Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act

Trausti said:
If you cut half of federal jobs, would anyone notice?
Click to expand...

Yes. Just because their role is beyond your comprehension does not mean they don't perform a service that people benefit from

Nah, unlike a business, there is no consequence when the government is inefficent or makes a mistake.
Click to expand...

If you think there are consequences in a corporation..you've never worked for a large corporation.

Are government agencies perfect? No, of course not. there are ways any group can improve. But this whole idea that there need to be mass firings because they are inefficient was a myth used to propel the guy who sold missiles to Iran and funded drug cartel enforcers. And a guy who ran a great American company into the ground.

So ya, make rich ******** pay their fair share.
 
Trausti said:
Not a concern? LOL, so Newsom can cut, and cut, and cut, and no political constituency will be upset?
Click to expand...

It is a concern, just not the apocalypse level threat right-wingers and neoliberals make it top be. As long as California is producing revenue, they are fine.

And are you going to address the Kansas disaster at all? The single largest case study to defend your hypothesis and it failed for everyone to see.
 
lobosrul5 said:
No they have a **** ton of toll roads that are annoying as **** and expensive.
Click to expand...

Also, when Tampa and St Petersburg tried to expand their public transit systems, Governor Small...Government...stepped in and prevented it.
 
Trausti said:
If you cut half of federal jobs, would anyone notice?
Click to expand...
Yes, everyone would and lots of people would suffer.

Trausti said:
Nah, unlike a business, there is no consequence when the government is inefficent or makes a mistake.
Click to expand...

You pretend as if the rest of us don't suffer when businesses are inefficient or when they go bankrupt. That it didn't cost the communities where the bankruptcies happen.

Governments are necessary. They certainly aren't perfect. But they perform necessary functions. Like preventing fraud, making sure workplaces are safe. Protecting consumers from fraud and contamination. Providing a judicial system where we can resolve differences. Protecting the nation from outside intervention. Maintaining and creating necessary infrastructure. Caring for the needy.

I've barely scratched the surface of why governments are required. I'm sure there are inefficiencies. But this isn't a reason to do away with them. I'm all in favor of making governments as efficient as possible. And if anyone comes up with ideas on how to do that without reducing services I would support those reforms.

Sadly, conservatives don't do that. No, it's all about ending regulations or lowering their personal taxes so they can cheat employees and consumers so they can make an extra dollar.
 
Donal said:
It is a concern, just not the apocalypse level threat right-wingers and neoliberals make it top be. As long as California is producing revenue, they are fine.

And are you going to address the Kansas disaster at all? The single largest case study to defend your hypothesis and it failed for everyone to see.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Businesses run deficits. Often for decades. Hell, what was Alexander Hamilton solution to increasing the solvency of the US? Borrow money and take on debt.
 
Amazon didn't turn a profit until a few years ago, yet their founder and CEO became the richest man in the world. Weird how that works.
 
Donal said:
Amazon didn't turn a profit until a few years ago, yet their founder and CEO became the richest man in the world. Weird how that works.
Click to expand...

Isn't it?

People forget that there wouldn't hardly be an electronics and superconductor industry without government. The Internet wasn't created by business. It was created by the government. The aviation industry would barely be off the ground without governments buying planes for the military or the postal service.

Imagine the country without the Interstate Highway system. Or without the FDA as well as Health Departments protecting the water.

I live in Washington State. It is divided by liberals on the west side of the state and anti-government fools on the east side of the state. Nevermind that the long stretches roads on in the East were paid for mostly by taxes generated by citizens on the west side. That their farms are irrigated by hydroelectric dams built by the US government. Businesses didn't fund the Bonneville Power Administration that built Grand Coulee and the dozen other dams on the Columbia river system.
 
Be careful to leave out ridiculous Hollywood, Entertainer, and Sports people, like Taylor "$4 billion" Swift!

There's a meme for that: "They earn it!"

Translated: "They donate to us, and worse, if they, in the public eye, turn on us, we're history!"



Now continue on your rages against some rich at the behest of other rich.
 
Donal said:
Amazon didn't turn a profit until a few years ago, yet their founder and CEO became the richest man in the world. Weird how that works.
Click to expand...


