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.
If I don't like my pay and they won't increase my pay after making profits, I can go get another job at another company. it's fking a simple concept that these idiots can't fathom.I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.
Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.
And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners
CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?
Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.
And who made that one up?
I get paid to do X work. It doesn't matter if the company is breaking even, it doesn't matter if the company is losing money, it doesn't matter if the company is making a ton of money. I get paid to do X work and that's it.
By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains. It helps if you understand the concepts, you try to argue.How are they getting their gain?
The lower rate doesn't help if they don't have a capital gain. How are they getting the capital gain?
If you sell your house for more than you paid for it, you've achieved a capital gain. If you buy a business, break it apart and sell off the pieces, thereby ending any jobs associated with that business, you'll achieve a capital gain. Any time you sell an asset for more than you paid for it, you achieve a capital gain, even if you did nothing to improve that asset or its value while you owned it.
If you sell your house for more than you paid for it, you've achieved a capital gain.
So why does the Federal government deserve 30% or more of my home profit?
I'd like to use that money for retirement.
You took a tax deduction for your mortgage interest didn't you? The means, in essence, you paid for the house without paying taxes on the income you used to pay your mortgage. So that income gets taxed when you sell the house.
In Canada, we don't get to claim a tax deduction for our mortgages, but in paying our mortgage with "after tax" dollars, we don't pay capital gains on the sale of our houses. That capital gain is tax free, if you've owned and lived in the house for 1 year.
This no tax on capital gain only applies to your principal residence. If you own more than one property, one has to be designated as your principal residence for tax purposes.
Basically, you can pay the tax now or pay it later. Americans pay it later, Canadians pay it now. I think we've got the better deal.
business is more serious; and, should require ordinary income tax rates for creation. It could help Persons realize that they need to do better planning and not rely on tax breaks or cheap labor, to "make it".There is no suppressing anything; business is more serious; and, should require ordinary income tax rates for creation. It could help Persons realize that they need to do better planning and not rely on tax breaks or cheap labor, to "make it".Ordinary income; and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work (ethic) from the Age of Iron.I am only referring to income from gains. It should be taxed as ordinary income, and delete the term, capital gain from the, "tax preference rolls".
I am only referring to income from gains.
Right. Someone starts a business, risks their money, invests their time, creates jobs, becomes successful.
Then he wants to sell to take his gains and start a new business, but you want to take 40% of his gain.
Ordinary income
Right, to suppress business formation.
and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work
Founders typically do more work than anyone they hire.
There is no suppressing anything;
But there is......the higher the tax, the less business creation.
they only ensure that the worker bees stay on as worker bees. Yep no work needed there. especially when there are tens of thousands of employees. That one CEO must represent each and everyone of them. That means any lawsuits or any other legal decisions. R&D, Finances, price per share of stock. no, they don't fking do a thing. LOL at the idiots in here on the left.I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.
Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.
And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners
CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?
Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.
maybe not any physical work. but those jobs are 24/7/365 and very high stress. A pussy like you could never make it as a CEO.
Yes their job is kind of like playing monopoly. You make lots of decisions, but don't do any actual work. I like monopoly.
business is more serious; and, should require ordinary income tax rates for creation. It could help Persons realize that they need to do better planning and not rely on tax breaks or cheap labor, to "make it".There is no suppressing anything; business is more serious; and, should require ordinary income tax rates for creation. It could help Persons realize that they need to do better planning and not rely on tax breaks or cheap labor, to "make it".Ordinary income; and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work (ethic) from the Age of Iron.I am only referring to income from gains.
Right. Someone starts a business, risks their money, invests their time, creates jobs, becomes successful.
Then he wants to sell to take his gains and start a new business, but you want to take 40% of his gain.
Ordinary income
Right, to suppress business formation.
and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work
Founders typically do more work than anyone they hire.
There is no suppressing anything;
But there is......the higher the tax, the less business creation.
technically, a shareholder could vote for a janitor in that board position.Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?
Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.
The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.
Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.
WTF did that mean exactly? isn't that the same thing?CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?
Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.
And who made that one up?
I get paid to do X work. It doesn't matter if the company is breaking even, it doesn't matter if the company is losing money, it doesn't matter if the company is making a ton of money. I get paid to do X work and that's it.
You really just love an economy where people don't do well if they work hard. I really think you would make a good communist. Most of what you say really isn't American. Why do you think we became such a strong nation? It's the middle class. Lots of countries have had really rich and really poor. That stagnates growth. But creating a strong middle class is what made us better.
