CEO Pay in 2010 Jumped 11%

Unions and owners killed my Expos and will never be forgiven.

There is a middle ground called merit-based pay. Unions don't allow it. CEOs don't follow it.

I thought it was crappy attendance and trading every decent player they had for magic beans every season.
 
All I know is what I see infront of me. Every year the company I work for makes big$$ I see big investments(bigger buildings more machines) with X'sJob opennings throughout the next year. The owner used to be a reg working guy 5am-6pm running machines all day(like I do now) got the chance after saving money to open his own shop. Now hes a millionaire making jobs and lives better for his employees. Sure he gets rich too but why shouldnt he? At the same time growing his business and creating jobs(good paying imo). Hating someone elses success... I just cant understand.
 
In the end if a company and its investors want to pay someone
that much and are fine with it what business is it of yours(allTh8ters)
that someone gets paid large amounts of money. It has nothing to
do with you if you dont like the way a company acts dont buy there
crap or buy stock and take it up at a shareholders meeting.
The End
 
All I know is what I see infront of me. Every year the company I work for makes big$$ I see big investments(bigger buildings more machines) with X'sJob opennings throughout the next year. The owner used to be a reg working guy 5am-6pm running machines all day(like I do now) got the chance after saving money to open his own shop. Now hes a millionaire making jobs and lives better for his employees. Sure he gets rich too but why shouldnt he? At the same time growing his business and creating jobs(good paying imo). Hating someone elses success... I just cant understand.

I would agree except no that's Horatio Alger bullshit. Name one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger_myth
 
@ssjwes1980 you are exactly right.

I don't understand why someone who works hard and becomes extremely successful becomes public enemy #1. The majority of people on here bashing CEO's should be idolizing them, because chances are they have their jobs because of those same CEO's. Its a fact that when the rich get richer, the middle class also gets richer. Our standard of living is constantly going up because of the rich. Quite honestly, the "poverty" line is a joke in the U.S. What a great country, where someone who has almost no education or special skill can get a decent job and be considered poor because he lives in an apartment, drives a ten year old car, and only has one tv. Americans don't have a clue what its like to truly be in poverty. Why? Dare I say it, the rich.
 
CEO of Tesco, Sir Terry Leahy, has apparently said, No one can deny that Britain has spawned a generation of young people who struggle to read, write or do simple maths. What the fuck else did you expect to find suitable employees, Terry?
 
I thought it was crappy attendance and trading every decent player they had for magic beans every season.
The strike happened during the 1994 season, when they were leading the National League. Because of the squabbling between highly-paid owners and the players' union (i.e. highly-paid players), they never--ever--reaped the financial benefit of a post-season. The franchise languished, selling off their best players until ownership was finally taken over by the league and then sold to *shudder* Washington.

No, unions are not the answer. You trade a few, extravagant salaries for a broad base of rewards for seniority and mediocrity.
 
With the absurdity in CEO pay continuing, it won't be too long before many become targets of an increasingly angry population of poor who have seen MR. CEO send their jobs to china. They may find that the world turns on them, lethally.
 
I love the logic that it seems every board/CEO use:

Times are good and business is booming, our CEO is doing a good job (even though a monkey could do just as well in this economy), so he should get a big raise.
Times are tough and business is suffering, our CEO has a super hard job (what with having to decide which peon's to lay off and all), so he should get a big raise.
Times are okay and business is okay, our CEO could get hired by some other company at any moment (even though he is an a-hole), so he should get a big raise.

Doesn't matter what the situation, there is always an excuse to give CEO's big raises, and usually a reason to fire lots of people too.
 
@ssjwes1980 you are exactly right.

I don't understand why someone who works hard and becomes extremely successful becomes public enemy #1. The majority of people on here bashing CEO's should be idolizing them, because chances are they have their jobs because of those same CEO's. Its a fact that when the rich get richer, the middle class also gets richer. Our standard of living is constantly going up because of the rich. Quite honestly, the "poverty" line is a joke in the U.S. What a great country, where someone who has almost no education or special skill can get a decent job and be considered poor because he lives in an apartment, drives a ten year old car, and only has one tv. Americans don't have a clue what its like to truly be in poverty. Why? Dare I say it, the rich.

So... It's fine for big business to get rich being shady as one possibly can be while we as tax payers foot the bill but we should all be happy and STFU because people in south africa live in mud huts still?

