50 replies to this topic

[Alias]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:

Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:52, said:

Abolishing the tax on the wealthy elements of society means cutting funding for social programmes, or making up the lost revenue in other taxes.

To pay for services that wealthy people do not use (mostly, slight generalisation there, but you get the point). So why should the wealthy pay more for it than others? How is that fair?

A homeless man wants AND needs a roof over his head. You only WANT a new car. You don't NEED one. There's a big difference.

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:

Whether I am a millionaire or not is irrelevant. I earn pretty damn good money, and God willing, will continue to do so. Why should that money, that I earn, go to pay for everyone else when I've earnt it? I don't mind paying for a National Health Service, or the police, or education, but I do mind paying for people who are unemployable and want-to-be-unemployable. So my point still stands, why should I pay more?

Some people don't have a choice if they're unemployed. You're making a sweeping generalisation.

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:58, said:

I think you're kind of missing the point. The point is that if all economic growth of a country is being poured into the top ten percent and everybody else gets less, a country's economic situation is said to be unsound in that it gets close to slavery.

But it's not though. The disparity is in the proportions of top and bottom, not the total amount spent. Mr Fatcat gets x bonus, Mr Average gets x bonus divided by the number of other people on his pay grade. It costs more to employ people than a person.

Enjoy your bonus, paid by the taxpayer. Sounds awfully fair to me.

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:00, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 19:45, said:

You try and convince 'everyone' that they will never be in the 4% some day and that those policies will never apply to them. Also, the conservatives don't favour the richers classes, they favour free enterprise and capitalism, allowing business to make money, which in turn produces more money for everyone, proportionally of course.

Key word here is business. People aren't making money. The greedy corporations that employ people are making money while the rest of the world suffers.

Ofc people are making money. If they aren't making money it has nothing to do with wages but lifestyle. If you spend more than you earn you'll be poor. If you spend less you'll make money. Money makes money. In a Capitalist system this is how it works.

The problem is it goes to all the wrong people. I'm sure you'd be rather pissed if your boss got five raises in the time you got none.

Edited by Alias, 20 April 2010 - 10:19.

[Shirou]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 12:06, said:

Whether I am a millionaire or not is irrelevant. I earn pretty damn good money, and God willing, will continue to do so. Why should that money, that I earn, go to pay for everyone else when I've earnt it? I don't mind paying for a National Health Service, or the police, or education, but I do mind paying for people who are unemployable and want-to-be-unemployable. So my point still stands, why should I pay more?

Theres a difference between earning and earning. Say you were a CEO of a big bank and you earn 2 million annually and get a 1.5 million bonus. You'd state that it is money that you earned yourself and thus the state can't take away more from it relatively than from poorer people.

However I would state it is ridiculous in the first place that a CEO would earn so many and thus I feel its more justified to take more from him as well. Relatively the CEO does less work for much more money, so I would relatively take more taxes from it. CEO's didnt fucking earn so much money. They didnt setup a company in a market niche and benefited from it by theirselves. The competence required for running a very large company is significant but it doesn't justify the need to pay multi million bonuses ''otherwise they won't come to the company''.

Quote

Actually that wouldn't be correct either. The number of employees taking salary and benefits from the corporation would outstrip the benefits of the top person. If the CEO's salary and benefits were greater than the total of the staff beneath him (including long term pension contributions and health care in vastly larger quantity) then I suspect that the company wouldn't last long due to poor mismanagement and bankruptcy.

Edit: that makes more sense.

This doesnt make sense at all. This makes an employee look like less of a person because he is only part of the employees-layer. Because there are more employees than CEO's doesnt mean the CEO should earn a god damn truckload of money. I agree there has to be some difference but its just too disproportionate.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 20 April 2010 - 10:24.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:18, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:

Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:52, said:

Abolishing the tax on the wealthy elements of society means cutting funding for social programmes, or making up the lost revenue in other taxes.

To pay for services that wealthy people do not use (mostly, slight generalisation there, but you get the point). So why should the wealthy pay more for it than others? How is that fair?

A homeless man wants AND needs a roof over his head. You only WANT a new car. You don't NEED one. There's a big difference.

So why doesn't everyone else pay the exact same amount to help this poor homeless man? This is about as equitable as it gets.