Ya know, on another forum I complained about inflation. Someone defended it as no big deal because their investments did fine.

Do you even put two and two together? You can't disclaim inflation pointing to stock investments while ******** on those guiding such companies.


Lemme strap in for this response.
 
Beerina said:
Be careful to leave out ridiculous Hollywood, Entertainer, and Sports people, like Taylor "$4 billion" Swift!

There's a meme for that: "They earn it!"

Translated: "They donate to us, and worse, if they, in the public eye, turn on us, we're history!"



Now continue on your rages against some rich at the behest of other rich.
Click to expand...

OK, that was a thing you said.
 
Beerina said:
Be careful to leave out ridiculous Hollywood, Entertainer, and Sports people, like Taylor "$4 billion" Swift!

There's a meme for that: "They earn it!"

Translated: "They donate to us, and worse, if they, in the public eye, turn on us, we're history!"

Now continue on your rages against some rich at the behest of other rich.
Click to expand...

Of course they're overpaid. But Swift is worth a billion. Bezos and Musk are each worth 200 times that. And Musk is whining that a judge decided that paying him another almost 60 billion dollars was too much.
 
Beerina said:
Ya know, on another forum I complained about inflation. Someone defended it as no big deal because their investments did fine.
Click to expand...

Ya, I know it wasn't me, so what is your point?

Do you even put two and two together? You can't disclaim inflation pointing to stock investments while ******** on those guiding such companies.


Lemme strap in for this response.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point, but not your conclusion.

Aside from pointing out the hypocrisy of right-wingers trying to claim how great Trump was, I don't reference unemployment numbers or the stock market when talking about the well-being of the general populace.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Only if we lower expenditures first.
Anyone who advocates for lower taxes instead of lower spending just wants to increase the national debt.
Click to expand...

People forget that under Clinton the country was actually paying off the National Debt. And if Bush didn't launch two questionable wars, lower taxes and fail to monitor the mortgage industry the US would have no National debt before the end of Bush's second term.

Taxes in the US on Fortune 500 businesses and the wealthy are insanely low. Trump who is supposedly a billionaire has paid less in income taxes than I did each year in the last two decades.
 
Beerina said:
Be careful to leave out ridiculous Hollywood, Entertainer, and Sports people, like Taylor "$4 billion" Swift!

There's a meme for that: "They earn it!"
Click to expand...

I would argue that athletes and entertainers like Swift are closer to "self-made" than a lot of the professional executives who get bestowed the title.

Granted, I don't think anyone "earns" a billion dollars and there are plenty of problems with the ways celebrities increase their fortunes beyond their "day jobs".

Translated: "They donate to us, and worse, if they, in the public eye, turn on us, we're history!"



Now continue on your rages against some rich at the behest of other rich.
Click to expand...

If you think I'm going to defend money in politics, you need to lay off the moonshine.
 
Donal said:
tax to death? Hyperbole much? Strange how it just keeps making money. It's almost like deficits are a political talking point more than an actual economic concern.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The tech companies are raking it in, state income tax is one of the highest, property tax on real estate is high, and that cash cow will never ever end!

Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration


...or maybe not
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Only if we lower expenditures first.
Anyone who advocates for lower taxes instead of lower spending just wants to increase the national debt.
Click to expand...

Your terms are very much acceptable. I think before government seeks to add or raise tax, it ought to first demonstrate how it has cut inefficiences and waste.
 
Trausti said:
Your terms are very much acceptable. I think before government seeks to add or raise tax, it ought to first demonstrate how it has cut inefficiences and waste.
Click to expand...

No. That's backwards. It's one thing to justify why additional taxes are required. It's another to say that government must demonstrate how it reduced inefficiencies and wastes. Revenues should be increased based on needs not on achieving perfection.
 
theprestige said:
This is a terrible reason to raise taxes.
Click to expand...

Anything that makes taxes more progressive is a good thing. If the wealthy are taxed more, and the rest of us taxed less, then this is a good. Wouldn't you agree?

Now if the CEO's were taxed more so Congress could buy more private jets for themselves, it would not be so good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom