The government started the program and FDR said “We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age”.
The government then made it mandatory to pay into it. I know you believe that taxation is theft, but Stop being a troll for just one second and think-- under what philosophy can a government first declare something, then make it mandatory, and finally not abide by the agreement IT MADE and enforced by means of guns and laws.
The point isn’t that you like or dislike SS. The point is that the government made the agreement, and enforces it under penalty of law.
You want to end SS, fine. We can have that discussion. But you cannot sit there and say it’s an entitlement when generations of people were forced to pay into it when they likely would rather not. Unless you want to rework the definition of entitlement.
I have no idea what the government promised, given Roosevelt’s quote-“tried” and “some measure” are pretty vague. It is entitlement spending because it is spending mandated by law, though—that’s just what it is. Calling something “entitlement spending” is not like calling a spoiled kid “entitled.”
It’s not like it’s impossible to change or end SS. The problem with mandatory spending like that is it’s incredibly popular. It’s the main source of income for many retirees.
Only 6% wanted cuts in the opinions on it I stated. And they would rather see the 2017 tax cut eliminated than touch SS.
But it’s not like SS is a magical thing that has to take place. It’s just not going to be easy because people like it. Americans don’t agree on a whole lot in overwhelming numbers but they agree on that.
The wealthy will always be wealthy because people like you, who are not wealthy, defend their “rights” while they do not care about yours.
The reason why you are not wealthy, and probably never will be, is that you are thinking about the wealthy and what’s good for them instead of thinking about what’s best for you. Didn’t you learn anything from Ayn Rand? I’m talking about her life. She had no problems getting help from others until she no longer needed it. Then it was all about me, me, me.
I remember hearing a wealthy person, who grew up poor, say that when he was poor he was a democrat; now that he’s rich, he’s a republican.
The percentage of people who think they will one day be wealthy is far greater than the percentage of people who actually become wealthy one day. Many people are looking out for their future self, but are almost always incorrect about the position of their future self.
I would rather aspire to be wealthy than resign myself to being cared for by the government. And beyond thinking that I might be wealthy someday, there is a immoral aspect to taking from someone who has earned something to give to someone who has not.
This is called a false dichotomy. You can aspire to be wealthy, and realize that the probability of achieving it for most people is low, and not be resigned to rely on the government. I am trying pretty hard and am somewhat successful at increasing my net worth for my age. That does not mean I don’t want policies that protect people from poverty, and I don’t think it is immoral if I pay a bit more tax than others.
I am not sure that many of the wealthy have “earned” it. Their work is often rewarded at huge multiples compared to the work of the poor.
Average CEO pay was 271X of the average annual workers pay. Do you think on average they are putting in 271X the effort?
I am not for everyone getting the same pay or standard of living (I believe in incentives). I think hard work should be rewarded, but the data has convinced me that the rewards have become grossly disproportional to the work for those at the top. Because of that I am for taxing the top at a higher rate.
That’s not exactly a fair representation of CEO pay. This is total compensation of the top 350 firms only. You’re talking about massive c-corps here with some serious outliers like Elon Musk.
The vast majority of CEOs are not making 271x the average employee and, ya, managing a multi-billion dollar company is a lot more difficult than driving a fork truck or doing a few journal entries.
That’s fine. If that stated legal definition was what you were getting at you could have just said it the first time and saved me a bunch of time. I was talking about the idea itself in light of government actions, which is usually your favorite topic.
My take on it is that in addition to what usmc said, their skill sets are generally much more scarce than typical worker skill sets. This moves a lot into intangibles and vision, but being the person to see something like the ecommerce boom 10 years before it happened, for example, is not common and is worth a lot of money.
Do I think every CEO should be making 270x the worker wage? No. Is every CEO doing that? No, not by a long shot. Do I think it’s fair that someone like Bill Gates made as much as he did? Yeah absolutely. He changed the face of the world.
Perhaps for some (I suppose difficulty is subjective). Even if it is much harder, the work is disproportionately rewarded IMO.
I am fine with people having unequal salaries. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I would be pissed to learn that sweeping paid the same. I am just of the opinion that disparities have gotten a bit out of hand.
IMO, the vision to see these things is not as rare as it is made out to be. Some of it is being in the position to make the decisions (people at the top get paid a lot to make incorrect decisions too). Obviously, there are some that are exceptional. I have seen at several companies that the top people are not all that they project. TBH, the most consistent trait I have seen in the higher ups is a general disregard for anyone but themselves. Often they take credit for others work, and blame others for their mistakes.
Bill and Warren are the top two philanthropists in the world. Both plan on giving almost all of their wealth away. I believe both have said that they should be taxed at higher rates on multiple occasions. Two good role models for the aspiring rich IMO.
