Top CEOs leave 99% in the dust

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Obviously a person earning $million already pays more than his share of tax. So you are in favour of doing a double whammy on him by increasing the rate as well? :roll:

They in fact pay less of a share of their incomes than poor people, when all taxes are included, including the hugely regressive sales taxes. I'm quite willing to look at eliminating ALL sales taxes, replaced with excise taxes on imports (ie.. elimination of Free Trade), and progressive income taxes. We've had it before.. from1946 - 1971 and it worked. What we have now is failing catastrophically.

I don't consider it a 'double whammy', i just consider it making the rich pay there fair share to a society in which their wealth originated and on which it is dependent. It certainly won't reduce them to poverty, probably won't make that much of a difference in their lifestyles.. they'll probably have to be a little less spendthrift.. but welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We've become much too adulatory of the wealth and celebrity, these people are actually not special at all, they are just more opportunistic and lucky.

Take a look at the book, The Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett which did an in depth analysis of the effects on nations in which polarized wealth predominates. They are disastrous. And yes, one motive of progressive taxation is to impose a more equitable distribution of wealth, to reduce those problems... as well as pay down the deficit.

In any case, i now consider these solutions inevitable. We are on the verge of having revolution in the streets. The only way the rich will be able to protect themselves is to submit to a system of fair taxation and redistribution of income... so they don't end up hanging from light posts.
 
Last edited:

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
A few things to think about JLM.

If the plan to flatten the pyramid is moved forward, how do you do it? Do you bring the top earners down to the middle or try to raise the bottom up?.. Either action will generate consequences, so how does one accomplish this without shooting yourself in the economic foot?

In terms of past experiences; the world is a much different place today... Thinking back to when you started working - a company that made profits in excess of $1 million was unusual... Today, there are tons of companies that make in the neighborhood of billions.

The message is: be careful when comparing 2 different time frames.

Very slowly, perhaps trying to appeal to the fat cats' feeling of compassion for the bottom paid..........even giving up 1% of his pay would translate to a big increase for the bottom end. It's probably taken 50 years to go from 7 times to +/-50 times so it may take another 50 years to get it back, but the time to start heading in that direction is NOW.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
A few things to think about JLM.

If the plan to flatten the pyramid is moved forward, how do you do it? Do you bring the top earners down to the middle or try to raise the bottom up?.. Either action will generate consequences, so how does one accomplish this without shooting yourself in the economic foot?

As was suggested earlier, a modest (but beneficial) measure would be to tie salary income to profitability. This measure can be applied to all employees working within the organization to the degree that each contribution they made affected profitability.

The money that is not given to the CEO salary can be properly distributed to resources within the organization to help stimulate profitability.

In essence, this is beneficial to capitalism.

Big deal. If you don't like do something about it. Become a CEO and enjoy your life. Don't become a CEO and enjoy your life. Stop whining.

As was stated earlier, there is no assumption made by anyone that "being a CEO" is a necessary requirement to enjoying life.
 
Last edited:

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
They in fact pay less of a share of their incomes than poor people, when all taxes are included, including the hugely regressive sales taxes. I'm quite willing to look at eliminating ALL sales taxes, replaced with excise taxes on imports (ie.. elimination of Free Trade), and progressive income taxes. We've had it before.. from1946 - 1971 and it worked. What we have now is failing catastrophically.

I don't consider it a 'double whammy', i just consider it making the rich pay there fair share to a society in which their wealth originated and on which it is dependent. It certainly won't reduce them to poverty, probably won't make that much of a difference in their lifestyles.. they'll probably have to be a little less spendthrift.. but welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We've become much too adulatory of the wealth and celebrity, these people are actually not special at all, they are just more opportunistic and lucky.

Take a look at the book, The Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickettwhich did an in depth analysis of the effects of nations in which polarized wealth predominates,. They are disastrous. And yes, one motive of progressive taxation is to impose a more equitable distribution of wealth, to reduce those problems... as well as pay down the deficit.

In any case, i now consider these solutions inevitable. We are on the verge of having revolution in the streets. The only way the rich will be able to protect themselves is to submit to a system of fair taxation and redistribution of income... so they don't end up hanging from light posts.

Well, that may be your philosophy but it sure as hell ain't mine! The FAIR amount of tax one should pay is the amount required divided by the population, as far as Income tax goes. You object to consumer taxes, which CAN be controlled by the individual...............if you don't like the tax, don't buy the product! :smile:

Prove how someone that is in the top tax bracket pays less than that of a low wage earner on a % basis...

