Not for you me or the govt. to decide. who makes what. GM is a private company, it should succeed or fail without govt. interference. Period. If it goes away someone will fill the void, and build a better product.AussieReaper wrote:
How about Australia's Royal Commission for Consumer Affairs? They often have to deal with CEO pay packets that reward failure and limits into an executives salary are a serious option for failing or fraudulent businesses.lowing wrote:
It does not matter who thought he was worth it. He is under contract with the company and his salary was agreed upon Period. If the company didn't think he was worth it, his offer would reflect it, and he would then have a choice to re-negotiate or refuse.
I did answer your question. Here it is again. He is worth it because he was PAID it. and again I will ask. What govt. agency do you suggest for overseeing "fairness" and greed?
The CEO of GM received how much money?SourceGM paid Wagoner a salary of $1.6 million in 2007, along with $1.8 million in non-equity incentive compensation and nearly $700,000 for other compensation that includes insurance benefits, security, aircraft expenses and other factors.
GM, which reported a record $39 billion net loss in 2007, released the figures in a proxy statement on Friday afternoon that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Did he earn over $1.6 million in 2007, just because his fellow CEO chairman said he did?
GM recorded a loss of $39 billion that year. Money which came from the pockets of the middle class, the investors, the workers, the tax payers...
Surely if you think he "earned" over $3 million a year just because someone else said so, you have no problem with his salary?
More like proof that money is power.
You still haven't answered the important shit lowing. Who do you think spends more money? The rich 2% or the middle and lower class 70% ?lowing wrote:
The rich have nothingto do with our jobs? Just exactly who do you think starts these companies that we all work for? Where do you think the backing for such ventures come from? The poor?oug wrote:
I didn't take it personally, I just pointed out that I - like most of us - belong to the middle class. Which spends a lot more than the 2% of rich people in the world. Do you honestly believe that 2% of people spend more than the other 70%?
Btw I didn't get that "CHARGE" bit... sounded like an accusation. Care to explain?
Also, the rich have nothing to do with our jobs, the poor are not poor only because of bad management, and the rich don't cover anybody's tab.
And btw. First you say that if one works hard enough he can start his own business and make money, then you say that you need to be rich beforehand in order to create a company that's successful. Which is it?
Face it lowing. In this day and age, 99% of the times you need money to make money. And the latter tends to over-concentrate on those who already have plenty more than they'll ever need. Unregulated capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small elite. The system is essentially slowly destroying itself from the inside. It is vital for the prosperity of a capitalist society that there be certain rules of wealth redistribution so that a balance is achieved between the haves and the have-nots. The extremes of the scale, be it stinking rich or dirt-poor need to be minimized as much as possible. The system of government needs to favor the creation and maintenance of a strong and as big as possible a middle class.
ƒ³
Well since the poor by definition have no money, I will go out on a limb and say the rich spend more.oug wrote:
You still haven't answered the important shit lowing. Who do you think spends more money? The rich 2% or the middle and lower class 70% ?lowing wrote:
The rich have nothingto do with our jobs? Just exactly who do you think starts these companies that we all work for? Where do you think the backing for such ventures come from? The poor?oug wrote:
I didn't take it personally, I just pointed out that I - like most of us - belong to the middle class. Which spends a lot more than the 2% of rich people in the world. Do you honestly believe that 2% of people spend more than the other 70%?
Btw I didn't get that "CHARGE" bit... sounded like an accusation. Care to explain?
Also, the rich have nothing to do with our jobs, the poor are not poor only because of bad management, and the rich don't cover anybody's tab.
And btw. First you say that if one works hard enough he can start his own business and make money, then you say that you need to be rich beforehand in order to create a company that's successful. Which is it?
Face it lowing. In this day and age, 99% of the times you need money to make money. And the latter tends to over-concentrate on those who already have plenty more than they'll ever need. Unregulated capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small elite. The system is essentially slowly destroying itself from the inside. It is vital for the prosperity of a capitalist society that there be certain rules of wealth redistribution so that a balance is achieved between the haves and the have-nots. The extremes of the scale, be it stinking rich or dirt-poor need to be minimized as much as possible. The system of government needs to favor the creation and maintenance of a strong and as big as possible a middle class.
