73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Openmind]

well they could just get paid more I suppose but why not playh to their desire to expand their wealth by offering this incentive ? make the compan more valuable and you gain, cost it value and you lose. these folks don't like losing.


been going on a lot longer than that with companies with unprofitable operations. if you know when to cut your losses then you free up capital to grow new ones.

well they could just allow the entire company to go under for failing to take responsible action.

You seem to have limited experience in big corporations politics. Actually, "allowing the entire company to go under" is usually exactly what happens. . . but with some "finesse" that allows the top management to fly away with all their millions!

The fact is that many big corporations do exactly that: Top management know they're will eventually not be able to compete with another more successful competitor, they know that, sooner or later, they'll go belly up or have to sell to their competitors. So they "show on paper" how successful their company are, the stock goes up, just in time for the top managers to exercise their options. . .which obviously brings down the price of EVERY OTHER options and the stock (because of the huge quantity of stock that is being sold in one or two days), and then, once they got their profit out of the company, they start "downsizing" to prepare for the "take over" (oh, sorry, that take over is more often described as a "merger. . ." until the "winning" competitor take all the senior positions, and lays off HUGE numbers of employees. . .).

That's the way it works!

 

[GenSeneca]

Sorry guys! Your metaphores are getting more and more ridiculous and meaningless.

It's a mirror image of the argument from the Left, that's why it is ridiculous.

There are excess in many areas, and wealth seems to be one area of huge excess. If you can't see that. . .okay.

I do not see the accumulation of wealth as being a bad thing any more than I would consider the accumulation of knowledge or skill to be a bad thing.

It still doesn't make it right. . .

What is "it" a reference to in that sentence and what doesn't make "it" right?

at least NOT when we are talking about cutting spending on the poorest among us

They were doing pretty well under Clinton and the budget was 50% smaller.

wanting the top 1% to actually SHARE in putting this country back on track

Why doesn't the 40% the top 1% already contributes count as sharing?

instead of continuing to accumulate the wealth while cutting the life line of the bottom 50%!

You could cut all the luxuries out of your life in order to make a difference in the life of someone else, yet you're arguing that people who are better off than you should be the ones to make those sacrifices.

 

[dogtowner]

You seem to have limited experience in big corporations politics. Actually, "allowing the entire company to go under" is usually exactly what happens. . . but with some "finesse" that allows the top management to fly away with all their millions!

The fact is that many big corporations do exactly that: Top management know they're will eventually not be able to compete with another more successful competitor, they know that, sooner or later, they'll go belly up or have to sell to their competitors. So they "show on paper" how successful their company are, the stock goes up, just in time for the top managers to exercise their options. . .which obviously brings down the price of EVERY OTHER options and the stock (because of the huge quantity of stock that is being sold in one or two days), and then, once they got their profit out of the company, they start "downsizing" to prepare for the "take over" (oh, sorry, that take over is more often described as a "merger. . ." until the "winning" competitor take all the senior positions, and lays off HUGE numbers of employees. . .).

That's the way it works!

nope.

Take ICI, the chemicals giant I used to work for, their policy was to set a bar that all their units had to clear in terms of profitability. If changing busniess conditions caused a unit to miss, it was sold off. My unit, films was one such division. It lost ground to Korea that could not be reclaimed, that was it.

Take another local but nationally known company, Circuit City. Its used car division which enjoyed growing success while its bread and butter was faltering was spun off to preserve it's profitability while they tried what they could to overcome market changes and a few gambles that did not pan out. Challenges proved to be too great and they collapsed but onl the portions that failed.

Take another local company Home Beneficial Life. They were the most capitalized regional insurance company in the country but the industry was in a spiral of consolidations and mergers that cojld not be ignored. They looked for merger opportunities to grow but could not compete with the big boys so ownership found the best deal possible, not just for them but also the workers and took it.

Take a serious look at how things hapen and why and you will see how you are miseducated.

Everyone who seeks success works like heck to obtain it but will take the right action when success just isn't possible. Except GM who went begging to Uncle who they knew would take care of it's union goons.

 

[dogtowner]

You could cut all the luxuries out of your life in order to make a difference in the life of someone else, yet you're arguing that people who are better off than you should be the ones to make those sacrifices.

Dont forget, Open IS one of those one percenters. So only SOME of them are to be hammered. It gets funnier and funnier.

