job that will pay enough for them to live.......so....you want to cut them off.?.....that is one way to go.......and it would encourage them to find better jobs......
Every full time job should be enough to live on. If the people at the top are making millions or billions, those at the bottom should have a living wage.
Yes you can...if everyone pays 15% then 15% of 70,000 is going to pay less in taxes than 15% of 1 million dollars....so everyone pays the same rate in taxes, and the rich will sadly pay more.....
To really be fair...everyone should pay the same amount in taxes.......but that will never fly....too much jealousy.....
What ever happened to making one's own way in life?
(and I am not talking about the disabled or mentally ill)
What incentive is there for one to better themselves if everything is provided for them by someone else?
Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.
Tax payers shouldn't subsidize the workers for the rich.
They aren't......they are subsidizing Americans who don't have the skills to get the kind of job that will pay enough for them to live.......so....you want to cut them off.?.....that is one way to go.......and it would encourage them to find better jobs......
Every full time job should be enough to live on. If the people at the top are making millions or billions, those at the bottom should have a living wage.
Why....? If you hand out donuts at a donut shop....and have 6 kids...should handing out donuts at a donut shop pay as much as digging coal.....or designing sky scrapers.......or running a billion dollar business......
And do you have any responsibility to match the number of kids you have to the amount of money you are making....or should you just get money regardless of how many children you choose to create?....on a donut, hand out salary?
Yes you can...if everyone pays 15% then 15% of 70,000 is going to pay less in taxes than 15% of 1 million dollars....so everyone pays the same rate in taxes, and the rich will sadly pay more.....
To really be fair...everyone should pay the same amount in taxes.......but that will never fly....too much jealousy.....
Okay. Your original posting was a little bit confusing. You were talking about rates, and then talked about the rich paying more. I took that to mean a higher rate, not just a higher gross amount.
Everyone should be paying something and I'm all for a Flat Rate; though less than your 15% suggestion. I also suggest that there should be no deductions or other loopholes. Every American citizen should be paying their appropriate share. PERIOD.