I have answered your question pound for pound, the rich spend more, and generate more. Given 100,000 rich people and 100,000 middle class and poor, the rich spend more, and create more opportunity for the rest of us.
So what if you need money to make money, or are you oblivious to the notion that one could start out small and grow bigger over time?
Govt. is never the solution for anything, it never has been and never will be. Take the govt. controlled post office. Look at the head start it had in America, now compare it to the private sector companies UPS and Fed EX. Nothing more really needs to be said about govt. efficiency and control.
Your avoiding the question. Did the GM CEO "earn" that money?lowing wrote:
Not for you me or the govt. to decide. who makes what. GM is a private company, it should succeed or fail without govt. interference. Period. If it goes away someone will fill the void, and build a better product.AussieReaper wrote:
How about Australia's Royal Commission for Consumer Affairs? They often have to deal with CEO pay packets that reward failure and limits into an executives salary are a serious option for failing or fraudulent businesses.lowing wrote:
It does not matter who thought he was worth it. He is under contract with the company and his salary was agreed upon Period. If the company didn't think he was worth it, his offer would reflect it, and he would then have a choice to re-negotiate or refuse.
I did answer your question. Here it is again. He is worth it because he was PAID it. and again I will ask. What govt. agency do you suggest for overseeing "fairness" and greed?
The CEO of GM received how much money?SourceGM paid Wagoner a salary of $1.6 million in 2007, along with $1.8 million in non-equity incentive compensation and nearly $700,000 for other compensation that includes insurance benefits, security, aircraft expenses and other factors.
GM, which reported a record $39 billion net loss in 2007, released the figures in a proxy statement on Friday afternoon that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Did he earn over $1.6 million in 2007, just because his fellow CEO chairman said he did?
GM recorded a loss of $39 billion that year. Money which came from the pockets of the middle class, the investors, the workers, the tax payers...
Surely if you think he "earned" over $3 million a year just because someone else said so, you have no problem with his salary?
It's really simple to answer. Guess you don't want to? I'm not asking you whether the company should succeed or fail, we're talking about this millionaire and his salary. Which you've said if he made millions he deserved millions. I found that assumption laughable.
It is a dumb question, you are expecting someone, other than the person offered a million dollars and the person offering a million dollars to decide if he is worth a million dollars. He obviously is worth it to the ones offering it.AussieReaper wrote:
Your avoiding the question. Did the GM CEO "earn" that money?lowing wrote:
Not for you me or the govt. to decide. who makes what. GM is a private company, it should succeed or fail without govt. interference. Period. If it goes away someone will fill the void, and build a better product.AussieReaper wrote:
How about Australia's Royal Commission for Consumer Affairs? They often have to deal with CEO pay packets that reward failure and limits into an executives salary are a serious option for failing or fraudulent businesses.
The CEO of GM received how much money?
Source
Did he earn over $1.6 million in 2007, just because his fellow CEO chairman said he did?
GM recorded a loss of $39 billion that year. Money which came from the pockets of the middle class, the investors, the workers, the tax payers...
Surely if you think he "earned" over $3 million a year just because someone else said so, you have no problem with his salary?
It's really simple to answer. Guess you don't want to? I'm not asking you whether the company should succeed or fail, we're talking about this millionaire and his salary. Which you've said if he made millions he deserved millions. I found that assumption laughable.
I wouldn't give 5 cents for VW microbus, but there are those out there that love them and consider them priceless. To them it is worth every penny.
A CEO to you may not be worth much, but a CEO to a multi billion dollar company may find him quite valuable. Thus he is worth it TO THEM, and has earned it. The govt. has no place deciding worth in the private sector, and I might add, neither do you.
A ball player earns a bizillion dollars a year for catching or hitting a ball, is he worth it? not to me, but to a major league team that thinks they can profit from him might. will you allow this same govt. agency to cap athletes as well?
Last edited by lowing (2009-05-19 21:46:58)
Oh good, so we're agreed. You don't have to be worth a million dollars to earn it.lowing wrote:
A ball player earns a bizillion dollars a year for catching or hitting a ball, is he worth it? not to me...
So then you can understand that not everyone who has a million dollars has actually earned that much or is worth it?
Because that's been your whole argument why not to tax the rich, because boo-hoo it's taking away money they earned and obviously they deserved it.
