Corporations ≠ people

[Redfish]

We condemn discrimination against people because it offends human dignity. By contrast, concern for human dignity does not require us to treat all businesses alike: to the contrary, hard experience teaches us that some businesses - drugs, banks, securities, common carriers - require more regulation than others. The tax code "discriminates" between for-profit and charitable organizations without offending anyone's dignity.

Why Personhood Matters

People and corporations should not be equal, even in the US, the country dominated by corporations.
1) Corporations are made up of people. As a result, legal entities embrace their values and their worldview. Without people there are no corporations.
2) Why don't we treat cities and even countries like human beings? The same applies to local communities. A group of people is not a separate person with his feelings, emotions and thoughts.

Can someone explain what is wrong with my logic?

It isn't really that complicated. A corporation is private property owned by the shareholders. The shareholders are real people, like retired California school teachers and such.

.

should this private property have a say in our politics? The shareholders all get to vote in the election correct?

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

 

[Redfish]

I never said the big monopolistic corporations are evil, they are more amoral. They have very narrow interests and are not the least bit ashamed to pursue them at the cost of society as a whole. Meanwhile the conservatives seem to hate anyone who tries to protect the greater good from these narrow interests. As an example I present the global banking industry, I do not think anyone can realistically deny that they have done some pretty damaging things to the economy and yet we have failed in our attempts to place some boundaries on their riskier actions, the champions of these actions are universally reviled by conservatives. Big corporations may not be evil but with conservatives providing cover they certainly have no incentive to be good.

And of course the only way business becomes a problem is when government has so much control over everything that a few powerful businesses can buy the right government politicians and get the centralized power of the government to do their bidding...

see...this is why you lefties need to understand history...especially the 20th century....you lefties want a big central government...with vast powers, under the control of enlightened lefties, because you think you can then fast track "Doing Good". What you fail to realize...over and over again....is that by concentrating that power...you make it far easier for bad guys to do great evil....again, see the 20th century.....and that evil is always greater than any good you can do before the bad,guys get control...since government is inefficient at doing good, but really good at doing evil.....

Government needs to be small, and constrained by a separation of powers and checks and balances....it prevents it from doing great evil when bad guys get in charge?..the very types of bad guys you bitch and moan about.....

But by undermining the checks on government power...you are,creating the very thing you hate.......and you keep doing it over and over....

If government is so small it has no power to punish the wrongdoings of big business then we become a plutocracy. This is where we stand right now when even blatant wrongdoing is punished, after an expensive and protracted court battle, by a fine that does not even equal the amount of profit made from the wrongdoing. Big business is already enjoying the freedom of small government and it is doing the country no good.

What small government are you talking about.......bad people exploit the power in the government.....because the government can so many agencies doing so many things but the power to control those agencies is in the hands of a few powerful people......if you keep them from having so much concentrated power, you keep bad people from getting control.........that was the whole point to the three branches of government and checks and balances....

You guys are Boromir all over again....

Quit with the wishful thinking conservative dogma, your kind of thought has went into the whole of government policy towards business and it has brought us to the brink of ruin and will again because no one really got punished, the structure never got changed, and now the worst culprits think they can do anything and get off scot-free with the taxpayers covering their losses. If someone robs a few thousand from a bank at gunpoint you want to lock them up forever but when someone uses their position at a bank to steal millions or billions from the economy you want to close ranks and protect them.

Look...you assholes are going to vote for a known criminal, hilary .....who has repeatedly sold her offices to the highest bidder....you know she has taken bribes from both domestic and foreign businesses, and some really vile ones......and you are going to vote for her.......it's on you assholes.....

they are going to vote for a woman because she is a woman, but they will ignore the FACT that she has taken bribes from countries where women have no freedom.

the liberal mind is a study in hypocritical lunacy.

 

[sealybobo]

The issue of corporate person-hood is not in the necessary limited liability of a corporation, it is in their ability to readily exercise control over government policy and buy elections far in excess of any actual person all because they have been granted special 1st amendment rights that exceed our own.

I have a corporation BUT my corporation certainly doesn't "exercise control over government policy".... other wise we'd never have an environment where the president is destroying businesses and in turn destroying jobs.

Yeah, I have one too, lots of people do, if you had any sense you would know I am talking about the big multinational corporations that squash people like us without even giving a shit and can spend millions to lobby congress, Exxon, Citibank, Koch industries etc. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

I will never understand a person like you you think the CEO Chicago from 3 million a year the 20 million a year and every employee should take a pay cut

 

[sealybobo]

Why Personhood Matters

People and corporations should not be equal, even in the US, the country dominated by corporations.
1) Corporations are made up of people. As a result, legal entities embrace their values and their worldview. Without people there are no corporations.
2) Why don't we treat cities and even countries like human beings? The same applies to local communities. A group of people is not a separate person with his feelings, emotions and thoughts.