Sorry, I don't follow you.

Inflating the money supply (the fed (central bank), the banks, the elite) is also worse than just my tax dollars footing the bill for all the ridiculous things my tax dollars foot the bill for. Inflating the money supply is actually hacking away at the money I have in my savings (it's stealing/hidden taxation). It takes money to make money and if they keep funneling the little I have back to the rich with taxes and inflation than it's unfair and the whole system is rigged to keep the poor in their place.

Hilary Clinton spoke of a glass ceiling, it's not just for women, it's for the poor. The rules set forth are oppressive by design. I don't mind hard working Americans getting rich but those aren't who we're talking about. We're talking about bankers here!

Their the best dressed scum of the earth.

Love this line from a movie.

"The real value of conflict is the debt. You control the debt, you control everything. This is the very essence of the banking industry.To make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt. Think about that for a bit".


 
Bet those CEOs are the same people lobbying to get rid of unions and lower wages.
 
I'm trying to understand where this concept of government regulation being evil came from. I'm not asking which radio show host, but where regulation went wrong in some tangible sense for the middle and low class to be so easily sold on the government being this monster, by these pundits.

The concept came from the Republicans, who claimed that government IS the problem, then got elected on that premise, and purposefully torpedoed the economy at every opportunity to prove this to be true.

Why did we elect people to government that hated government and seeks to destroy it? The only concern Republicans in office have is to make the government look as ineffective as humanly possible. It's like a restaurant hiring a dishwasher that claims to really hate dishes, then being completely surprised to find a pile of broken dishes on the floor at the end of their shift, then claiming if the restaurant really wanted to make things better, to buy new dishes at the end of each shift.. Oh, and that he knows a really, really good dish guy that could serve their needs. It's all a fucking scam, and America falls for it every damn time.
 
All I know is what I see infront of me. Every year the company I work for makes big$$ I see big investments(bigger buildings more machines) with X'sJob opennings throughout the next year. The owner used to be a reg working guy 5am-6pm running machines all day(like I do now) got the chance after saving money to open his own shop. Now hes a millionaire making jobs and lives better for his employees. Sure he gets rich too but why shouldnt he? At the same time growing his business and creating jobs(good paying imo). Hating someone elses success... I just cant understand.

And for every person this happens to, there are 10,000 people who work five times as hard and get nowhere. It's just the luck of the draw. One responsible businessman also doesn't speak for the lack of morals of the conglomerates-- ones who would buy out the average businessman for twice of what his business is worth, so they can dispose of the competition and go on pillaging. Plus this has exactly DICK to do with people who vacuum up people's money on Wall Street using complex mathematics that nobody understands, and boom/bust speculation.

The more the top 1% suck up the money, the less and less we will see of the average Joe Entrepreneur that starts a company, makes money and hires lots of employees and helps the economy. Even today, look at what happens? Any company that comes out of nowhere and does well, they get sucked up by a conglomerate, chewed up and the employees spat out on to the streets.
 
With the absurdity in CEO pay continuing, it won't be too long before many become targets of an increasingly angry population of poor who have seen MR. CEO send their jobs to china. They may find that the world turns on them, lethally.

I guess we'll finally start seeing people use those "Second Amendment Remedies" Sharron Angle was talking about last year! That's a scary thought, but could happen once the masses find out they've been fooled, screwed, and left in the dust. I think that's one of my biggest fears of what's been happening in politics the last few decades coming to a head.

I think it's ironic that Republican politicians go on about restoring taxes on the wealthy back to what it was in the 90s as class warfare, when they've essentially declared war against the poor and middle class in their latest budget that could have been written by the very CEOs we're talking about!
 
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

@j32p

The top 1% pays roughly 40% of the taxes, while the bottom 47% pays no income tax at all. Believe me, the distribution of wealth is not in favor of the rich.

As for inflation, this is a serious issue. Food prices among many products are skyrocketing in price. If the fed keeps printing or digitizing money the threat of hyperinflation will be all too real.
 
*cou-unions-gh*

It's the only way that employees can limit this level of greed.

Who brainwashed the public in the 70s/80s that unions are horrible? The rich. Who's profitting now that there are basically no union left and those that are have little power? The rich.

