? For liberals: If taxes go up on rich, how will you feel about consequences?

[Bfgrn]

The More CEOs Make, The Worse They Treat Workers, Says A New Study

Jul 8, 2010

CEO pay has been blasted for increasing risk to the economy, being out of proportion to ordinary wages and being unrelated to actual company performance. And, according to a new study, a high salary may actually make your company's CEO meaner. (Hat tip to Harvard Business Review)

In the study's white paper, "When Executives Rake in Millions: Meanness in Organizations," professors from Harvard, Rice and the University of Utah argue that rising income inequality between executives and ordinary workers results in "power asymmetries in the workplace such that top executives come to view lower level workers as dispensable objects not worthy of human dignity."

The More CEOs Make, The Worse They Treat Workers, Says A New Study


Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

 

[Intense]

Worthless RepubliCON$, why under Bush's Tax Cuts did so many American companies SHIP jobs overseas?

Moreover, why were so LITTLE jobs CREATED?

The failure could not be more clear nor colossal.

The RepubliCON$ answer to everything being "Tax Cuts for URRAYBODAY" just. does. not. work!

End of story.

Cut your shit assholes.

The stockholders of American companies, THE OWNERS, are both Republican and Democrat.
Seeking a better ROI, Americans decided to escape the highest tax rates in the world, seek better returns and do what all businesses do:
Supply what the American DEMANDS.
Take a look at your shoes. Made in China. YOU demanded it so YOU are the problem.

I don't know what BS you're talking, but the FACT remains...cutting taxes for the rich JUST. DOES. NOT. WORK. I don't wanna hear any BS excuse about "the American companies are doing what they are suppoed to do, which is cut their expenses." In fact that argument is more evidence WHY companies are NOT in the people's best interest. Another RepubliCON lie that gets perpetrated day in day out on the RepubiCONNewsNetwork.

Period.

In no other time in history were so many jobs EXPORTED FROM this country than under the Bush tax cuts.

You can ram your head in the sand all you want, but there's just no excuse for it.

IT FAILED!

Competition is the answer, not Marxism.

 

[Intense]

The More CEOs Make, The Worse They Treat Workers, Says A New Study

Jul 8, 2010

CEO pay has been blasted for increasing risk to the economy, being out of proportion to ordinary wages and being unrelated to actual company performance. And, according to a new study, a high salary may actually make your company's CEO meaner. (Hat tip to Harvard Business Review)

In the study's white paper, "When Executives Rake in Millions: Meanness in Organizations," professors from Harvard, Rice and the University of Utah argue that rising income inequality between executives and ordinary workers results in "power asymmetries in the workplace such that top executives come to view lower level workers as dispensable objects not worthy of human dignity."

The More CEOs Make, The Worse They Treat Workers, Says A New Study


Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Yeah, and the only group that treats people worse, is Government Bureaucrat's.

 

[Bfgrn]

The More CEOs Make, The Worse They Treat Workers, Says A New Study

Jul 8, 2010

CEO pay has been blasted for increasing risk to the economy, being out of proportion to ordinary wages and being unrelated to actual company performance. And, according to a new study, a high salary may actually make your company's CEO meaner. (Hat tip to Harvard Business Review)

In the study's white paper, "When Executives Rake in Millions: Meanness in Organizations," professors from Harvard, Rice and the University of Utah argue that rising income inequality between executives and ordinary workers results in "power asymmetries in the workplace such that top executives come to view lower level workers as dispensable objects not worthy of human dignity."

The More CEOs Make, The Worse They Treat Workers, Says A New Study


Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Yeah, and the only group that treats people worse, is Government Bureaucrat's.

For more than 30 years you right wing pea brains have been kneeling at the alter of trickle down...George H W Bush had it right...VOODOO economics.

It NEVER happened, and it never WILL happen...

The only thing that will trickle down from doing your Monica Lewinsky on the rich will be on your chin.

 

[rightwinger]

The stockholders of American companies, THE OWNERS, are both Republican and Democrat.
Seeking a better ROI, Americans decided to escape the highest tax rates in the world, seek better returns and do what all businesses do:
Supply what the American DEMANDS.
Take a look at your shoes. Made in China. YOU demanded it so YOU are the problem.

I don't know what BS you're talking, but the FACT remains...cutting taxes for the rich JUST. DOES. NOT. WORK. I don't wanna hear any BS excuse about "the American companies are doing what they are suppoed to do, which is cut their expenses." In fact that argument is more evidence WHY companies are NOT in the people's best interest. Another RepubliCON lie that gets perpetrated day in day out on the RepubiCONNewsNetwork.