Middle class is the backbone of a country. Lowing, I know you hate the idea of wealth redistribution. It's not like hey here's some free money coz your poor lulz. It's more like balancing things giving the lower class a better leg being successful. Why do you think so many teens in the ghetto turn to crime? It's coz they can earn way more selling crack than having a job.
no it's not... selling drugs and stealing is easier than having a job and working... the easy buck...Cybargs wrote:
Middle class is the backbone of a country. Lowing, I know you hate the idea of wealth redistribution. It's not like hey here's some free money coz your poor lulz. It's more like balancing things giving the lower class a better leg being successful. Why do you think so many teens in the ghetto turn to crime? It's coz they can earn way more selling crack than having a job.
Love is the answer
That's may point... You make more hustling than anything else. If the education system is a shitload better and, thus giving them a chance at better jobs. Of course there is still gonna be drug and theft, but it'll be lower.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
no it's not... selling drugs and stealing is easier than having a job and working... the easy buck...Cybargs wrote:
Middle class is the backbone of a country. Lowing, I know you hate the idea of wealth redistribution. It's not like hey here's some free money coz your poor lulz. It's more like balancing things giving the lower class a better leg being successful. Why do you think so many teens in the ghetto turn to crime? It's coz they can earn way more selling crack than having a job.
The phrase "don't count your chickens....." really comes to mind.lowing wrote:
The phrase " the writting is on the wall" comes to mind. But again don't let the obvious steam roll ya.Bertster7 wrote:
'Cos that's completely the same isn't it?lowing wrote:
ok so when you fall off of a high rise I will not call you a dead man until you have been "analysed" and determined to be so just cuz, ya never know
I can't say I'm surprised by this kind of naivety and disregard for facts from you though.
The way you take an incomplete dataset and claim it is incontrovertable proof for your beliefs is laughable. It is possible that total revenues for the year in that bracket could exceed last years - you can't tell till the end of the year (admittedly that would be exceptionally unlikely - but is still possible). It's not like quarterly profit reports for businesses, which are far more meaningful than any of this.
No we do not agree.AussieReaper wrote:
Oh good, so we're agreed. You don't have to be worth a million dollars to earn it.lowing wrote:
A ball player earns a bizillion dollars a year for catching or hitting a ball, is he worth it? not to me...
So then you can understand that not everyone who has a million dollars has actually earned that much or is worth it?
Because that's been your whole argument why not to tax the rich, because boo-hoo it's taking away money they earned and obviously they deserved it.
A ball player is not worth a million dollars TO ME. HE obviously is to a baseball team. and in THEIR eyes ( the only eyes that count since it is their money) he is earning his million. You are eluding the fact that it is not your job my job or the govts. job to establish worth on individuals or positions. The market does this not govt.
and my argument is not that taxing the rich is "boo hoo" taking money away that they earn and deserve. My argument is you want to punish the rich for no other reason than because they have the money for you to take. Totally disregarding the fact that they already pay way more than their FAIR share in taxes and carry the burden of the majority of the tax bill in this our country.
You endorse punishing achievement and rewarding mediocrity.
The rich take huge risks ( build and grow businesses) with their money for one reason, a huge pay-off. I am sure they have no intention of doing so simply to give you the money those risks cultivate.
Last edited by lowing (2009-05-20 05:23:03)
The market is not perfect. Even a failing baseball team or failing car manufacturer can pay outrageously for someone who you've said it not worth millions to you. The market is not fair to you, me, or anyone else. That is pure capitalism at work.lowing wrote:
No we do not agree.AussieReaper wrote:
Oh good, so we're agreed. You don't have to be worth a million dollars to earn it.lowing wrote:
A ball player earns a bizillion dollars a year for catching or hitting a ball, is he worth it? not to me...
So then you can understand that not everyone who has a million dollars has actually earned that much or is worth it?
Because that's been your whole argument why not to tax the rich, because boo-hoo it's taking away money they earned and obviously they deserved it.
A ball player is not worth a million dollars TO ME. HE obviously is to a baseball team. and in THEIR eyes ( the only eyes that count since it is their money) he is earning his million. You are eluding the fact that it is not your job my job or the govts. job to establish worth on individuals or positions. The market does this not govt.