The unions wrote their own ticket. While I see the good that unions can do, they grew too bloated and greedy. If they focused on providing more value for the higher wage they demand, that would be great. Instead they try to stay as stagnant as possible, protecting even the most absolutely terrible of their members, while sucking as much money from the system as possible. Read the New Yorker article on New York's "rubber room" for teachers. The union won't allow them to be fired, yet they are so horrible NY pays them to just sit in a room all day reading the paper instead of being around kids.
 
The strike happened during the 1994 season, when they were leading the National League. Because of the squabbling between highly-paid owners and the players' union (i.e. highly-paid players), they never--ever--reaped the financial benefit of a post-season. The franchise languished, selling off their best players until ownership was finally taken over by the league and then sold to *shudder* Washington.

No, unions are not the answer. You trade a few, extravagant salaries for a broad base of rewards for seniority and mediocrity.

Unions in general seem to be a by product of the lack of protection for laborers. I can't say it's a good fit for MLB players, but the MLB in general seems poorly managed. Maybe it's a defense mechanism on the players part.
 
The unions wrote their own ticket. While I see the good that unions can do, they grew too bloated and greedy. If they focused on providing more value for the higher wage they demand, that would be great. Instead they try to stay as stagnant as possible, protecting even the most absolutely terrible of their members, while sucking as much money from the system as possible. Read the New Yorker article on New York's "rubber room" for teachers. The union won't allow them to be fired, yet they are so horrible NY pays them to just sit in a room all day reading the paper instead of being around kids.

Yeah, I read that article. It's a friggin' atrocity. I think that the "union mentality" has a lot to do with it. I think there needs to be some unionization law reforms put in place, so as to be able to fire some of those teachers mentioned in that article, without giving up the protection to the broader base of hard working individuals it's meant to protect. It also makes the unions look bad because it makes them appear to be protecting these bad apples without really bringing much else to the table that is positive. Does management need to have a counterbalance to protect these people, I believe they do, but there needs to be some reform so situations like that the NYT article illustrates become few and far between rather than the norm.
 
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

@j32p

The top 1% pays roughly 40% of the taxes, while the bottom 47% pays no income tax at all. Believe me, the distribution of wealth is not in favor of the rich.
If they pay that much, it's because they make that much, so yeah the distribution of wealth is in favor of the wealthy. Also you need to look deeper than just pure percentages of income tax, look at how much in taxes they actually are paying as a percentage of income, and while every income level pays less than they should, the wealth have much more money they save.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

1980 top 1% made about 9% of the total income, lowest 50% made a bit under 18% of the total income. Come 2008 (latest IRS data), top 1% is now making 20% of the total income, lowest 50% is making around 13%. So yeah, 1% of people makes 66% more than 50%. If you look at percentage of income paid as taxes 1980 1% paid 34.5% of their income as taxes, lowest 50% paid 6% , fast forward to 2008 top 1% pays 23% of their income as taxes, bottom 50% pays 2.6%. So while both groups did have a drop, the top 1% had a much more radical drop in percentage if income they paid as taxes, all the while making MORE money, when by definition most of the income they make should be taxed in excess of 30% (according to 2008 tax rates).

Now I'm not saying people don't have the right to make money, far from it, however I get a little pissed off whenever someone starts crying the plight of the rich and how unfair the tax system is for them.
 
All I know is what I see infront of me. Every year the company I work for makes big$$ I see big investments(bigger buildings more machines) with X'sJob opennings throughout the next year. The owner used to be a reg working guy 5am-6pm running machines all day(like I do now) got the chance after saving money to open his own shop. Now hes a millionaire making jobs and lives better for his employees. Sure he gets rich too but why shouldnt he? At the same time growing his business and creating jobs(good paying imo). Hating someone elses success... I just cant understand.

a person who founded and built up a company through their own hardwork is completely different that the many CEOs who rode daddy's coat tails through a Ivy league school then was spoon fed some comfy position at a corporation.

And the whole "a CEO's salary is none of your business" argument is BS. Ofcourse shareholders are going to be happy if they maximize profits (ie screw all the employees below him).
 
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The top 1% pays roughly 40% of the taxes, while the bottom 47% pays no income tax at all. Believe me, the distribution of wealth is not in favor of the rich.

Heh. The bottom 40% of Americans own 0.2% of the wealth in America. That's right, more than 120 million Americans own less than 1 quarter of 1 percent of the wealth.