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:18, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:

Whether I am a millionaire or not is irrelevant. I earn pretty damn good money, and God willing, will continue to do so. Why should that money, that I earn, go to pay for everyone else when I've earnt it? I don't mind paying for a National Health Service, or the police, or education, but I do mind paying for people who are unemployable and want-to-be-unemployable. So my point still stands, why should I pay more?

Some people don't have a choice if they're unemployed. You're making a sweeping generalisation.

It is the people who do have a choice that I object paying for, which I clearly said.

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:18, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:58, said:

I think you're kind of missing the point. The point is that if all economic growth of a country is being poured into the top ten percent and everybody else gets less, a country's economic situation is said to be unsound in that it gets close to slavery.

But it's not though. The disparity is in the proportions of top and bottom, not the total amount spent. Mr Fatcat gets x bonus, Mr Average gets x bonus divided by the number of other people on his pay grade. It costs more to employ people than a person.

Enjoy your bonus, paid by the taxpayer. Sounds awfully fair to me.

Everything is paid for by the tax payer, be it through taxes or personal/private spending. In fairness I'd rather people had that money than the government. They would just spend it on a quango to decide if the lesser spotted blue breasted titmouse is in danger of alcoholism.

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:18, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:00, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 19:45, said:

You try and convince 'everyone' that they will never be in the 4% some day and that those policies will never apply to them. Also, the conservatives don't favour the richers classes, they favour free enterprise and capitalism, allowing business to make money, which in turn produces more money for everyone, proportionally of course.

Key word here is business. People aren't making money. The greedy corporations that employ people are making money while the rest of the world suffers.

Ofc people are making money. If they aren't making money it has nothing to do with wages but lifestyle. If you spend more than you earn you'll be poor. If you spend less you'll make money. Money makes money. In a Capitalist system this is how it works.

The problem is it goes to all the wrong people. I'm sure you'd be rather pissed if your boss got five raises in the time you got none.

My boss owns the company, he can take as many rises and bonuses as he likes as he brings in the (bulk) of the money. You are also forgetting that it is ultimately very rare that the boss gets a bonus and everyone else doesn't. The bonuses are just proportional to pay grade. I have never had a situation whereby I didn't get a bonus and my boss did.

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:20, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 12:06, said:

Whether I am a millionaire or not is irrelevant. I earn pretty damn good money, and God willing, will continue to do so. Why should that money, that I earn, go to pay for everyone else when I've earnt it? I don't mind paying for a National Health Service, or the police, or education, but I do mind paying for people who are unemployable and want-to-be-unemployable. So my point still stands, why should I pay more?

Theres a difference between earning and earning. Say you were a CEO of a big bank and you earn 2 million annually and get a 1.5 million bonus. You'd state that it is money that you earned yourself and thus the state can't take away more from it relatively than from poorer people.

However I would state it is ridiculous in the first place that a CEO would earn so many and thus I feel its more justified to take more from him as well. Relatively the CEO does less work for much more money, so I would relatively take more taxes from it. CEO's didnt fucking earn so much money. They didnt setup a company in a market niche and benefited from it by theirselves. The competence required for running a very large company is significant but it doesn't justify the need to pay multi million bonuses ''otherwise they won't come to the company''.

Why not? He is in charge of what goes on, will 99/100 make a decision that earns the company more money. Why is he not entitled to receive compensation representative of his stature within the company?

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:20, said:

Quote

Actually that wouldn't be correct either. The number of employees taking salary and benefits from the corporation would outstrip the benefits of the top person. If the CEO's salary and benefits were greater than the total of the staff beneath him (including long term pension contributions and health care in vastly larger quantity) then I suspect that the company wouldn't last long due to poor mismanagement and bankruptcy.

Edit: that makes more sense.

This doesnt make sense at all. This makes an employee look like less of a person because he is only part of the employees-layer. Because there are more employees than CEO's doesnt mean the CEO should earn a god damn truckload of money. I agree there has to be some difference but its just too disproportionate.

So who says what is proportionate? Once you start saying that business is no longer business and a new can of worms is opened.

[Alias]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:

So why doesn't everyone else pay the exact same amount to help this poor homeless man? This is about as equitable as it gets.

Arguably you could say you are paying the same amount as everyone else to help the homeless man. It's just the people who pay more taxes help more homeless men.

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:

It is the people who do have a choice that I object paying for, which I clearly said.