Period.

In no other time in history were so many jobs EXPORTED FROM this country than under the Bush tax cuts.

You can ram your head in the sand all you want, but there's just no excuse for it.

IT FAILED!

Competition is the answer, not Marxism.

Taxes are not Marxism

 

[daveman]

I am not holding you responsible for anything that you never said. I am not saying that the democrat's consideration of reconciliaton was demonized by daveywoman.... it WAS, however demonized by the leadership of your party and by the talking heads of hte right. All I am holding you responsible for was not knowing WHY the ten year sunset was placed in the bill and instead suggesting that the republicans did so because they could not have foreseen the economic difficulties ten years hence.

Horseshit.

so....are you saying that you WERE aware of the ten year requirement of the Byrd rule when the Bush tax cuts were initially passed?

No, I'm not saying that. I didn't pay much attention to politics back then.

So, yes, you are holding me responsible for something I never said.

 

[MarcATL]

The stockholders of American companies, THE OWNERS, are both Republican and Democrat.
Seeking a better ROI, Americans decided to escape the highest tax rates in the world, seek better returns and do what all businesses do:
Supply what the American DEMANDS.
Take a look at your shoes. Made in China. YOU demanded it so YOU are the problem.

I don't know what BS you're talking, but the FACT remains...cutting taxes for the rich JUST. DOES. NOT. WORK. I don't wanna hear any BS excuse about "the American companies are doing what they are suppoed to do, which is cut their expenses." In fact that argument is more evidence WHY companies are NOT in the people's best interest. Another RepubliCON lie that gets perpetrated day in day out on the RepubiCONNewsNetwork.

Period.

In no other time in history were so many jobs EXPORTED FROM this country than under the Bush tax cuts.

You can ram your head in the sand all you want, but there's just no excuse for it.

IT FAILED!

Competition is the answer, not Marxism.

Competition for who or what? When the CONSUMERS don't have any disposable income...WHO or WHAT are you competing for?

THINK McFly.....!!

 

[MarcATL]

These RWers sound so EFFING dumb with this "Marxism" BS, the tax cut was SUPPOSED to sunset now you dumbasses!!

Cut your shit assholes!

 

[maineman]

Horseshit.

so....are you saying that you WERE aware of the ten year requirement of the Byrd rule when the Bush tax cuts were initially passed?

No, I'm not saying that. I didn't pay much attention to politics back then.

So, yes, you are holding me responsible for something I never said.

did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts to the fact that republicans back then could not have known that the economy would be in the shape it is today?

 

[daveman]

so....are you saying that you WERE aware of the ten year requirement of the Byrd rule when the Bush tax cuts were initially passed?

No, I'm not saying that. I didn't pay much attention to politics back then.

So, yes, you are holding me responsible for something I never said.

did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts to the fact that republicans back then could not have known that the economy would be in the shape it is today?

I think I did. Did you have a point, or are you just flapping the shreds of your ego?

 

[maineman]

No, I'm not saying that. I didn't pay much attention to politics back then.

So, yes, you are holding me responsible for something I never said.

did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts to the fact that republicans back then could not have known that the economy would be in the shape it is today?

I think I did. Did you have a point, or are you just flapping the shreds of your ego?

just showing that, no, I am not holding you responsible for something that you never said.

 

[daveman]

did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts to the fact that republicans back then could not have known that the economy would be in the shape it is today?

I think I did. Did you have a point, or are you just flapping the shreds of your ego?

just showing that, no, I am not holding you responsible for something that you never said.

Uh huh. Say, why don't you call someone a traitor for disagreeing with Obama and then say you'd like to shoot them in the head?

 

[Synthaholic]

No, I'm not saying that. I didn't pay much attention to politics back then.

So, yes, you are holding me responsible for something I never said.

did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts to the fact that republicans back then could not have known that the economy would be in the shape it is today?

I think I did. Did you have a point, or are you just flapping the shreds of your ego?

Then you would be wrong. The only reason they sunset after 10 years is because that is the rule when using reconciliation. It was the condition that Regressives had to abide by in order to pass the tax cuts with a 51-50 majority.

 

[daveman]

did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts to the fact that republicans back then could not have known that the economy would be in the shape it is today?

I think I did. Did you have a point, or are you just flapping the shreds of your ego?

Then you would be wrong. The only reason they sunset after 10 years is because that is the rule when using reconciliation. It was the condition that Regressives had to abide by in order to pass the tax cuts with a 51-50 majority.

Gosh, you're stupid. He asked, "did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts...", and I responded, "I think I did."