Take 100 people and 100 dollars. Now give 40 of them 2 dimes and ask them if that is a distribution that makes any kind of sense.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
 
a person who founded and built up a company through their own hardwork is completely different that the many CEOs who rode daddy's coat tails through a Ivy league school then was spoon fed some comfy position at a corporation.

And the whole "a CEO's salary is none of your business" argument is BS. Ofcourse shareholders are going to be happy if they maximize profits (ie screw all the employees below him).

My general opinion on the state of business in the US is that the larger corporations are so big and so spread out that it's easy for them to ignore or overlook how devastating their decisions are. The only impact the higher ups can envision are the little numbers in their spreadsheets and how it increases or decreases their own pay check.

A small guy starting his own company, based on what he's done for a great period of his life, is going to care about the profits and margins but he can put himself in your shoes. Would he be able to tolerate the working conditions and wages he provides? Is he paying enough to get someone with his skill level to do the job? There's probably very few people on these forums who have a boss who would even ask those questions....because they only know how to "manage" and watch the metrics they've setup to gauge progress whether they are meaningful or not.
 
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

@j32p

The top 1% pays roughly 40% of the taxes, while the bottom 47% pays no income tax at all. Believe me, the distribution of wealth is not in favor of the rich.

As for inflation, this is a serious issue. Food prices among many products are skyrocketing in price. If the fed keeps printing or digitizing money the threat of hyperinflation will be all too real.

Are you kidding me?? The richest 400 people in the US are wealthier than the bottom 50%. The Fed has to keep printing money because the wealthiest keep vacuuming it up so fast the economy would collapse if they didn't, because the bottom 50% of the population would go completely broke, and there would be nobody left with money to buy goods and services.

If the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, well, hell, even after taxes they are still making money hand over fist, so it's like saying "if you take a cup of water from a swollen river, you gotta be fair and take an equal amount from a dry lake!"

You're looking at the wrong numbers, or just taking somebody else's interpretation of them and shutting off your brain.
 
The unions wrote their own ticket. While I see the good that unions can do, they grew too bloated and greedy. If they focused on providing more value for the higher wage they demand, that would be great. Instead they try to stay as stagnant as possible, protecting even the most absolutely terrible of their members, while sucking as much money from the system as possible.

Well that actually might be so. But, then again their role models were greedy conglomerates with CEOs that are willing to stomp all over everybody to get unbelievably wealthy. I'd get greedy too, if I had to fight tooth and nail to keep my constituents barely on par with cost of living, while the CEOs were basking in glory, getting raises many times over the cost of living.

If unions have to reform, the entire system has to. If the unions were completely busted up, within 25 years I guarantee employees will be getting the same treatment as they got in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Working long hours with very low wage, with no choice but work as much as demanded for fear of losing their jobs... And corporations would still bitch that they don't have enough to survive because they'll be paying the CEO 80% of their profit by then...

That is, if the bottom 66% hasn't become so poor by then that the entire economy collapsed in on itself, since we've become a nation entirely subsistent on consumption. If consumers no longer have enough capital to purchase goods and services, we no longer have an economy.
 
@urielDagda,
If you seriously think the fed is printing money because the wealthy are "vacuuming" it up too fast, then you have no clue of even the basics of the US economy. I suggest you go read up on the subject before you make a fool of yourself.

Also, something you refuse to understand, if you aren't getting paid your market value for your particular skill or service, its your own damn fault. Go get a job somewhere else for more. If you can't, then you are already getting paid your market value, or more. If you happen to be in a situation where you are getting paid over your market value, then the executives aren't doing their jobs, and their market value is lower. If the business is paying everyone on market value, then the executives are doing (part of) their jobs, so the executives market value goes up. There is nothing wrong with this, the free market creates an efficient economy. If something isn't efficient it fails.
 
@urielDagda,
If you seriously think the fed is printing money because the wealthy are "vacuuming" it up too fast, then you have no clue of even the basics of the US economy. I suggest you go read up on the subject before you make a fool of yourself.

Also, something you refuse to understand, if you aren't getting paid your market value for your particular skill or service, its your own damn fault. Go get a job somewhere else for more. If you can't, then you are already getting paid your market value, or more. If you happen to be in a situation where you are getting paid over your market value, then the executives aren't doing their jobs, and their market value is lower. If the business is paying everyone on market value, then the executives are doing (part of) their jobs, so the executives market value goes up. There is nothing wrong with this, the free market creates an efficient economy. If something isn't efficient it fails.