You said "unemployable", that's a pretty wide term. I'm sure someone with cerebral palsy wouldn't mind working for their money, if they were actually able to.

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:

My boss owns the company, he can take as many rises and bonuses as he likes as he brings in the (bulk) of the money. You are also forgetting that it is ultimately very rare that the boss gets a bonus and everyone else doesn't. The bonuses are just proportional to pay grade. I have never had a situation whereby I didn't get a bonus and my boss did.

You're the exception then, judging by the graphs.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:

So why doesn't everyone else pay the exact same amount to help this poor homeless man? This is about as equitable as it gets.

Arguably you could say you are paying the same amount as everyone else to help the homeless man. It's just the people who pay more taxes help more homeless men.

If taxes where flat then fine, I would be not only be paying more than most, being above the average income, but would theorectically help more, which is fine. But my point is, why should I have to contribute a larger percentage of my wages? Paying more than someone else is fine, if I earn more, if the proportions are the same.

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:

It is the people who do have a choice that I object paying for, which I clearly said.

You said "unemployable", that's a pretty wide term. I'm sure someone with cerebral palsy wouldn't mind working for their money, if they were actually able to.

I will let you have that point, however, I was not referring to those who are physically incapable. Only those who are bone idle and fucking useless. A good reference to my thoughts can be found in this post.

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:

My boss owns the company, he can take as many rises and bonuses as he likes as he brings in the (bulk) of the money. You are also forgetting that it is ultimately very rare that the boss gets a bonus and everyone else doesn't. The bonuses are just proportional to pay grade. I have never had a situation whereby I didn't get a bonus and my boss did.

You're the exception then, judging by the graphs.

As I said to Chyros on MSN very recently, those graphs do not tell the actual picture. In real terms people do not earn less. There are no paycuts, and if they are, it is usually because a company is performing so badly the whole employment base suffers. The graphs show that there are more low paid jobs, not that a person in a job will earn less than last year. Which can probably be traced to more people wanting work than jobs available.

[Shirou]

Bad performing US banks don't really let their management suffer, nor have I seen much other big corporation do such thing due to the crisis. You haven't given a sound explanation for why the proportionate rise in pay for CEO's and the profits of corporations is much higher than the actual payrise of the workers.

I have always learned that normal average loans should rise in check with inflation. I admit I haven't studied any economics but a comparison of the given graphs with inflation should clear some things up.

Here:

.

I don't know if I am reading this right, but if this is about the yearly rises in payments and profits, I am. You can clearly see workers are on 4.3 percent now which is probably close to inflation. No harm said there, didn't say average people were deliberately cut. However every year these lines continue to be high, the gap between the rich and the rest will grow. In an equal society where every bonus and rise is relative to income, the CEO and worker lines should run parallel. However, corporations increasing profits contributes to the CEO's increasing loans being much, much higher, and the workers lones just staying down the low. America has become wealthier, but only the rich have profited. Integrate and compare the surface of the graph below the CEO line and that of the workers line, adjust for inflation, and there you go, there is your ever increasing gap.

It may be one of the inherently unfair features of capitalism, but the proportions are in my opinion just off.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 20 April 2010 - 12:14.

[Wizard]

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 13:11, said:

.

This graph indicates the disparity in manual labour and corporate (most likely, financial sector) CEOs. The two cannot be compared as they generate universally different profits and work in totally separate economies of scale. Also, look at the HUGE dip in CEO pay at the beginning of the noughties! D: Workers did not suffer in the same manner there.

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 13:11, said:

You haven't given a sound explanation for why the proportionate rise in pay for CEO's and the profits of corporations is much higher than the actual payrise of the workers.

Tbh no one has convinced me of a good reason why there shouldn't be the gap. However, we could start with experience and knowledge being considerably more prolific in the CEO group in terms of running a business, maintaining a corporate structure, sustaining profit, forging business deals, man management, accumulation of contacts, and that is without the CEO's actual knowledge of how to do the job of say, banking. Manual labour, and I mean, real manual labour, factory production lines, cleaners, farm workers, etc do not require the same levels of knowledge. Ergo they do not receive the same levels of remuneration.

Edited by Wizard, 20 April 2010 - 12:31.