Can someone explain what is wrong with my logic?

It isn't really that complicated. A corporation is private property owned by the shareholders. The shareholders are real people, like retired California school teachers and such.

.

should this private property have a say in our politics? The shareholders all get to vote in the election correct?

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

how about no CEO can make more than 100 or 200 or 50 times the lowest paid worker in any company?

 

[sealybobo]

because if the company is doing so well that is CEO deserves a raise then so do the employees.

 

[dcraelin]

The issue of corporate person-hood is not in the necessary limited liability of a corporation, it is in their ability to readily exercise control over government policy and buy elections far in excess of any actual person all because they have been granted special 1st amendment rights that exceed our own.

I have a corporation BUT my corporation certainly doesn't "exercise control over government policy".... other wise we'd never have an environment where the president is destroying businesses and in turn destroying jobs.

Yeah, I have one too, lots of people do, if you had any sense you would know I am talking about the big multinational corporations that squash people like us without even giving a shit and can spend millions to lobby congress, Exxon, Citibank, Koch industries etc. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

well we have seen huge pay for CEOs who's companies have lost money for shareholders....certainly that is excessive
but it depends on the situation....I dont think CEO pay can be said to be driven by the marketplace.
and in a lot of ways neither is the pay of performers and athletes...but theirs is probably more so.

 

[Judicial review]

Corporations are designated as legal "persons" in order to protect the employees from personal liability for acts of the corporation. It is a legal definition.

The left has completely misinterpreted this to somehow demonize corporations, while its only purpose is to protect employees.

another ignorant position of the left.

Not legal "persons." Legal "entities." That's critical difference, because if it was a person it would be classified as a Sole Proprietor, which is an individual or and independent contractor who isn't protected from wrong doing like a corporation. Another words a self employed individual who isn't incorporated OR an individual that IS the Business. Now under a corporation the Owner is classified as an employee of the company and therefore gets protected from wrong doing and the company is sued for wrong doing NOT the individual.

I can't begin to tell you the differences between legal persons and legal entities. Not even close.

 

[healthmyths]

I have a corporation BUT my corporation certainly doesn't "exercise control over government policy".... other wise we'd never have an environment where the president is destroying businesses and in turn destroying jobs.

Yeah, I have one too, lots of people do, if you had any sense you would know I am talking about the big multinational corporations that squash people like us without even giving a shit and can spend millions to lobby congress, Exxon, Citibank, Koch industries etc. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

well we have seen huge pay for CEOs who's companies have lost money for shareholders....certainly that is excessive
but it depends on the situation....I dont think CEO pay can be said to be driven by the marketplace.
and in a lot of ways neither is the pay of performers and athletes...but theirs is probably more so.

PLEASE! Exaggerations. Hyperbole. YOU have NO proof!
And when you do come up with a couple of rare examples REMEMBER...
All firms 27,281,452
Statistics about Business Size including Small Business from the U.S. Census Bureau
Over 27 million firms in the USA and you comment about less the 100 that have CEOs huge pay .

Total 400,400 CEOs.. of which 77% or 308,308 make less then $500,000!
Less then 8,000 make over $3 million.
Again exaggerations... blow out of proportion!
CEO Statistics Statistic Brain

I really find people that can't back up the statements with sources totally unbelievable especially in this age of instant info at your fingertips!
But people like you give proof to the reality that most people ONLY read headlines... which generally are exaggerated to hopefully get you to read more...but YOU don't!
If you did you'd understand that you are falling for the same old biased media stories and YOU form opinions based on this gross misinformation.
The average US CEO last year made only $178,400 (about the same as a dentist), and got a raise of less than 1%

The average US CEO last year made only 178 400 about the same as a dentist and got a raise of less than 1 - AEI Carpe Diem Blog AEIdeas

 

[dcraelin]

Yeah, I have one too, lots of people do, if you had any sense you would know I am talking about the big multinational corporations that squash people like us without even giving a shit and can spend millions to lobby congress, Exxon, Citibank, Koch industries etc. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

well we have seen huge pay for CEOs who's companies have lost money for shareholders....certainly that is excessive
but it depends on the situation....I dont think CEO pay can be said to be driven by the marketplace.
and in a lot of ways neither is the pay of performers and athletes...but theirs is probably more so.