 

[Openmind]

Dont forget, Open IS one of those one percenters. So only SOME of them are to be hammered. It gets funnier and funnier.

No, dear. . .I am NO LONGER one of the 1%. . .that went away with our decision to retire! And even then, we were probably at the very bottom of the 1%. . . .for a few years!

But long enough to KNOW that we didn't get taxed as fairly as we should have been. Long enough to have made me uncomfortable with my sense of justice and fairness.

To tell you the truth, I'm glad I don't have to deal with that inner conflict of conscience. And I am glad that, because of my vocational career, I did give some back to the disenfranchised.

You can make fun of me. . .but you will NOT catch me in a lie. . .I'm much too old, and much too comfortable with my conscience today to care what you think of me. . .I will just come back with the truth.

 

[Openmind]

It's a mirror image of the argument from the Left, that's why it is ridiculous

.

Sure. . .if it has anything to do with the left, it has to be ridiculous!

I do not see the accumulation of wealth as being a bad thing any more than I would consider the accumulation of knowledge or skill to be a bad thing.

Accumulation of knowlege is infinite. It is not because one person accumulate a lot of knowledge that others can't also accumulate knowledge. On the contrary, when in a corporation, 80% of the "profits" go to the top 1% managements, or the top 1% stock holders, it takes away from the other 99%. I have nothing against a scale of pay, or scale of profit, that is higher at the top end, and lower at the bottom end, but the gap that has grown in the last 10 years from about 250X to close to 450X is ridiculous and NOT sustainable. . . .unless, at the end of the trend, you believe that the "lower end" of the scale should get NO PAY, or just "products to survive,". . .not unlike what was in effect during slavery.

They were doing pretty well under Clinton and the budget was 50% smaller.

And the economy was MUCH better. . . so revenues were higher, and the top tax bracket was higher too! What's your point? I thought your partisan stand was to REFUSE to even consider going back to the Clinton era taxation?
Why doesn't the 40% the top 1% already contributes count as sharing?


You could cut all the luxuries out of your life in order to make a difference in the life of someone else, yet you're arguing that people who are better off than you should be the ones to make those sacrifices.

Actually, I have cut quite a few "luxuries," and when given the opportunities, I do help people who are facing trouble. As a landlord, I do give "leeway" to my tenants when they are facing a difficult time, and I am rewarded by very long term tenants who trust me, who will always make it a priority to pay their rent on time, and who are comfortable enough with me to call and ask for an extension if they cannot do it. And, when they are late with their rent, and although a "penalty fee for late payment" is in the contract, they know that I will forgoe that penalty fee 95% of the time!

No one has to give up EVERYTHING to be in peace with their conscience. NO ONE is asking the top 1% of the wealthy to give up their lifestyle, or to give up all their wealth. . .what needs to happen is a realization that, by participating in the burden of life that at least 70% of their fellow Americans are facing today, they are doing their duty, and that it in fact comes back to them in good faith and good will.

 

[GenSeneca]

But long enough to KNOW that we didn't get taxed as fairly as we should have been.

You could have paid anything over and above what you actually owed, why didn't you soothe your conscience by doing so when you had the chance?

 

[GenSeneca]

the gap that has grown in the last 10 years from about 250X to close to 450X is ridiculous and NOT sustainable.

What makes it unsustainable? Are you concerned that the company might go bankrupt?

I thought your partisan stand was to REFUSE to even consider going back to the Clinton era taxation?

I have told you several times now that I'd be eager to return to the Clinton era tax rates on the condition that we also return to Clinton era spending levels. You are the one who will not compromise and agree to cut spending by 50% in order to return us to the Clinton era spending levels.

You also didn't answer my question....
Why doesn't the 40% the top 1% already contributes count as sharing?

Actually, I have cut quite a few "luxuries," and when given the opportunities, I do help people who are facing trouble.

Would you mind if government forced you to do more?

what needs to happen is a realization that, by participating in the burden of life that at least 70% of their fellow Americans are facing today, they are doing their duty, and that it in fact comes back to them in good faith and good will.

The top 1% is already paying 40% of the tab and I have yet to hear any "good faith and good will" returned to them for their current "sacrifice", instead, the top 1% is being demonized as heartless greedy monsters who aren't willing to pay their "fair share".

 

[Openmind]

You could have paid anything over and above what you actually owed, why didn't you soothe your conscience by doing so when you had the chance?

