CEO threatens layoffs if he is taxed any further

[Vashdakari]

Let's say Bob earns 100 dollars a week, and Martha earns 1000 dollars a week. The cost of living is theoretically 50 dollars a week. Let's say they both get taxed 10 percent of their income under a flat tax system.

Bob ends up with 40 dollars of disposable income, Martha with 850. Exactly how is that fair?

Assuming...
Bob and Martha grew up on the same street, with a similar home life and parents of equal income. They also attended the same schools, until High School, where Bob decided to run away and join the circus. Martha graduated high school and then invested in her future by attending college and graduates with the debt that is frequently accrued over 4 years of higher education.

It is now 5 years later. Bob is making his 100, Martha her 1000, and they live in the town they grew up in (your cost of living scenario).

Sounds perfectly fair to me... unless Bob did go to college, in which case he probably shouldn't have majored in Comparative Lit.

[Torq]

Assuming...
Bob and Martha grew up on the same street, with a similar home life and parents of equal income. They also attended the same schools, until High School, where Bob decided to run away and join the circus. Martha graduated high school and then invested in her future by attending college and graduates with the debt that is frequently accrued over 4 years of higher education.

It is now 5 years later. Bob is making his 100, Martha her 1000, and they live in the town they grew up in (your cost of living scenario).

Sounds perfectly fair to me... unless Bob did go to college, in which case he probably shouldn't have majored in Comparative Lit.

Now you're just altering the theoretical scenario until it fits your model. That's not how those things work. It's a simple scenario, and it provides a counter-example/pressing question for the given model... You have to answer the question as presented, not twist the circumstances until they fit the model.

[fillmoreb]

Now you're just altering the theoretical scenario until it fits your model. That's not how those things work. It's a simple scenario, and it provides a counter-example/pressing question for the given model... You have to answer the question as presented, not twist the circumstances until they fit the model.

No, he's just pointing out that there's more to the scenario than the raw numbers.

[Tinykong]

I find it very amusing that people believe that well off people pulled themselves up by their boot straps and built their wealth out of nothing but hard work and determination. Wealthy people would never take advantage of government loan programs, or special interest programs to start a business. No, they'd never do that.

If being wealthy was simply a matter of hard work, no one would be poor.

[Themius]

The email in question seemed pretty tame, I'm a little more perturbed by the following:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-got-w-elected

Here’s Siegel’s account of how he swung the election in Bush’s favor: “Whenever I saw a negative article about [Al] Gore, I put it in with the paychecks of my 8,000 employees. I had my managers do a survey on every employee. If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore. The week before [the election] we made 80,000 phone calls through my call center—they were robo-calls. On Election Day, we made sure everyone who was voting for Bush got to the polls. I didn’t know he would win by 527 votes. Afterward, we did a survey among the employees to find out who voted who wouldn’t have otherwise. One thousand of them said so.”

That is alarming.



He clearly doesn't have the money.

[Vashdakari]

Now you're just altering the theoretical scenario until it fits your model. That's not how those things work. It's a simple scenario, and it provides a counter-example/pressing question for the given model... You have to answer the question as presented, not twist the circumstances until they fit the model.

Then I still think it's fair, because there is no way that people of equal intelligence/capability/whathaveyou will have such a disparity. (Unless Bob really is a lazy ass and can't get some moxy to ask for a raise or go get a job at Martha's corporation) That is the beauty of America. No one can tell you where you will work, or for how much. If you think you're worth more, or you are worth more, you have CHOICE to aspire for better. I have no pity on Bob for not utilizing his freedoms.

The real travesty here is that Martha should probably be getting more, but i think I saw Glass Ceilings in another thread...

[Annapolis]

I find it very amusing that people believe that well off people pulled themselves up by their boot straps and built their wealth out of nothing but hard work and determination. Wealthy people would never take advantage of government loan programs, or special interest programs to start a business. No, they'd never do that.

If being wealthy was simply a matter of hard work, no one would be poor.

Government loan programs also indirectly raise college costs.

Nobody is arguing that infrastructure has nothing to do with becoming wealthy. But hard work and determination can get you quite far in the United States. Are you saying that working hard in the United States can't bring you from lower class to wealthy class? Because I'm sure you'll find that isn't the case.

[Tinykong]

Government loan programs also indirectly raise college costs.

Nobody is arguing that infrastructure has nothing to do with becoming wealthy. But hard work and determination can get you quite far in the United States. Are you saying that working hard in the United States can't bring you from lower class to wealthy class? Because I'm sure you'll find that isn't the case.

I was referring to the hypothetical example of one person making $800 a week and someone else $100 a week. Some people seem to think that those who earn more simply just work harder, or better. That isn't always the case.

[Torq]

Then I still think it's fair, because there is no way that people of equal intelligence/capability/whathaveyou will have such a disparity. (Unless Bob really is a lazy ass and can't get some moxy to ask for a raise or go get a job at Martha's corporation) That is the beauty of America. No one can tell you where you will work, or for how much. If you think you're worth more, or you are worth more, you have CHOICE to aspire for better. I have no pity on Bob for not utilizing his freedoms.

The real travesty here is that Martha should probably be getting more, but i think I saw Glass Ceilings in another thread...

People with equivalent levels of motivation, intelligence, and ability have such large disparities all the time. There are outside (*cough*societal*cough*) factors, such as a limited pool of jobs, that would prevent them from getting equivalent levels of pay. The company that's paying Mary might have only had one opening for that position, and they were willing to pay well to fill it with the best. Two people might be "the best," and yet only one can have the job. The other is left with a job with far lower compensation.

And yet according to the whole "social debt" thing, Mary has a higher level of social debt than Bob, purely because she makes more money. That's simply not the case.