1. The Fed prints money because they have to print money to spend more, buy more things, temporarily pay off someone rich at the future burden of someone poor.. Money is printed to spend on things that it shouldn't be spent on. It's that very same stupid reasoning that made consumers go into credit card debt. Printing money is the governments credit card. the only difference is that if I run up my credit cards the rest of America doesn't have to bail me out of my own stupidity.

A also have found in my years on this earth that the first person to start name calling is the most foolish person out of the bunch.
Tell him why he's wrong, don't insult him why he is wrong.


2. I guess you have missed a lot of the news over the last ten years while reading up on the topic. So I'll inform you. CEO's having been (for many, many years) getting paid more and more and more, a lot of times even while the companies around them collapse into rubble. It has absolutely nothing to do with their market value. It does however have everything to do with greed, pure greed.

3. When was the market ever free? There is an illusion of freedom but it's without doubt not free to do what it pleases or ever was! The free market is about as free as I am to do anything I wish to. To explain this more would take time. Let me just say freedom is not what you perceive it to be. Debt = slavery my man. Debt is all around so there is no way we're free. One does not need to be locked in a concrete prison to be confined.



FYI... College debt is the next bubble to burst.
 
@urielDagda,
If something isn't efficient it fails.

If only it were that simple. Just seeing the sheer number of "professional" economists who were wrong about the whole economic crisis up to and beyond the meltdown.....it doesn't seem like that line quite describes anything happening in the US right now. Nor much of anything else you've said.
 
I would agree except no that's Horatio Alger bullshit. Name one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger_myth

Ok, my dad. No college degree, no money to get one married at 19 without parents support and massively in debt. Now he's 49, literally changed the world via medical image archiving, and drives a Maserati Granturismo S. Is one step below C level at a fortune 500 company after they acquired the one he started himself.
 
Ok, my dad. No college degree, no money to get one married at 19 without parents support and massively in debt. Now he's 49, literally changed the world via medical image archiving, and drives a Maserati Granturismo S. Is one step below C level at a fortune 500 company after they acquired the one he started himself.

Be proud, your Dad is a one in a million case. Now do the math.
 
1. The Fed prints money because they have to print money to spend more, buy more things, temporarily pay off someone rich at the future burden of someone poor.. Money is printed to spend on things that it shouldn't be spent on. It's that very same stupid reasoning that made consumers go into credit card debt. Printing money is the governments credit card. the only difference is that if I run up my credit cards the rest of America doesn't have to bail me out of my own stupidity.
Yes... I'm not sure if we disagree about anything there.

2. I guess you have missed a lot of the news over the last ten years while reading up on the topic. So I'll inform you. CEO's having been (for many, many years) getting paid more and more and more, a lot of times even while the companies around them collapse into rubble. It has absolutely nothing to do with their market value. It does however have everything to do with greed, pure greed.
Yes... and if those businesses were allowed to fail, bankruptcy would force the business to be more efficient, and most likely the CEO would be the first to go.

3. When was the market ever free? There is an illusion of freedom but it's without doubt not free to do what it pleases or ever was! The free market is about as free as I am to do anything I wish to. To explain this more would take time. Let me just say freedom is not what you perceive it to be. Debt = slavery my man. Debt is all around so there is no way we're free. One does not need to be locked in a concrete prison to be confined.

I think you missed my point. Yes, we are not a true free market, and regulation/bailouts continue to step in the way of the free market solving problems.
 
CEO pay is up by 11% this year. It is so nice to see something besides unemployment on the rise. :rolleyes: Who says the terrible economy is hurting people? On a serious note...the CEOs making the most money ($25M+ per year) also happen to be the ones complaining how bad piracy is "killing" their industry .

Steve,

While your sarcasm is usually received with cheer and joy... the top paid CEO's around the globe have very little to do with music or movies....

Of course, since you're the CEO of [H], we could wonder how much your salary has increased during the past 24 months.
 
Yes... I'm not sure if we disagree about anything there.


Yes... and if those businesses were allowed to fail, bankruptcy would force the business to be more efficient, and most likely the CEO would be the first to go.



I think you missed my point. Yes, we are not a true free market, and regulation/bailouts continue to step in the way of the free market solving problems.