[CodeCat]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 12:47, said:

If taxes where flat then fine, I would be not only be paying more than most, being above the average income, but would theorectically help more, which is fine. But my point is, why should I have to contribute a larger percentage of my wages? Paying more than someone else is fine, if I earn more, if the proportions are the same.

If you need 500 a month to make a bare living and you earn 500, then 10% might just cause you to spiral into debt, or worse. On the other hand, if you earn 5000, then you can easily lose 50% of that with no problem, since even with 50% of your income you still have 5 times more than the minimum needed to survive.

The strongest shoulders must bear the heaviest loads, because the weak shoulders crumble under the weight.

Edited by CodeCat, 20 April 2010 - 20:41.

[Wizard]

CodeCat, on 20 Apr 2010, 21:40, said:

If you need 500 a month to make a bare living and you earn 500, then 10% might just cause you to spiral into debt, or worse. On the other hand, if you earn 5000, then you can easily lose 50% of that with no problem, since even with 50% of your income you still have 5 times more than the minimum needed to survive.

The strongest shoulders must bear the heaviest loads, because the weak shoulders crumble under the weight.

How is that really my problem? Listen, I am all for compassion for my fellow man, but if you aren't making enough to not spiral into debt that is your problem and that person needs to make the arrangements to cut back on their lifestyle, not tax me more because of it.

Edited by Wizard, 21 April 2010 - 11:11.

[CodeCat]

You're assuming there is a way out for everyone, but that's a very naive way of thinking. And in economic policy, naivety can ruin lives. For many people, the only way to cut back is to die. Not a very enticing option.

[Wizard]

When you are at the "stage" you have the welfare state (in the UK anyway).

Tax banded systems are disproportionately unfair to those who earn more, not in extreme cases, such as CEOs who make millions a year, something to which I still consider them to be entitled to if they have reached the position, but to people in the middle banding. Those who just make it over the specific thresholds. A single, flat level tax on earnings is the fairest way to do it.

[Alias]

You keep on saying that yet there are 15 graphs proving you wrong...

[Wizard]

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:14, said:

You keep on saying that yet there are 15 graphs proving you wrong...

Yes, we needed graphs to tell me that the those that are paid more money, earn more money than the lowest paid.

What no one has yet, imo, clearly demonstrated is why it should be different? All people have done is say that it's unfair that people earn more money than others.

[Alias]

No, we say it is unfair that you somehow expect a poor lower class man working 7 days a week in a factory just to support his dying grandmother to pull as much of a load as a stockbroker who works 3 days a week and earns ten times that of the factory worker.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:23, said:

No, we say it is unfair that you somehow expect a poor lower class man working 7 days a week in a factory just to support his dying grandmother to pull as much of a load as a stockbroker who works 3 days a week and earns ten times that of the factory worker.

What about the 16 year old factory worker who lives at home with his parents who does nothing with his money but buy drugs and video games, as opposed to the 55 year old stock broker who has 4 children, a housewife and a massive mortgage, all kids in University, earns more than the means tested allowance and has to pay to put them all through uni. Does he deserve to pay more tax than the youngster?

[Alias]

On the proviso he earns more money, yes.
My family is above the means tested allowance by a very small margin. We are also in the highest tax bracket (45%). We also have a mortgage but we pull through fine, even though my father has been unemployed for the last 6 months. I live next to a 'lower class' suburb and there are plenty of kids there who I would say roll with the wrong crowd. I'm sure a substantial proportion of them use drugs. They will mostly be in the lowest tax bracket, which I believe is around 15%.

Is this fair? I'd say so. I see nothing 'unfair' about it. Those who come from a lower-privileged household (as much as we don't like to admit it, practically all of society is still based of who your parents are) will of course be in a lower position to pay more than those who already have a head start.

Oh, and you're forgetting that there's no such thing as a 55 year old stockbroker. They all retire at 40 with more money than the factory worker would earn in his lifetime.

Edited by Alias, 21 April 2010 - 13:42.

[CodeCat]

Why is it that arguments against any social benefits are always directed at the few abusers rather than the majority that genuinely suffers? You're making a strawman argument here, not solving a problem.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:40, said:

Those who come from a lower-privileged household (as much as we don't like to admit it, practically all of society is still based of who your parents are) will of course be in a lower position to pay more than those who already have a head start.

