Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Cool, I'll check around to see if I can find it, thanks for the info
If you disagree with taxation, it begs the question, how would all the programs currently funded by taxes be funded under a system with no taxes?
How much do you think average CEO pay should be compared to workers?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
If you disagree with taxation, it begs the question, how would all the programs currently funded by taxes be funded under a system with no taxes?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So nearly half of the votes so far say it should be 5 x's higher, (average worker = $34K, average CEO should = $170K/year, I'm a little more conservative, I'd give em x's 10 @ $3.4 mil/year)
Realistically, said CEO wages in the US currently = $11,968,000/year, workers = $34,000/year
$12 million to $34 thousand. In. One. Year.
Realistically, said CEO wages in the US currently = $11,968,000/year, workers = $34,000/year
$12 million to $34 thousand. In. One. Year.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Would you mind sharing with us how you came up with that number?
You are talking about the top few hundred, or so. Big deal. There are thousands of CEO's who will never see $12,000,000 in their entire lifetime. The bigger the company, the more responsibility, the more pay.
My pay about triples any paid employee here, and I don't feel an ounce of shame. Lots of commercial places for rent in town, they can start their own gig if they want more.
A CEO should be paid what the investors want to pay, and only the investors should have any amount of say so.
And the CEO, like any other employee, can choose to accept or decline their wage offering prior to employment. But to accept, and then bitch that Sally and Jimmy get paid more, is not gonna get the investors to just hand you their money.
A CEO should be paid what the investors want to pay, and only the investors should have any amount of say so.
And the CEO, like any other employee, can choose to accept or decline their wage offering prior to employment. But to accept, and then bitch that Sally and Jimmy get paid more, is not gonna get the investors to just hand you their money.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Which part is untrue?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
If it's a lie, you would have cited something that says differently. " if even one employee owns stock in America, your statement is incorrect." No, at least half of them would have to own stock in the company they work for. Your reply is misleading, stupid, or, more likely, dishonest. Where was I talking about a job? Just hurl insults that don't make any sense and pretend you addressed my statement.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Sorry, one line worker not showing up doesn't make much difference. Companies try it all the time during strikes- and succeed, too. That's why they picket, to keep out their replacements.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Are you a business owner or an employer? Would you work for someone who would treat you like that?
Only if you were desperate. Which seems convenient, considering the bulk consequences of such an outlook.
I treat my people like solid fucking gold, because they make me money. They do it now and they'll keep doing it as long as they get some respect and are paid reasonably. What's wrong with that business model?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
There's nothing wrong with that model, however the point is you have the option to choose as a business owner.
The lefties here want to remove the options from the business owner and tell them how to run their business or what to pay themselves/their staff.
Do you think after building your business using your own blood, sweat, tears and capital that someone else should be able to interfere with how you run the business you own and started?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah! you tell them, shorty!
no business should ever be told they can not pollute the air or water, or make their workers labor in unsafe condition, or pay them sweatshop wages!
how dare workers get any protection whatsoever! the tax payer should subsidize what that brave JOB CREATOR should never be obliged to provide.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Protecting your employees in the workplace isn't just a legal duty, it's a moral responsibility.
That doesn't mean they can expect to dictate the company owners wages or demand increases for themselves outside what they've agreed in the contract.
If someone demanded higher wages off me I'd fire them, they are there to make the owners life easier and nothing else.
Keep making nonsense statements tho, you're not even employed and you think you get a say, you don't.
Doer
Well-Known Member
It does show your level of ignorance to make a post like this.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Somehow you have a full understanding? No.
Doer
Well-Known Member
What are you saying? These are public companies. It is all accountable, if you bother to read it.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I have enough understanding to know that printing 85B a month and giving it to the too big to fail banks directly influences the widening income gap. Do you not posses that understanding?
Doer
Well-Known Member
It may or may not. It is all partisan nattering.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Or it's the same thing the financial experts are saying. I started trading currencies this year as a hobby. Just read the financials. It's pretty straight forward common sense. If you create a trillion a year for the top 1%, most of it will stay there.
The partisan nattering is denying the effect of QE 1-infinity on the widening income gap. The partisan nattering is blaming the 08 meltdown on trickle-down, which was letting people at the top keep more of their money, but denying the effect of magically printing new money and giving it to the top.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I negotiated my own contract. The guy down the hall negotiated his. We don't know what each other makes and I like it that way.
No way I'd want people I work with to know my salary or vice versa. That would cause some serious hurt feelings.
CEO salaries are already public if they are traded publicly.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes it is, short fry.
yes it does, shrimp.
that's why we set a "minimum wage", in fact.
maybe try competing with the child labor in bangladesh to live out your utopia. at your diminutive height, you would have no problem passing for a child, minus the fact that you are bald.