What tells you I didn't?

What tells you I didn't contribute to my clients more than just my professional skills?

What tells you that I didn't take that 72 year old developmentally disabled man, with diabetes and emphyzema to lunch once every too weeks, his only "outing," his only chance to go to his favorite lunch place. What tells you that I didn't have to face, with him, the disgusted looks of some other diners, when he started coughing and mucous spilled out of his nose into the soup he was eating? What makes you think I didn't pay for some new clothes, the first he had in years, so that he could go to a movie theater, without being embarrassed by the smell of old tobacco, feces, and urine that hung around him?

What makes you think that, when I finally found a new apartment where he could actually look out and see some trees, instead of his old apartment, with the only window facing a blind wall, 3 feet from where he stood, that I didn't purchase a small television for him, so that he could watch his favorite program, which he had not been able to watch for 8 months because his old, third hand, television had died!

What makes you think that I didn't give the best of myself, with joy, to those people who were treated like lepers by most? What makes you think I didn't actually feel love for that old, dirty, stinky man, with nails as brown as tobacco, with old food stuck into his 20 inch beard, with lices in his unwashed hair?

What makes you think I didn't feel like "I" had given birth to him, when I, (with the help of a personal care person, working for minimum wage) had succeeded in getting him to take a bath, twice a week, and convinced him to allow me to pay for a barber to shave his 20 inches beard, and to shave his long gray hair, and I watched him walk to his new place in his (almost) new, clean clothes?

What makes you think I didn't cry when he died just 2 years later, after having finally lived in a REAL home, and having finally found pride in the way he looked. . and after he told his care taker that he wanted ME to have his TV, his most precious possession!

Am I being overly emotional? Yes, I am.
Maybe you should try it. It might change the way you see people.

 

[Openmind]

What makes it unsustainable? Are you concerned that the company might go bankrupt?


I have told you several times now that I'd be eager to return to the Clinton era tax rates on the condition that we also return to Clinton era spending levels. You are the one who will not compromise and agree to cut spending by 50% in order to return us to the Clinton era spending levels.

You also didn't answer my question....
Why doesn't the 40% the top 1% already contributes count as sharing?


Would you mind if government forced you to do more?


The top 1% is already paying 40% of the tab and I have yet to hear any "good faith and good will" returned to them for their current "sacrifice", instead, the top 1% is being demonized as heartless greedy monsters who aren't willing to pay their "fair share".

The top 1%, paying 40% of the tab, also hold 42% of the wealth.

So. . .how about giving that 2% "extra wealth" to lower the deficit?

How can anyone feel that it is fair to walk past a hungry child into Cartier, to go buy a $100,000 necklace?
Oh, wait. . .I guess Gingrich has NO problem with that, especially if he can put that purchase on his credit card!

 

[BigRob]

What tells you I didn't?

What tells you I didn't contribute to my clients more than just my professional skills?

What tells you that I didn't take that 72 year old developmentally disabled man, with diabetes and emphyzema to lunch once every too weeks, his only "outing," his only chance to go to his favorite lunch place. What tells you that I didn't have to face, with him, the disgusted looks of some other diners, when he started coughing and mucous spilled out of his nose into the soup he was eating? What makes you think I didn't pay for some new clothes, the first he had in years, so that he could go to a movie theater, without being embarrassed by the smell of old tobacco, feces, and urine that hung around him?

What makes you think that, when I finally found a new apartment where he could actually look out and see some trees, instead of his old apartment, with the only window facing a blind wall, 3 feet from where he stood, that I didn't purchase a small television for him, so that he could watch his favorite program, which he had not been able to watch for 8 months because his old, third hand, television had died!

What makes you think that I didn't give the best of myself, with joy, to those people who were treated like lepers by most? What makes you think I didn't actually feel love for that old, dirty, stinky man, with nails as brown as tobacco, with old food stuck into his 20 inch beard, with lices in his unwashed hair?

What makes you think I didn't feel like "I" had given birth to him, when I, (with the help of a personal care person, working for minimum wage) had succeeded in getting him to take a bath, twice a week, and convinced him to allow me to pay for a barber to shave his 20 inches beard, and to shave his long gray hair, and I watched him walk to his new place in his (almost) new, clean clothes?