Generally speaking, the amount of knowledge a CEO has to have is astounding. Most of us specialize in a specific thing and over the course of our careers we become good/great at that thing. We become subject matter experts. CEOs usually spend decades in the trench of a company/industry and understand the business at a level that is truly impressive.
Again, Most CEOs are not making $12M/year. CEOs at large non-C corps are making a few million maybe, medium size companies probably <$2M, and small companies it depends. This 270x BS always comes from Public companies with massive market caps. Most companies are not incorporated.
So would I lol. Same goes for laboratory science, which unfortunately is a very slow moving growth curve.
How would you feel if base worker wages were, say, pegged to inflation + benefits cost? Would that make you less concerned?
Possibly. I certainly won’t argue that being in the position to make the decisions (with the leverage to follow through) is a requirement. I had a bunch of great ideas as a college kid but no capital to do anything about it. I still believe based on my interactions with top dogs at several companies that the skills are less abundant than you seem to.
I’m not going to argue that these people exist out there…I can think of several high profile cases where they poisoned the company culture and sometimes financials as well.
However, my observation has been fairly the opposite. I think in some cases (Steve Jobs comes to mind), the strength of vision or will to carry it through comes across as being self-centered. In a certain way it’s probably correct, but I don’t think that’s the same thing we are talking about here.
My observation has been that the sorts of people you describe are the minority. Which sucks when you run across them.
So generally making enough in a year to be able to retire (2 million is right around 10X of the median net worth of a 60 YO). IMO, that is a lot of money.
I am not convinced of this on the whole. I am sure some are incredibly smart and knowledgeable, but I have experienced some that made decisions that turned out to be terrible, and they still got paid an ass load.
For all the things I have said to put down the top executives, I do think they deserve to earn in the top bracket, but I also think it has gone too far. Wage growth for those at the top has grown like a weed, and has stayed stagnant for most everyone else.
What exactly do you mean here? Base worker = lower income worker?
I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to work, and does work a full time job should be able to have a good life (and I don’t think that is necessarily the case currently). I don’t think because someone doesn’t have rare skills, that they should have to work multiple jobs to feed their children and pay rent. IMO, most of the developed world is productive enough to reach that goal.
I can admit my experience is exactly that my experience. Maybe the big company I worked for had toxic culture, and that those type of people generally succeeded there.
I am not a fan of Steve Jobs. I think many people look up to him due to his success, but he mistreated a lot of people. I hope I could not be happy with myself if I had his values.
That’s less than you average NFL player, lol… But, yes, it’s a lot of money. If you make $2M you more than likely run a multi-billionaire dollar company with hundreds if not thousands of employees. Half of that $2M is probably a bonus tied to company performance too.
That’s fine. We all have our anecdotes. CEOs, along with executive management, make a lot of decisions. Some of them are bad.
CEO turnover is also very high.
The top-end wages you’re referring to are tied to and driven by the market while most other pay; including CEO pay at non-incorporated entities, is tied to performance.
This conversation started on my premise that the top earners don’t deserve quite as much as they are getting (still deserve a lot), and because of that premise taxes should be used to even things out a bit. I think there is plenty of data out there showing that wage growth at the top has far outpaced wage growth of pretty much everyone else (additionally they started with a much higher wage).
In this case I don’t think it is immoral to tax high earners at a greater rate than low earners. The details of what those rates are and such, I don’t care or have knowledge to argue. Do you agree with this general idea?
Yes, but when discussing something like a progressive tax system (which is what we have in the US), taxing that “what someone is willing to pay” is relevant.
I am really only arguing that top earners should pay higher tax rates progressively. It is my opinion that the top earners don’t deserve their pay in most cases. It surprises many when they learn that almost all companies are formed in a pyramid (triangle) formation (this has implications of the top skimming profits off of those below them).
The 270x pay of average employee is derived from the compensation of the top 350 firms all of which are incorporated with CEO pay coming from their salary (often the smallest portion), bonuses, and stock/options. I originally commented because very few CEOs are paid a comp package like the ones used to come up with the 270x figure.
I’m not sure that is true. Is the executive pay of an issuer a required disclosure? I remember at some point it was being considered, but I don’t remember if it was passed.
I would love to see a comparison of wage growth for CEOs and average workers that excludes incorporated entities since something like 96% of all businesses are not publically traded.
I didn’t jump in the conversation for the moral/immoral argument. It doesn’t really interest me tbh. What I will say is that I’m not a fan of the income tax in general and I’m not a huge fan of property taxes either. I think of all the forms of taxation we’ve come up with, a consumption or VAT tax is probably the most moral and, at least imo, would eliminate the need for tax brackets as it would work itself out through spending.