How can you find it acceptable that people who earn more what they are worth get it so easy, while hard working individuals earn meagre incomes?
Taxes make it fairer. Re-distribution of wealth makes it fairer. The top 3% of income holders owning 90% of the wealth is not fair no matter how you try to justify it, simply because the pure market capitalist system is designed that way.
I edited above.AussieReaper wrote:
The market is not perfect. Even a failing baseball team or failing car manufacturer can pay outrageously for someone who you've said it not worth millions to you. The market is not fair to you, me, or anyone else. That is pure capitalism at work.lowing wrote:
No we do not agree.AussieReaper wrote:
Oh good, so we're agreed. You don't have to be worth a million dollars to earn it.
So then you can understand that not everyone who has a million dollars has actually earned that much or is worth it?
Because that's been your whole argument why not to tax the rich, because boo-hoo it's taking away money they earned and obviously they deserved it.
A ball player is not worth a million dollars TO ME. HE obviously is to a baseball team. and in THEIR eyes ( the only eyes that count since it is their money) he is earning his million. You are eluding the fact that it is not your job my job or the govts. job to establish worth on individuals or positions. The market does this not govt.
How can you find it acceptable that people who earn more what they are worth get it so easy, while hard working individuals earn meagre incomes?
Taxes make it fairer. Re-distribution of wealth makes it fairer. The top 3% of income holders owning 90% of the wealth is not fair no matter how you try to justify it, simply because the pure market capitalist system is designed that way.
Sighhhhhhhhh, like I said, I do not determain anyones worth, and I do not want you or the govt. holding such power.
A stripper makes more than a teacher. Is she worth it. Obviously our society says yes and so does the market. Where is your outrage?
It is not the govts job to tax for wealth redistribution. It ia their job to tax to support our countries infrastructure and national defense.
I love your system of fairness. Having money is greedy unfair, stealing it is "fair".
The market is not perfect. Your example of a stripper making more than a teacher is a fine example of this.lowing wrote:
I edited above.
Sighhhhhhhhh, like I said, I do not determain anyones worth, and I do not want you or the govt. holding such power.
A stripper makes more than a teacher. Is she worth it. Obviously our society says yes and so does the market. Where is your outrage?
It is not the govts job to tax for wealth redistribution. It ia their job to tax to support our countries infrastructure and national defense.
I love your system of fairness. Having money is greedy unfair, stealing it is "fair".
Are you happy that a stripper makes more than a teacher?
Supporting the countries infrastructure and national defense means taxing the stripper so that the teacher can teach law and science to the engineers and teach maths to the missile programmers.
Unless you would rather see the stripper get paid more...?
Having money isn't greedy and unfair. Not having equal opportunities, not having money because your in the "middle bracket" or below is unfair.
Unless you can tell me how exactly a stripper helps the national defense and supports the infrastructure of your country, I would rather see a wealthy stripper taxed and that money given to the struggling teacher.
That can easily be explained with the stripper getting his/her money from horny spectators and teachers getting their money from tax money. That is to say, taxes are not only needed, they need to be distributed in a way that the quality of public schooling is increased and teachers not having to resort to stripping on their spare time, but rather feel more self worth in their primary vocation.lowing wrote:
A stripper makes more than a teacher. Is she worth it. Obviously our society says yes and so does the market. Where is your outrage?
Lol. I won't even begin to explain this to you.lowing wrote:
It is not the govts job to tax for wealth redistribution. It ia their job to tax to support our countries infrastructure and national defense.
I need around tree fiddy.
THe market is perfect. The stripper maks more because our society has seen fit to place a naked woman as being worth more than a teacher. Society decided this, the market decided this. If stripping didn't pay, there would be less strippers and strip clubs.AussieReaper wrote:
The market is not perfect. Your example of a stripper making more than a teacher is a fine example of this.lowing wrote:
I edited above.
Sighhhhhhhhh, like I said, I do not determain anyones worth, and I do not want you or the govt. holding such power.
A stripper makes more than a teacher. Is she worth it. Obviously our society says yes and so does the market. Where is your outrage?
It is not the govts job to tax for wealth redistribution. It ia their job to tax to support our countries infrastructure and national defense.