I see it's you that has missed the point. So you're right because you're telling people they're wrong based on what should be while I am stating you're wrong based on what actually is? I'm also done speaking because your stance has since changed. Which tells me you just wiggle your way out of corners instead of correcting the reason you got into a corner.

Go reread your posts because I didn't say it, you did.

Example:

you:There is nothing wrong with this, the free market creates an efficient economy. If something isn't efficient it fails.
me: There is no free market
you: Well if there was!
me: Well, there's not!
you: but we need one
me: There will never be one or there would be one. Don't believe everything you hear!
Point: Stop telling us what people tell you is real. Look for yourself.
You wouldn't say things like this if you did.

@j32p

The top 1% pays roughly 40% of the taxes, while the bottom 47% pays no income tax at all. Believe me, the distribution of wealth is not in favor of the rich.
The poor have nothing to give and yet they still give a huge percentage in various other forms of taxation (plus inflation where poor suffer way more than the rich do(takes money to make money). The rich may give more in some ways but they have so, so much. It takes money to make money so the poor usually have no way out of their situations either. Rich people find loopholes everyday to save more and more money. I would (I think everyone here will agree) rather be (extremely) rich and give more than I want to than to be poor and have nothing to give if I wanted to.



:)
 
Ok, my dad. No college degree, no money to get one married at 19 without parents support and massively in debt. Now he's 49, literally changed the world via medical image archiving, and drives a Maserati Granturismo S. Is one step below C level at a fortune 500 company after they acquired the one he started himself.

I smell bullshit.
A) your dad basically changed the way medical images (X-rays, MRI's, etc etc) are stored... before 5 years ago.... most of those were still stored in large cabinets.
B) there's no reference to said company... nor how it has changed the world of medical image archival
C) married at 19 does not make one or set one up for success... and has little relevance to the topic.
 
Well the rich need to be taxed more IMHO. From what I have gathered and have been told taxation stops at about 25% and at a set amount of money(250k from what i was told). So if some rich bastard makes 1 mil and is taxed 25% he still makes 750k. While jo smith makes only 50k he gets taxed 25% or what ever he is worse off. Tax the rich highr and tax the middle class and lower class less.
 
Well the rich need to be taxed more IMHO. From what I have gathered and have been told taxation stops at about 25% and at a set amount of money(250k from what i was told). So if some rich bastard makes 1 mil and is taxed 25% he still makes 750k. While jo smith makes only 50k he gets taxed 25% or what ever he is worse off. Tax the rich highr and tax the middle class and lower class less.

This is true. Yes most donate to charities and such to get tax rite offs but still they need to contribute more to the economy instead of being stingy. Just like information should be shared so should wealth. IMO...
 
I smell bullshit.
A) your dad basically changed the way medical images (X-rays, MRI's, etc etc) are stored... before 5 years ago.... most of those were still stored in large cabinets.
B) there's no reference to said company... nor how it has changed the world of medical image archival
C) married at 19 does not make one or set one up for success... and has little relevance to the topic.

No, before ten years ago they were stored in large cabinets. Now over four billion images are stored in his company's (well, used to be his company's - they were acquired) archives. They were the first company on the scene, have never lost a single image, and have over 85% marketshare.
 
This is true. Yes most donate to charities and such to get tax rite offs but still they need to contribute more to the economy instead of being stingy. Just like information should be shared so should wealth. IMO...

Same same.
 
This is true. Yes most donate to charities and such to get tax rite offs but still they need to contribute more to the economy instead of being stingy. Just like information should be shared so should wealth. IMO...

Until you send off two of your eyefinity monitors to less fortunate members here, you're nothing but a hypocrite. Share the wealth, man.
 
Well the rich need to be taxed more IMHO. From what I have gathered and have been told taxation stops at about 25% and at a set amount of money(250k from what i was told). So if some rich bastard makes 1 mil and is taxed 25% he still makes 750k. While jo smith makes only 50k he gets taxed 25% or what ever he is worse off. Tax the rich highr and tax the middle class and lower class less.

No, that's completely incorrect and you are clueless. Taxation does not stop at 25%. If you can't even understand basic facts, what makes you think you are qualified to make economic decisions such as whether the rich should be taxed more?

"cuz its just not fair, dude" is not a valid answer.
 
Back
Top