He was asking what I did, not why the sunset was put into place.

Do you even bother reading before you post?

 

[editec]

Sometimes cutting taxes is a wise thing to do.

Sometimes not.

duh!

When done selectively at targeted sectors it makes sense.

Yes they might, I quite agree.

Create jobs in the US....get a tax credit MAKES SENSE

Yes agreed.

And did you know that the Dems are promoting that right now, and the Reps are opposed to it?

Why are the Republican oppossing policies that are meant to foster growth in the USA and also meant discourage outsourcing?

I don't know, of course, but if I had to guess it because they put partisan politics ahead of what's good for the nation.

Accross the board tax cut.....DOESN"T MAKE SENSE

They might under certain circumstances, but not isn't one of them.

I'm not really sure I know where I am regarding the current plan to let the tax breaks for billionaires (that was passed under Bush II) to lapse.

To date I haven't seen any analysis that leads me to think that it will help the economy.

And I think it doesn't take much deep thought to suggest that anything that takes cash out of the hands of the American people (at this time) isn't going to bode well for recovery.

I think we ought to be

1. imposing tariffs on China (maybe other nations as well)

2. Giving tax encentives to industrial growth in the USA

3. Severely imposing penalties on any nation offshoring

4. Provide real incentives (read tax breaks and interest free loans) to people seeking to start small businesses.

5. Declare a social security/medicare withholding tax on all annual incomes less than (say) $100,000.

A serious and sustained mixture of stimulus giveaways and tax breaks seems in order to me.

Otherwise I suspect this unemployment problem could be with us for decades.

Yeah, that's right, not quarters, or years, not election cycles, but decades.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think I did. Did you have a point, or are you just flapping the shreds of your ego?

Then you would be wrong. The only reason they sunset after 10 years is because that is the rule when using reconciliation. It was the condition that Regressives had to abide by in order to pass the tax cuts with a 51-50 majority.

Gosh, you're stupid. He asked, "did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts...", and I responded, "I think I did."

He was asking what I did, not why the sunset was put into place.

Do you even bother reading before you post?

Then you are now aware that any blame for these tax cuts expiring rests with Regressives, not Democrats?

 

[maineman]

I think I did. Did you have a point, or are you just flapping the shreds of your ego?

Then you would be wrong. The only reason they sunset after 10 years is because that is the rule when using reconciliation. It was the condition that Regressives had to abide by in order to pass the tax cuts with a 51-50 majority.

Gosh, you're stupid. He asked, "did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts...", and I responded, "I think I did."

He was asking what I did, not why the sunset was put into place.

Do you even bother reading before you post?

the point is: you were wrong. The sunsetting had nothing to do with what you said it did.

 

[rightwinger]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."

If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

Yea sure...

40% of the people will be laid off because of a 3% tax increase

Guess what? Lay off 40% of your workforce and who suffers?

You do

You make money off of each employee. If you don't, they shouldn't be working for you. A job is not a charity offering. You make a wage off your labor and your employer makes a profit off of your labor. Taxes only aply to the portion that is profit, what is paid in salary is deductable

Once again it comes down to fear mongering from the conservatives, that if we don't treat the rich generously, they will retaliate by firing people.

In fact, the business owner makes money off of the people who work for him. Cutting your workforce arbitrarilly, cuts your ability to make profit

 

[Intense]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."

If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

Yea sure...

40% of the people will be laid off because of a 3% tax increase

Guess what? Lay off 40% of your workforce and who suffers?

You do

You make money off of each employee. If you don't, they shouldn't be working for you. A job is not a charity offering. You make a wage off your labor and your employer makes a profit off of your labor. Taxes only aply to the portion that is profit, what is paid in salary is deductable

Once again it comes down to fear mongering from the conservatives, that if we don't treat the rich generously, they will retaliate by firing people.

In fact, the business owner makes money off of the people who work for him. Cutting your workforce arbitrarilly, cuts your ability to make profit

With the exception of Bureaucrat's and Union Workers that almost floats. Here is another thought, "Obstruct less, Do more".

 

[daveman]

Then you would be wrong. The only reason they sunset after 10 years is because that is the rule when using reconciliation. It was the condition that Regressives had to abide by in order to pass the tax cuts with a 51-50 majority.

Gosh, you're stupid. He asked, "did you or did you not attribute the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts...", and I responded, "I think I did."

He was asking what I did, not why the sunset was put into place.

Do you even bother reading before you post?

Then you are now aware that any blame for these tax cuts expiring rests with Regressives, not Democrats?

So...can't admit you're wrong, huh?

Typical.