PLEASE! Exaggerations. Hyperbole. YOU have NO proof!
And when you do come up with a couple of rare examples REMEMBER...
All firms 27,281,452
Statistics about Business Size including Small Business from the U.S. Census Bureau
Over 27 million firms in the USA and you comment about less the 100 that have CEOs huge pay .

Total 400,400 CEOs.. of which 77% or 308,308 make less then $500,000!
Less then 8,000 make over $3 million.
Again exaggerations... blow out of proportion!
CEO Statistics Statistic Brain

I really find people that can't back up the statements with sources totally unbelievable especially in this age of instant info at your fingertips!
But people like you give proof to the reality that most people ONLY read headlines... which generally are exaggerated to hopefully get you to read more...but YOU don't!
If you did you'd understand that you are falling for the same old biased media stories and YOU form opinions based on this gross misinformation.
The average US CEO last year made only $178,400 (about the same as a dentist), and got a raise of less than 1%
View attachment 42510
The average US CEO last year made only 178 400 about the same as a dentist and got a raise of less than 1 - AEI Carpe Diem Blog AEIdeas

some you come back with evidence that there are a lot of CEOs in america.....and offer that as evidence that as evidence of what? I was thinking of the larger companies which can insulate their CEO pay from shareholder influence.

but there are abuses in structure I would say even for smaller scale companies.....the proliferation of LLCs which I believe allow choosing which tax regime to fall under and in a way allow a kind of tax evasion.

 

[Redfish]

I have a corporation BUT my corporation certainly doesn't "exercise control over government policy".... other wise we'd never have an environment where the president is destroying businesses and in turn destroying jobs.

Yeah, I have one too, lots of people do, if you had any sense you would know I am talking about the big multinational corporations that squash people like us without even giving a shit and can spend millions to lobby congress, Exxon, Citibank, Koch industries etc. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

I will never understand a person like you you think the CEO Chicago from 3 million a year the 20 million a year and every employee should take a pay cut

Why would I support that? I don't. Are those people forced to work for that company? What is CEO Chicago?

 

[Redfish]

It isn't really that complicated. A corporation is private property owned by the shareholders. The shareholders are real people, like retired California school teachers and such.

.

should this private property have a say in our politics? The shareholders all get to vote in the election correct?

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

how about no CEO can make more than 100 or 200 or 50 times the lowest paid worker in any company?

It isn't really that complicated. A corporation is private property owned by the shareholders. The shareholders are real people, like retired California school teachers and such.

.

should this private property have a say in our politics? The shareholders all get to vote in the election correct?

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

how about no CEO can make more than 100 or 200 or 50 times the lowest paid worker in any company?

What gives the federal govt the right to tell a company what to pay its employees? You do understand that the CEO is an employee don't you?

Would that rule apply in the NFL and NBA? Would Brady and James be limited to 100 times the pay of the equipment manager? How about Oprah and Beyonce? Should their income be limited to 100 times the pay of their lowest paid employee?

Why do you libs assume that CEOs are inherently evil? Most give huge amounts to charity.

 

[Redfish]

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

well we have seen huge pay for CEOs who's companies have lost money for shareholders....certainly that is excessive
but it depends on the situation....I dont think CEO pay can be said to be driven by the marketplace.
and in a lot of ways neither is the pay of performers and athletes...but theirs is probably more so.

PLEASE! Exaggerations. Hyperbole. YOU have NO proof!
And when you do come up with a couple of rare examples REMEMBER...
All firms 27,281,452
Statistics about Business Size including Small Business from the U.S. Census Bureau
Over 27 million firms in the USA and you comment about less the 100 that have CEOs huge pay .

Total 400,400 CEOs.. of which 77% or 308,308 make less then $500,000!
Less then 8,000 make over $3 million.
Again exaggerations... blow out of proportion!
CEO Statistics Statistic Brain

I really find people that can't back up the statements with sources totally unbelievable especially in this age of instant info at your fingertips!
But people like you give proof to the reality that most people ONLY read headlines... which generally are exaggerated to hopefully get you to read more...but YOU don't!
If you did you'd understand that you are falling for the same old biased media stories and YOU form opinions based on this gross misinformation.
The average US CEO last year made only $178,400 (about the same as a dentist), and got a raise of less than 1%
View attachment 42510
The average US CEO last year made only 178 400 about the same as a dentist and got a raise of less than 1 - AEI Carpe Diem Blog AEIdeas

some you come back with evidence that there are a lot of CEOs in america.....and offer that as evidence that as evidence of what? I was thinking of the larger companies which can insulate their CEO pay from shareholder influence.

but there are abuses in structure I would say even for smaller scale companies.....the proliferation of LLCs which I believe allow choosing which tax regime to fall under and in a way allow a kind of tax evasion.