Well then for one, you obviously don't know what Communism is, and two, nothing is more American than telling a man you will work for him at an agreed rate of pay for agreed work. It's that simple.
I understand that one reason communism failed is because they tried to pay everyone the same regardless of how hard they worked. You want people to work hard and just be happy they have a job rather than share in the success. Very un-American.
total bullshit. during Obama's 8 years the number of americans below the poverty level increased, the number on food stamps increased, the number unemployed or underemployed increased, the number on welfare increased.
As to jobs, the only jobs created by obozo the great Kenyan messiah, were part time minimum wage jobs with no future and no benefits.
Now, wealth inequality. during those same years the gap between rich and poor became larger than ever before in our history.
AND, the national debt was doubled.
Obama failed, democrats failed, liberalism failed. You are FOS
No one breaks the cycle of poverty because of government handouts. That's a concept liberals don't get.
what are their salaries explained by then?maybe not any physical work. but those jobs are 24/7/365 and very high stress. A pussy like you could never make it as a CEO.
Yes their job is kind of like playing monopoly. You make lots of decisions, but don't do any actual work. I like monopoly.
What is your definition of work? Based on what you've said is it safe to say work only involves physical labor?
Not at all. There are just different types of work. Just making the decisions and having everyone else do the physical work is much different. Kinda like playing monopoly. There is a reason why CEOs tend to work till they die and people doing the real work can't wait to retire.
More common delusion from Lefties....If you aren't pushing a broom or digging holes you're overpaid. No value in your education and or intelligence...haha
This is mostly shit you're inherently unable to wrap your head around being a Liberal and all.
Just as in life, quality decision making is paramount to success.
CEO's are paid to think, make key decisions, problem solve and command overall direction.
Simple shit here
I don't disagree CEOs should be paid well. But their increases are not explainable by economics. CEOs on the board vote for raises so that they themselves get raises by their board.
fake news- turn off fox they make up numbers.
Unemployment was cut in half and the wealth gap shrunk.
why wouldn't Juan have that opportunity?What is your definition of work? Based on what you've said is it safe to say work only involves physical labor?
Not at all. There are just different types of work. Just making the decisions and having everyone else do the physical work is much different. Kinda like playing monopoly. There is a reason why CEOs tend to work till they die and people doing the real work can't wait to retire.
More common delusion from Lefties....If you aren't pushing a broom or digging holes you're overpaid. No value in your education and or intelligence...haha
This is mostly shit you're inherently unable to wrap your head around being a Liberal and all.
Just as in life, quality decision making is paramount to success.
CEO's are paid to think, make key decisions, problem solve and command overall direction.
Simple shit here
I don't disagree CEOs should be paid well. But their increases are not explainable by economics. CEOs on the board vote for raises so that they themselves get raises by their board.
Not sure what the point is but...
CEO's hold one seat of many on a board of directors and they represent one vote. Often times CEO's are founders and or co-founders of X company.
CEO's are typically paid based on profitability and performance. Bonuses are typically paid when predetermined goals are attained.
Again, this seems pointless, we're diluting the real issue.
You don't really care what the CEO is paid you really only care about what Juan, the broom pusher isn't paid...right?
I want Juan the broom pusher to have upward mobility if he works hard.
The board consists of many CEOs. Look at the board for GE. Those CEOs vote for an increase for the GE CEO so they can later use that increase to justify their own increase from their board which is also filled with CEOs.
but if juan was going to school to get a degree in the business he works in, he would have the opportunity to bid on a job opening at a higher pay grade if his schooling set him up to achieve that job. That is fking AMERICA!Not at all. There are just different types of work. Just making the decisions and having everyone else do the physical work is much different. Kinda like playing monopoly. There is a reason why CEOs tend to work till they die and people doing the real work can't wait to retire.
More common delusion from Lefties....If you aren't pushing a broom or digging holes you're overpaid. No value in your education and or intelligence...haha
This is mostly shit you're inherently unable to wrap your head around being a Liberal and all.
Just as in life, quality decision making is paramount to success.
CEO's are paid to think, make key decisions, problem solve and command overall direction.
Simple shit here
I don't disagree CEOs should be paid well. But their increases are not explainable by economics. CEOs on the board vote for raises so that they themselves get raises by their board.
Not sure what the point is but...
CEO's hold one seat of many on a board of directors and they represent one vote. Often times CEO's are founders and or co-founders of X company.