I love your system of fairness. Having money is greedy unfair, stealing it is "fair".
Are you happy that a stripper makes more than a teacher?
Supporting the countries infrastructure and national defense means taxing the stripper so that the teacher can teach law and science to the engineers and teach maths to the missile programmers.
Unless you would rather see the stripper get paid more...?
Having money isn't greedy and unfair. Not having equal opportunities, not having money because your in the "middle bracket" or below is unfair.
Unless you can tell me how exactly a stripper helps the national defense and supports the infrastructure of your country, I would rather see a wealthy stripper taxed and that money given to the struggling teacher.
I do not care that a stripper makes more than a teacher. This is where individualism comes in. Regardless as to the pay, we still have plenty of teachers. Those that became teachers did so knowing what it was going to pay, knowing it was going to pay less that stripping, yet they still made a free choice. Go figure.
When you take the money away from that stripper, and give it ot the teacher, you are not supporting any infrastructure or national defense you are restributing wealth based on what and who YOU think is most deserving. This is not YOUR job nor is it the govts job.
I support equal opportunity, I however do not support, forced equal results. It is govt. interferance. and like my post office example, govt. is not the solution for anything.
Last edited by lowing (2009-05-20 05:45:42)
If strippers didn't earn as much, how would hot young girls make it through college? Also, if they were paid less, hot girls wouldn't be encouraged to take their clothes off, and this would be a Bad Thing.
How can you say the market is perfect while the country is in recession?Faces massive debt to China. Your children and theirs will be paying off this debt for decades to come, "perfect" huh?
He'll blame it on the dems.AussieReaper wrote:
How can you say the market is perfect while the country is in recession?
The market is sick
I need around tree fiddy.
Uhhhhhhhhh because Obama is spending money we do not have?AussieReaper wrote:
How can you say the market is perfect while the country is in recession?Faces massive debt to China. Your children and theirs will be paying off this debt for decades to come, "perfect" huh?
and yes the market is perfect. It breathes, it moves up and down, in and out, constantly adjusting and seeking balance unless of course govt. decides it can make it "better" by interfering in it.
DonFck wrote:
He'll blame it on the dems.
lol donnie.lowing wrote:
Uhhhhhhhhh because Obama is spending money we do not have?
It is not perfect and never will be when the trickle down effect is nothing more than the rich pissing on the poor.lowing wrote:
and yes the market is perfect. It breathes, it moves up and down, in and out, constantly adjusting and seeking balance unless of course govt. decides it can make it "better" by interfering in it.
1. Still plenty of teachers out there, why would you pay them more when they are already teaching for their current salaries. ( my wife is a teacher by the way). Supply and demand at work.DonFck wrote:
That can easily be explained with the stripper getting his/her money from horny spectators and teachers getting their money from tax money. That is to say, taxes are not only needed, they need to be distributed in a way that the quality of public schooling is increased and teachers not having to resort to stripping on their spare time, but rather feel more self worth in their primary vocation.lowing wrote:
A stripper makes more than a teacher. Is she worth it. Obviously our society says yes and so does the market. Where is your outrage?Lol. I won't even begin to explain this to you.lowing wrote:
It is not the govts job to tax for wealth redistribution. It ia their job to tax to support our countries infrastructure and national defense.
2. ha ha good. Because I do not want to hear your socialist views on what govt. should be doing with my money. In America, it is simply not the govts job to determain worth or collect wealth for redistribution.
Last edited by lowing (2009-05-20 07:36:29)
Obama has spent more than all other presidents combined ( in barley 100 days), with hardly any of that spending going toward "fixing" the economy. don't shoot the messenger.AussieReaper wrote:
DonFck wrote:
He'll blame it on the dems.lol donnie.lowing wrote:
Uhhhhhhhhh because Obama is spending money we do not have?It is not perfect and never will be when the trickle down effect is nothing more than the rich pissing on the poor.lowing wrote:
and yes the market is perfect. It breathes, it moves up and down, in and out, constantly adjusting and seeking balance unless of course govt. decides it can make it "better" by interfering in it.
The rich do not piss on the poor. The rich are very generous with their money. You just can't stand the fact that it is THEIR money, when I guess you think you are the one, or the poor, that has really earned it.