In fact, one might make the case that those who earn less actually have a higher "social debt-to-wealth" ratio. After all, if you can have "social debt" from using resources provided by the society, can you not also gain "social wealth" by providing said resources?

[Fugus]

They way I see it, you should be taxed based on how much you make in this way. You should be based on what percentage of the nations wealth you made.

If you made 40% of the nations wealth that year, you are responsible for 40% of the nations taxes. If you made 10% of the nations wealth, you are responsible for 10% of the nations taxes. Deductions and all on this scale means fuck all.

So if the top 10% of the nation brings in 93% of the nations wealth, that top 10% is also responsible for 93% of the nations taxes. Pretty simple to think about but really hard to implement, at least at first. It involves having to remove all exemptions and such and taxing them based on the nations total estimated income.

Can't do that based on just net income as they come from too many areas and many different tax rates and such and a flat tax or even the current progressive taxes just don't cover it.

By comparison right now, as of 2007 (lost the link to the old survey), the top 10% held about 93% of the wealth but only paid about 55% of the taxes leaving the bottom 90% of us to carry their dead weight across the finish line come tax time. Well, roughly the 47 to 90% make really as the lower 47% couldn't afford to pay taxes at all.

[mrwingtipshoes]

No, because I know I am correct.

Well there goes all chance of an actual conversation. No point in a discussion with you any more.

[Vashdakari]

People with equivalent levels of motivation, intelligence, and ability have such large disparities all the time. There are outside (*cough*societal*cough*) factors, such as a limited pool of jobs, that would prevent them from getting equivalent levels of pay. The company that's paying Mary might have only had one opening for that position, and they were willing to pay well to fill it with the best. Two people might be "the best," and yet only one can have the job. The other is left with a job with far lower compensation.

And yet according to the whole "social debt" thing, Mary has a higher level of social debt than Bob, purely because she makes more money. That's simply not the case.

In fact, one might make the case that those who earn less actually have a higher "social debt-to-wealth" ratio. After all, if you can have "social debt" from using resources provided by the society, can you not also gain "social wealth" by providing said resources?

Aren't you altering the scenario now?

The fact that we have no background on the discrepancy is why it's a stupid question anyway, and why I had to "assume" they grew up with "equal" footing to begin with. How can we judge fairness without quantification?

It might also help if I shared that after working my way through college, I worked for two years before a certain recession relieved me of my former occupation (low man on the totem pole). After a year of being unemployed and my savings running out, I finally decided the only way I could get work is to take the jobs that no one else wanted. So after another year of working in jobs I was way overqualified for, I finally networked into something in an entirely different field with a significant increase in salary and benefits, and that was thanks to the crappy swing shift job showing my current employer how much I wanted work. So maybe you are right, maybe Bob is just stuck in a recession job. But that would be altering the scenario, wouldn't it?

[Edit] Forgot to mention that the "significant increase" was in comparison to my first job out of college. People will try and argue hard work gets you nowhere, my life experiences have taught me otherwise. And oh yes, I would argue that social debt can work both ways.

[Torq]

Aren't you altering the scenario now?

No, the scenario was that they were exactly identical up until the point they got jobs, at which point one began to earn far more than the other.

There's no assumptions necessary. It was stated in the scenario. A and B were exactly identical, used identical amounts of "societal services", but when they both got jobs, the one with the higher salary was assumed to have a higher "societal debt" just due to the higher salary.

[Grizzly Willy]

I wonder. This company is not public. If this guy decides to shutter it, a lot of people will be out of a job.

And it'll be on him for the choices he made.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Except they're not. People have already addressed this. Why don't you actually respond to their counter arguments rather than repeating the claim while calling them hypocrites?

The union is a company. A company that controls your employment terms and conditions. A company that CAN have you moved from your job. A company that you sign a contract with and in many instances are required to sign with when you get said job.

There is no difference in union telling people to vote left as a CEO telling people to vote right. The only difference? The fact that people like you are too blinded by your own bias to see it.

---------- Post added 2012-10-11 at 12:26 AM ----------

And it'll be on him for the choices he made.

And while some may find it reprehensible it is in no way illegal to shut down his business, sell off the company and take all of the money for himself.

[Sunseeker]

I wonder. This company is not public. If this guy decides to shutter it, a lot of people will be out of a job.

So? We should just give employers whatever they want because we're poor helpless nobodies who could never get anywhere without them?

Screw that. You know what this guy going out of business would mean? Lots of opportunity for NEW and BETTER business.

[Laize]

So? We should just give employers whatever they want because we're poor helpless nobodies who could never get anywhere without them?

Screw that. You know what this guy going out of business would mean? Lots of opportunity for NEW and BETTER business.

Oh for sure. I'm just wondering if he could face an legal ramifications.

I remember when Bill Gates threatened to take Microsoft out of Redmond and got his way with the government there.

And it'll be on him for the choices he made.

I'm sure he'll sleep at night.

[Sunseeker]

Oh for sure. I'm just wondering if he could face an legal ramifications.

I remember when Bill Gates threatened to take Microsoft out of Redmond and got his way with the government there.

And that's crap too, it's part of this stupid system we have which favors massive conglomerate quasi-monopolies and market suppression over competition and free enterprise.

And I really hope you don't say that statement coming from me surprises you.

[Grizzly Willy]

I don't really care how he feels.

[Wells]

The union is a company. A company that controls your employment terms and conditions. A company that CAN have you moved from your job. A company that you sign a contract with and in many instances are required to sign with when you get said job.

Unions are inherently political. They do not have direct firing power in almost all cases.

---------- Post added 2012-10-11 at 12:36 AM ----------

Furthermore, the point of a union is to, in part, further the political well being of its members. Telling them who they should vote for to that end is clearly part of their job. Employers do not exist for the advancement of their employees.