CEO's are typically paid based on profitability and performance. Bonuses are typically paid when predetermined goals are attained.
Again, this seems pointless, we're diluting the real issue.
You don't really care what the CEO is paid you really only care about what Juan, the broom pusher isn't paid...right?
I want Juan the broom pusher to have upward mobility if he works hard.
The board consists of many CEOs. Look at the board for GE. Those CEOs vote for an increase for the GE CEO so they can later use that increase to justify their own increase from their board which is also filled with CEOs.
And Juan the broom pusher has experience pushing a broom, pretty sure you don't want him making too many corporate decisions.
for the record, Obama did not cut taxes, he kept the Bush tax rates in place. You know, the evil Bush tax cuts.
what is the percentage of social spending taking out SS and Medicare?Yes, especially when the right whines about taxes for social spending.What is your definition of work? Based on what you've said is it safe to say work only involves physical labor?
Not at all. There are just different types of work. Just making the decisions and having everyone else do the physical work is much different. Kinda like playing monopoly. There is a reason why CEOs tend to work till they die and people doing the real work can't wait to retire.
More common delusion from Lefties....If you aren't pushing a broom or digging holes you're overpaid. No value in your education and or intelligence...haha
This is mostly shit you're inherently unable to wrap your head around being a Liberal and all.
Just as in life, quality decision making is paramount to success.
CEO's are paid to think, make key decisions, problem solve and command overall direction.
Simple shit here
I don't disagree CEOs should be paid well. But their increases are not explainable by economics. CEOs on the board vote for raises so that they themselves get raises by their board.
Not sure what the point is but...
CEO's hold one seat of many on a board of directors and they represent one vote. Often times CEO's are founders and or co-founders of X company.
CEO's are typically paid based on profitability and performance. Bonuses are typically paid when predetermined goals are attained.
Again, this seems pointless, we're diluting the real issue.
You don't really care what the CEO is paid you really only care about what Juan, the broom pusher isn't paid...right?
raising minimum wage is a job killer. Period.A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.
What happens to all other wages increase an equal percentage above the $15.00? What happens to the worker, now being given $15.00 per hour, in two or five years when they are back on the bottom of the pay schedule and everything that was unaffordable before, is unaffordable again and they need food stamps, etc.?
one wouldn't know that watching your posts in here. You are fking clueless.Well how does one reduce pay inequity?
Well we should put a stop to CEOs giving themselves constant raises I suppose. I'd also like to see corporate taxes used as an incentive to give raises.
So in other words, have government run everything. And you called me a Communist?
And how would a CEO making less help the little guy?
No, the government would run nothing. Because we have corporate taxes now, the government is running those companies? Seriously?
It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone.
Brian, may I ask how old you are and what do you do for work?
Self employed and in 40's to give you a clue. Very well schooled in economics.
job killer, produces the opposite of its intent. you should read a book or two and learn that.Not my favorite idea, but lots of support for an increase in minimum wage, though not to $15.
Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage
A capital gains preference only helps the rich get richer faster, if not used to create Jobs Booms.it has nothing to do with double taxation; income is income that can be taxed at ordinary rates. A capital gains preference should help with full employment or be eliminated.Why have that preference, if not to help the People, with full employment?So you made it up. Surprise, surprise.
I've legally avoided paying capital gains on many properties I've owned by doing 1031 exchanges. When I have sold a property and paid capital gains on the profits, I never once imagined it was for me to hire anyone.
the capital gains tax is to encourage investment in the country. It is also to prevent double taxation since money in investments was already taxed when it was earned.
The Congressional Budget Office has stated categorically that cutting taxes DOES NOT increase employment, and that it does not increase revenues. Revenues went DOWN and unemployment went up when St. Ronnie cut taxes, which is why he subsequently raised them again, he just didn't raise them enough.
why do companies avoid full time workers? obummer fail.It will reduce pay inequality to that extent.A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.Well how does one reduce pay inequity?
A fifteen dollar minimum wage will end pay inequity?
Social services pays out about fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.
There is no reason to subsidize the rich through underpayment of minimum wages.
We are not subsidizing the rich, we are subsidizing the poor. So we increase minimum wage, and instead of the lowlifes working 30 hours a week, they drop down to 20 hours a week to keep their benefits. What was accomplished except allowing the lowlife to work less hours?
Is the worker choosing to cut hours or the employer? Lots of companies use part time and temporary workers to avoid full time pay.
I think we need to get back to full time workers making significantly more than part time and welfare. That creates more pride and incentive to work.