I'm sorry, but this is utterly dense, and lowing is spot on.AussieReaper wrote:
The market is not perfect. Even a failing baseball team or failing car manufacturer can pay outrageously for someone who you've said it not worth millions to you. The market is not fair to you, me, or anyone else. That is pure capitalism at work.lowing wrote:
No we do not agree.AussieReaper wrote:
Oh good, so we're agreed. You don't have to be worth a million dollars to earn it.
So then you can understand that not everyone who has a million dollars has actually earned that much or is worth it?
Because that's been your whole argument why not to tax the rich, because boo-hoo it's taking away money they earned and obviously they deserved it.
A ball player is not worth a million dollars TO ME. HE obviously is to a baseball team. and in THEIR eyes ( the only eyes that count since it is their money) he is earning his million. You are eluding the fact that it is not your job my job or the govts. job to establish worth on individuals or positions. The market does this not govt.
How can you find it acceptable that people who earn more what they are worth get it so easy, while hard working individuals earn meagre incomes?
Taxes make it fairer. Re-distribution of wealth makes it fairer. The top 3% of income holders owning 90% of the wealth is not fair no matter how you try to justify it, simply because the pure market capitalist system is designed that way.
Yes, it does.AussieReaper wrote:
Lowing, does earning a million pa mean that an individual has worked to earn exactly one million? Otherwise he didn't earn it fairly.
Every single dollar of any legal income is "deserved". Money doesn't care who you are, what you do, or what you did to get it. Money changes hands, and it only legally changes hands if both parties agree to the terms of the transaction. These terms are the only defining criteria for whether or not income is deserved.AussieReaper wrote:
Your avoiding the question. Did the GM CEO "earn" that money?
It's really simple to answer. Guess you don't want to? I'm not asking you whether the company should succeed or fail, we're talking about this millionaire and his salary. Which you've said if he made millions he deserved millions. I found that assumption laughable.
If you buy a GM vehicle, the dealership earns your money. GM in turn earns the money that the dealership paid for the vehicle. GM employees then, regardless of their salaries, earn the compensation stipulated in their contractual agreements with the company, as well as any other rewards that they may receive. If you don't like the way GM compensates its employees, you're free to buy a vehicle from another manufacturer, but as long as GM makes money, GM is free to choose what to do with it. You might think that GM executives don't "deserve" their incomes, but luckily GM can do what they want with their money, just like you can do what you want with yours. That's the very definition of "fairness".
What an employee is "worth" is up to whoever pays that employee, not up to what you think. I think this is what you fail to understand. If you don't find it acceptable, then you can choose to avoid supporting the entity paying the salary, but as long as enough people are willing to support the entity, the entity can keep paying the salary, and there's absolutely nothing "unfair" about it.AussieReaper wrote:
How can you find it acceptable that people who earn more what they are worth get it so easy, while hard working individuals earn meagre incomes?
There's a very simple answer to this. It has nothing to do with "working better". It has to do with the salary you negotiate. If a man negotiates a $20/hour salary, then every hour that man works is worth $20. If a woman negotiates a $15/hour salary for doing the same job, then obviously the woman failed to negotiate a salary equal to that of her peer, but decided to take the job anyway. Once she signs the contract, then every hour of her work is worth $15. It really is that simple.AussieReaper wrote:
You should know very well that there is disparity between a females wages and a males. If I woman can't make as much as a man, even when she has worked identical to the man, what makes you think a millionaire has worked a hundred times better than someone who made $10 thousand for the year?
Sorry, but no. It is your belief that the financial "worth" of a unit of work is determined by the effort involved that is flawed.AussieReaper wrote:
Your belief that they have worked to earn a million a year is flawed as soon as you believe they worked hard to earn it while someone could work harder and make nowhere near that figure.
Yes it is. Money is incapable of being unfair. Redistributing wealth acquired through legal means by mutual agreement for the sake of equal distribution is by definition "unfair" to the faith that both the transactions between GM and their executives, and the transactions between you and your employer are done in.AussieReaper wrote:
Taxes make it fairer. Re-distribution of wealth makes it fairer. The top 3% of income holders owning 90% of the wealth is not fair no matter how you try to justify it, simply because the pure market capitalist system is designed that way.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-05-20 09:25:32)