If your issue is with the tax code, it was written by congress and congress has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 80 years, so your real issue is with democrats------------------

 

[Redfish]

It isn't really that complicated. A corporation is private property owned by the shareholders. The shareholders are real people, like retired California school teachers and such.

.

should this private property have a say in our politics? The shareholders all get to vote in the election correct?

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

how about no CEO can make more than 100 or 200 or 50 times the lowest paid worker in any company?

you didn't answer my question about entertainers and athletes. Why should their income be unlimited ?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We condemn discrimination against people because it offends human dignity. By contrast, concern for human dignity does not require us to treat all businesses alike: to the contrary, hard experience teaches us that some businesses - drugs, banks, securities, common carriers - require more regulation than others. The tax code "discriminates" between for-profit and charitable organizations without offending anyone's dignity.

Why Personhood Matters

People and corporations should not be equal, even in the US, the country dominated by corporations.
1) Corporations are made up of people. As a result, legal entities embrace their values and their worldview. Without people there are no corporations.
2) Why don't we treat cities and even countries like human beings? The same applies to local communities. A group of people is not a separate person with his feelings, emotions and thoughts.

Can someone explain what is wrong with my logic?

Yes. The problem with your "logic" is that it is sorely lacking.

The legal fiction that a corporation is a person was designed (primarily) to make it legally possible for a corporation to sue and be sued. the legal fiction of "personhood" does come with other benefits or detriments, depending on how you view such matters.

A corporation, among other things, is an association of individuals with like minds in some respects. If you invest in Apple, then like the other individual investors in Apple, you are probably of the belief that you will make a profit by the work that corporation does. If Apple fucks up and gets sued to death, the only thing at risk for you (the individual investor) is whatever amount you invested. That's a benefit to you, as an individual investor, made possible by the legal fiction that the corporation is, itself, a "person."

Layering on to that, a corporation is and should be able to speak as a person to legislators to seek favorable legislation for its work and to seek to alleviate burdens to its ongoing business. If you, as one of the indivicual investors, happen not to like what Apple is saying in that process, you remain free to no longer invest in Apple.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of association. Wow. That kind of thing could become addictive.

 

[Redfish]

We condemn discrimination against people because it offends human dignity. By contrast, concern for human dignity does not require us to treat all businesses alike: to the contrary, hard experience teaches us that some businesses - drugs, banks, securities, common carriers - require more regulation than others. The tax code "discriminates" between for-profit and charitable organizations without offending anyone's dignity.

Why Personhood Matters

People and corporations should not be equal, even in the US, the country dominated by corporations.
1) Corporations are made up of people. As a result, legal entities embrace their values and their worldview. Without people there are no corporations.
2) Why don't we treat cities and even countries like human beings? The same applies to local communities. A group of people is not a separate person with his feelings, emotions and thoughts.

Can someone explain what is wrong with my logic?

Yes. The problem with your "logic" is that it is sorely lacking.

The legal fiction that a corporation is a person was designed (primarily) to make it legally possible for a corporation to sue and be sued. the legal fiction of "personhood" does come with other benefits or detriments, depending on how you view such matters.

A corporation, among other things, is an association of individuals with like minds in some respects. If you invest in Apple, then like the other individual investors in Apple, you are probably of the belief that you will make a profit by the work that corporation does. If Apple fucks up and gets sued to death, the only thing at risk for you (the individual investor) is whatever amount you invested. That's a benefit to you, as an individual investor, made possible by the legal fiction that the corporation is, itself, a "person."

Layering on to that, a corporation is and should be able to speak as a person to legislators to seek favorable legislation for its work and to seek to alleviate burdens to its ongoing business. If you, as one of the indivicual investors, happen not to like what Apple is saying in that process, you remain free to no longer invest in Apple.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of association. Wow. That kind of thing could become addictive.

 

[sealybobo]

I have a corporation BUT my corporation certainly doesn't "exercise control over government policy".... other wise we'd never have an environment where the president is destroying businesses and in turn destroying jobs.