I suggest some do some don't! :smile:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Very slowly, perhaps trying to appeal to the fat cats' feeling of compassion for the bottom paid..........even giving up 1% of his pay would translate to a big increase for the bottom end. It's probably taken 50 years to go from 7 times to +/-50 times so it may take another 50 years to get it back, but the time to start heading in that direction is NOW.


You can't have it both ways JLM... Society has no compassion for the individual that invests their own savings or assets in a business in order to make a better living than working as an employee. If the venture fails, society winks and says that it was an investment and had risks attached - to bad for you and your family.

BTW - not every CEO makes 50x that of the average employee... This study seeks to compare the 2 biggest extremes and leave out the fact that they represent an anomaly in terms of Canadian (or American) society
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
As was suggested earlier, a modest (but beneficial) measure would be to tie salary income to profitability. This measure can be applied to all employees working within the organization to the degree that each contribution they made affected profitability.

The money that is not given to the CEO salary can be properly distributed to resources within the organization to help stimulate profitability.

In essence, this is beneficial to capitalism.

Great, so when the corp loses money, will the entire company workforce be comfortable with a no-raise situation or possibly with a clawback?

Even someone with a piano tied to their ass can reach for better education, experience and pay.


For some people, the answer is Yes; for many others, the answer lies in the notion that they are entitled to their entitlements.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
"I suggest some do some don't"- this perhaps needs clarification...............an extreme case would be the wino on skid road who spends almost all his income on wine............he's probably taxed at 50-75%. :smile:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,411
11,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
Great, so when the corp loses money, will the entire company workforce be comfortable with a no-raise situation or possibly with a clawback?




For some people, the answer is Yes; for many others, the answer lies in the notion that they are entitled to their entitlements.
If you want to see employees hustle their asses and create better products that improve the company bottom line, there is a way.

Profit sharing!

Did you get a "Christmas Bonus" mentalfloss?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
If you want to see employees hustle their asses and create better products that improve the company bottom line, there is a way.

Profit sharing!

... But, but... Wouldn't that translate into an income gap between employees of companies that competed in the same sector?

Why should employees in company A get more money than their counterparts in company B just because they out performed them?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
BTW - not every CEO makes 50x that of the average employee... This study seeks to compare the 2 biggest extremes and leave out the fact that they represent an anomaly in terms of Canadian (or American) society

The gap in income disparity is not an anomaly as it has been steadily increasing since the 1980s.

Consequently, poverty is a natural repercussion as the gap widens.

3

Great, so when the corp loses money, will the entire company workforce be comfortable with a no-raise situation or possibly with a clawback?

It would depend on whether or not the employee actually delivered profit based on their own contribution. Successful departments could be rewarded despite the failure of the organization as a whole.

You would essentially be rewarding those components of the company that "worked hard" - which is a quintessential part of the American dream if I'm not mistaken.
 
Last edited:

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Many corporations do base employee raises on company profitability, I know the company I work for does.


There is a large number of companies that employ this strategy, and in my eyes, it is a very smart move for all concerned. One of the better examples going was Microsoft back in their more formative and growth phase (back when they had just a few hundred employees).

The only downside that I see to this scenario is that as the company gets really large, the tangible benefit to the individuals within the company become more marginal.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,411
11,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
Disparity? What is the gap between those who get off their asses and try and those who sit around complaining?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I cannot propose exact salary amounts, but I can comment on economic factors that should influence salary.

One of those factors is inflation of course. Another factor would be the profit margin.


Inflation can have a negative effect on profits MF.... Inflation goes up, there is pressure for salaries to increase and all this in the face that there is no guarantee that profits will rise accordingly.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
The only downside that I see to this scenario is that as the company gets really large, the tangible benefit to the individuals within the company become more marginal.

If you agree to this, then you should also agree that there is very little tangible benefit to a CEO as their salary gets "really large".

Inflation can have a negative effect on profits MF.... Inflation goes up, there is pressure for salaries to increase and all this in the face that there is no guarantee that profits will rise accordingly.

Of course. Any negative change in salary (based on profit) would have to be adjusted for inflation or any other variables outside of the control of the employee.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
There is a large number of companies that employ this strategy, and in my eyes, it is a very smart move for all concerned. One of the better examples going was Microsoft back in their more formative and growth phase (back when they had just a few hundred employees).

The only downside that I see to this scenario is that as the company gets really large, the tangible benefit to the individuals within the company become more marginal.

At my work, your raise and yearly bonus is based on Employee Performance - Division Performance - Company performance. Not sure what the weighing is to the formula, but that's the basic concept.