So others have to pay more tax, in both real terms and as a percentage of their income because someone else's parents were/are useless drop outs and didn't raise their child correctly?

[Alias]

Wizard, on 21 Apr 2010, 23:49, said:

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:40, said:

Those who come from a lower-privileged household (as much as we don't like to admit it, practically all of society is still based of who your parents are) will of course be in a lower position to pay more than those who already have a head start.

So others have to pay more tax, in both real terms and as a percentage of their income because someone else's parents were/are useless drop outs and didn't raise their child correctly?

Please don't tell me you think a child who comes from a family with a history of domestic violence and alcoholism has as much as chance as a child of a Harvard graduate. Some people don't have a choice if they're a "useless dropout".

[Ion Cannon!]

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:54, said:

Wizard, on 21 Apr 2010, 23:49, said:

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:40, said:

Those who come from a lower-privileged household (as much as we don't like to admit it, practically all of society is still based of who your parents are) will of course be in a lower position to pay more than those who already have a head start.

So others have to pay more tax, in both real terms and as a percentage of their income because someone else's parents were/are useless drop outs and didn't raise their child correctly?

Please don't tell me you think a child who comes from a family with a history of domestic violence and alcoholism has as much as chance as a child of a Harvard graduate. Some people don't have a choice if they're a "useless dropout".

People always have a choice, they just choose not to accept it sometimes. The education at my old school was excellent yet a substantial proportion of people decided they didn't need education, so they wouldn't bother with it and instead make themselves as much of a nuisance as possible, in the process harming others education. No matter how they've been brought up, they can choose to think for themselves, just many don't. It works at both ends of the spectrum. One of my most intelligent friends has awful parents. Yet I know of complete twats who have very good parents.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:54, said:

Wizard, on 21 Apr 2010, 23:49, said:

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:40, said:

Those who come from a lower-privileged household (as much as we don't like to admit it, practically all of society is still based of who your parents are) will of course be in a lower position to pay more than those who already have a head start.

So others have to pay more tax, in both real terms and as a percentage of their income because someone else's parents were/are useless drop outs and didn't raise their child correctly?

Please don't tell me you think a child who comes from a family with a history of domestic violence and alcoholism has as much as chance as a child of a Harvard graduate. Some people don't have a choice if they're a "useless dropout".

You're automatically assuming that a child who has suffered domestic abuse will be a useless member of the economy and require the State to provide for them or won't be able to make it into a position to earn lots of money. All of which is totally beside the point.

So far we've managed to split this topic into 2 fragments.
1. That a small percentage of people earn a large proportion of the total in the global wage pot.
2. That these people should pay more taxes because they do.

What you're saying is, that it's totally unfair that these people to earn huge wages, but it is totally fair to take more of these wages away from them than someone lower down in the economic food chain. I disagree with (everyone else in this thread it seems) because I think that it is fair that someone is remunerated for the work they do in direct relation to the job role and consequential profits that this job generates AND that taxing someone more (on a proportional basis) is unfair because you are counter productively telling them that earning money is bad, which in a capitalist system is utter nonsense, quite frankly. The idea should be "worker harder/smarter to earn more money", not "earn more money so I can take more of your wages away".

[Alias]

Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:11, said:

You're automatically assuming that a child who has suffered domestic abuse will be a useless member of the economy and require the State to provide for them or won't be able to make it into a position to earn lots of money. All of which is totally beside the point.

I'm not assuming anything, nor am I stating "X is Y and therefore must be Z". I'm merely stating that there's a higher probability for a child born into a richer family to end up in a higher paying job. Of course there will be rags-to-riches stories, i.e. Bill Gates/Steve Jobs, but there's a majority of rags-to-rags and riches-to-riches, it's just they are so 'normal' that nobody notices. It's the extraordinary cases such as Gates/Jobs that get the attention.

Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:11, said:

What you're saying is, that it's totally unfair that these people to earn huge wages, but it is totally fair to take more of these wages away from them than someone lower down in the economic food chain. I disagree with (everyone else in this thread it seems) because I think that it is fair that someone is remunerated for the work they do in direct relation to the job role and consequential profits that this job generates AND that taxing someone more (on a proportional basis) is unfair because you are counter productively telling them that earning money is bad, which in a capitalist system is utter nonsense, quite frankly. The idea should be "worker harder/smarter to earn more money", not "earn more money so I can take more of your wages away".