Yeah, I have one too, lots of people do, if you had any sense you would know I am talking about the big multinational corporations that squash people like us without even giving a shit and can spend millions to lobby congress, Exxon, Citibank, Koch industries etc. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

well we have seen huge pay for CEOs who's companies have lost money for shareholders....certainly that is excessive
but it depends on the situation....I dont think CEO pay can be said to be driven by the marketplace.
and in a lot of ways neither is the pay of performers and athletes...but theirs is probably more so.

sometimes a company will lose money and they still pay the co a lot of money because supposedly he saved the company from doing even worse. the same way a bad baseball team will pay a great player a lot of money to stay under losing team because if he goes it will get even worse. Honestly just like us to employees are disposable I think she owns are too but if you ask them for my brother they say they're not. of course they value themselves greatly.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, I have one too, lots of people do, if you had any sense you would know I am talking about the big multinational corporations that squash people like us without even giving a shit and can spend millions to lobby congress, Exxon, Citibank, Koch industries etc. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

I will never understand a person like you you think the CEO Chicago from 3 million a year the 20 million a year and every employee should take a pay cut

Why would I support that? I don't. Are those people forced to work for that company? What is CEO Chicago?

I'm using talk to text and that was a mistake. you don't understand that we are all forced to work for whatever companies are out there and if they're all not paying well then I guess we are stuck or forced to work for them. if you left your job what competitor would pay you more?

 

[sealybobo]

should this private property have a say in our politics? The shareholders all get to vote in the election correct?

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

how about no CEO can make more than 100 or 200 or 50 times the lowest paid worker in any company?

should this private property have a say in our politics? The shareholders all get to vote in the election correct?

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

how about no CEO can make more than 100 or 200 or 50 times the lowest paid worker in any company?

What gives the federal govt the right to tell a company what to pay its employees? You do understand that the CEO is an employee don't you?

Would that rule apply in the NFL and NBA? Would Brady and James be limited to 100 times the pay of the equipment manager? How about Oprah and Beyonce? Should their income be limited to 100 times the pay of their lowest paid employee?

Why do you libs assume that CEOs are inherently evil? Most give huge amounts to charity.

don't the owners in football all get together and Khulood? Unti players in unions? Are the employees very paid well and very representative? if normal corporations paid as well as the NFL does we wouldn't be having this conversation. many more employees should go Union like the NFL players do

 

[Redfish]

Soros? NY times, ABC? How about the unions?

Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations provide employment and benefits to millions of americans.

Lobbying is the problem, not corporations.

the excessive pay of a lot of CEOs against the wishes of shareholders even shows a flaw in structure tho that may be getting better,.... slowly. no, they are not "inherently" evil

Lobbying is a problem too.

expanding representation in the US House, to follow population growth, as we once did would disperse power and help a bit in that regard I think.

'

what defines "excessive" ? Does Beyonce make an "excessive" amount of money? how about Tom Brady? Madonna? Is their contribution to society worth that much more than yours or mine?

I will never understand why libs attack CEOs but care nothing about what entertainers and athletes make. Who the fuck do you think is paying their incomes? You and me in the price of everything we buy.

I will never understand a person like you you think the CEO Chicago from 3 million a year the 20 million a year and every employee should take a pay cut

Why would I support that? I don't. Are those people forced to work for that company? What is CEO Chicago?

I'm using talk to text and that was a mistake. you don't understand that we are all forced to work for whatever companies are out there and if they're all not paying well then I guess we are stuck or forced to work for them. if you left your job what competitor would pay you more?

Sorry, dude but life is not fair, never was, never will be. Some people will always have more stuff than others. Accept reality and enjoy your time on earth.

 

[Redfish]

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

how about no CEO can make more than 100 or 200 or 50 times the lowest paid worker in any company?

Sure, the shareholders are a group of people with a common interest. Same as unions are a group of people with a common interest. As long as everything is voluntary and not coercive.

.

you are so naive. my brother is a vice president and the way he tells it shareholders are CEOs of other companies so they compensate the CEO of your company the same way they want to be compensated. and of course when you get to say what you're worth the sky's the limit. it is ridiculous what they pay themselves

what is your solution? government income control? would such control apply to Oprah and Whoopi?

how about no CEO can make more than 100 or 200 or 50 times the lowest paid worker in any company?

What gives the federal govt the right to tell a company what to pay its employees? You do understand that the CEO is an employee don't you?

Would that rule apply in the NFL and NBA? Would Brady and James be limited to 100 times the pay of the equipment manager? How about Oprah and Beyonce? Should their income be limited to 100 times the pay of their lowest paid employee?

Why do you libs assume that CEOs are inherently evil? Most give huge amounts to charity.

don't the owners in football all get together and Khulood? Unti players in unions? Are the employees very paid well and very representative? if normal corporations paid as well as the NFL does we wouldn't be having this conversation. many more employees should go Union like the NFL players do

If all corporations paid like the NFL, your big mac would cost $20 and a loaf of bread would cost $15. How would higher prices improve your life? If you make more money but everything you buy costs more, what have you gained?