What makes you think I didn't cry when he died just 2 years later, after having finally lived in a REAL home, and having finally found pride in the way he looked. . and after he told his care taker that he wanted ME to have his TV, his most precious possession!

Am I being overly emotional? Yes, I am.
Maybe you should try it. It might change the way you see people.

What makes you think people like me have not done the exact same thing? And yet, I am still demonized for "not paying my fair share."

 

[Openmind]

What makes you think people like me have not done the exact same thing? And yet, I am still demonized for "not paying my fair share."

If you have been good to the most disenfranchised person, I am glad. I never said you didn't. However, in my experience, you would be a rarity.

I was responding to an insensitive and "smart" remark.

I know this subject is very personal to you. And, because I believe you are a good person, it must trouble you a lot. The fact that it troubles you a lot is an indication of your inner feelings fighting your "logical" mind.

By the way, I know I can be quite emotional. . .but, come on. . ."DEMONIZED?" who has ever "demonized" you?

 

[Dr.Who]

And I believe that there is a middle of the road between runaway greed and nepotism.

Many very successful European corporations have been able to walk the line. .probably because of the more stringent labor laws, the universal health care, and the safety nets provided to all.

But, obviously, that is called "socialism" in some quarters!

I am quite sure that there are many european companies that should be honored and many that should be reviled. The same would be true in the US.

I highly doubt that good companies in Europe are good BECAUSE of mixed socialism just as I would doubt companies here are good because of mixed capitalism.

Pointing at a few alleged good European companies and drawing the conclusion that European socialism is good is a leap of faith.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, the article talks about the overpaid CEO ALSO giving high remunerations to his SUBORDINATES, not to all his employees. Basically, the pay scale is "top heavy" in the top 3 or 4 level of the pyramid, and obviously, saving on total compensation package must occur some place. . .at the middle and bottom of the pyramid!

I re-read the article and your understanding of it is incorrect

The article does talk about subordinates though obviously ALL employees would be subordinate to the CEO. Additionally it defines these subordinates as "employees" and even as low level managers. The article very very clearly is not limited to the top of the pyramid and probably includes every employee.

Re: stock options, CEO's and "critical management team" get preferred stock options, so there is NO WAY they can lose. They are actually able to watch the stock go up, not having to "advance the money" to purchase that stock, but call in a "sell" order once they are vested, just the day or the week before a dramatic "downturn" in the performance of the company!

Basically just to get hire, they get thousands, sometimes hundred of thousands of "stock options" at a dime a piece, EVEN if they are already worth $5.00 or $10.00. . .then they can sell them without having to invest their own money in purchasing them. . .they can just reap the profit between the "dime purchase price" and the stock's price the day they are vested. And every years, they get more of those "cheap," no risk stock options with their annual compensation package. So. . .they NEVER have to take a risk! If the stock goes down (could hardly go down any lower than the price of their options, anyway), but if it does go down, they just don't have to exercise their stock options. . .or wait until it goes back up. . .THEY have no personal investment in it. . .but are able to take full advantage of those when the stock goes up.

It really matters little how they got the stock. If it is worth a certain amount they do not want to see their personal worth take a tumble.

And. . .you know how, in the last 10 years or so, the fastest way to get the stock to go up has been: Lay off a few thousand people, and the stock goes up. . .because the "balance sheet" looks better!

Who cares about the "litte Indians" that were laid off?

There are companies that don't care and companies that do care. Your generalized and biased class war smears are becoming tiresome.

Think for yourself and stop being lead around by the nose ring by a bunch of socialists who only see you as a useful idiot.

 

[Dr.Who]

Sorry guys! Your metaphores are getting more and more ridiculous and meaningless.

You are right that they are ridiculous. They are ridiculous because they mirror the ridiculous redistributionists arguments of the left.

It still doesn't make it right. . . at least NOT when we are talking about cutting spending on the poorest among us, but we get our feather's ruffled when the "fair" share in hardship is expressed as wanting the top 1% to actually SHARE in putting this country back on track, instead of continuing to accumulate the wealth while cutting the life line of the bottom 50%!

I don't want to cut spending on the poorest. I just want the gov to stop the wrong spending and for you and I to do the spending.

The top 1% already "share" much more than you do. In comparison you are a slacker.

How did Oprah cut the life line of the bottom 50%?

Seriously I want you to answer how Oprah hurt people and why Oprah should be taxed at a higher percentage than you!