Unless the tax rate is utterly ridiculous, you're going to still be earning more money regardless of a higher tax. Not to mention higher taxed countries tend to be higher paid anyway (the average is roughly $35k US a year here, but that's because our taxes go towards so much, whereas in the US it may be $50k US per year but they end up spending 20k of that on what would be paid by taxes here). I'm not against remuneration of work. In fact it's what should drive the economic system, but it doesn't. Somehow I doubt the CEO does 200000 times the workload of the average worker. The CEO should be paid directly in concordance to what he puts in, same with the workers. Since this isn't the case, just about the only way to make it fairer is to tax the not-so-working-more CEO a larger proportion of his income.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:

Unless the tax rate is utterly ridiculous, you're going to still be earning more money regardless of a higher tax.

Just because you make more money it doesn't automatically entitle anyone to take more of it away from you. It's not like the earner owes anything more to the country as a whole than the lower earner.

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:

I'm not against remuneration of work. In fact it's what should drive the economic system, but it doesn't. Somehow I doubt the CEO does 200000 times the workload of the average worker. The CEO should be paid directly in concordance to what he puts in, same with the workers. Since this isn't the case, just about the only way to make it fairer is to tax the not-so-working-more CEO a larger proportion of his income.

The CEOs are ultimately responsible for the company as a whole. If the company makes money they are given remuneration on the profit that it makes. CEOs won't be slackers, they won't be sitting on their thumbs in their offices all day. I know one particular CEO of an insurance company in the UK and meet him regularly for drinks, he works 14 hour days and is never not working. He deserves his 6 figure salary and the bonuses that make it 7 figures. He does a lot more work than any individual in his staff of over 700!!

[Alias]

Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:34, said:

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:

Unless the tax rate is utterly ridiculous, you're going to still be earning more money regardless of a higher tax.

Just because you make more money it doesn't automatically entitle anyone to take more of it away from you. It's not like the earner owes anything more to the country as a whole than the lower earner.

There's really no point going on about this any more, we're just repeating the same arguments over and over. I think that if you earn more you should pay more, you think otherwise. Let's just leave it at that, otherwise we'll be going forever.

Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:34, said:

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:

I'm not against remuneration of work. In fact it's what should drive the economic system, but it doesn't. Somehow I doubt the CEO does 200000 times the workload of the average worker. The CEO should be paid directly in concordance to what he puts in, same with the workers. Since this isn't the case, just about the only way to make it fairer is to tax the not-so-working-more CEO a larger proportion of his income.

The CEOs are ultimately responsible for the company as a whole. If the company makes money they are given remuneration on the profit that it makes. CEOs won't be slackers, they won't be sitting on their thumbs in their offices all day. I know one particular CEO of an insurance company in the UK and meet him regularly for drinks, he works 14 hour days and is never not working. He deserves his 6 figure salary and the bonuses that make it 7 figures. He does a lot more work than any individual in his staff of over 700!!

I'm not downplaying the role of the CEO, and I understand your example. But at the most he does maybe five times the work of his staff. He doesn't do a hundred times the work of his staff. He should be paid five times more, not a hundred times more. That is true remuneration, in my eyes. The CEO may be responsible for the profit, but it's the actual workers who produce it.

Edited by Alias, 21 April 2010 - 14:47.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:43, said:

Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:34, said:

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:

Unless the tax rate is utterly ridiculous, you're going to still be earning more money regardless of a higher tax.

Just because you make more money it doesn't automatically entitle anyone to take more of it away from you. It's not like the earner owes anything more to the country as a whole than the lower earner.

There's really no point going on about his any more, we're just repeating the same arguments over and over. I think that if you earn more you should pay more, you think otherwise. Let's just leave it at that.

Agreed

Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:43, said:

I'm not downplaying the role of the CEO, and I understand your example. But at the most he does maybe five times the work of his staff. He doesn't do a hundred times the work of his staff. He should be paid five times more, not a hundred times more. That is true remuneration.

But how do you actually calculate the multiples of what he does more than anyone else? How can you determine how much more responsibility he has over someone half way up the pay scale. The board of directors of the company or the owner will determine what they/he can afford to pay the CEO. If the BoD thinks he is worth 20000 times more it's their right to pay him that. It's not really someone elses' place to determine what someone in a private company is worth.