what is wrong with having a high income?

[Draica]

This idea, this myth that CEOs or rich people didn't work for their money has been populated by Communists, Liberals, and secular progressives. Just because CEOs monopolize companies and get money out of investments or real estate, or atleast some do, doesn't mean they didn't earn it. They obviously earned their position as a CEO, they don't just hand those out on a silver platter. They are using the financial ability that they earned, their financial knowledge and position to get money. What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

Liberals and Communists populate the myth that unless you're rich you won't be rich when you grow up. That will come true if their orgy visions of bringing down rich people and rich institutions with taxes and regulation come into reality. See, it's not the CEOs or businesses poor people should worry about, it's the liberals, democrats and communists.

[Alyakia]

*is born into rich family* (my great grandfather worked stealing land from the irish, ok?)
*calls sick and unemployed lazy bums because they cannot a job in a climate where are at least 4 people for every vacancy*

The government shouldn't give out stuff for free to everyone (maybe only to those who truly cannot do much or are dependent upon others). What the government should do is promote job creation and provide all the necessary tools for those who can do something to do something. Something like: "I'll help you help yourself".

you realize this sounds basically like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" right

[Distruzio]

The government shouldn't give out stuff for free to everyone (maybe only to those who truly cannot do much or are dependent upon others). What the government should do is promote job creation and provide all the necessary tools for those who can do something to do something. Something like: "I'll help you help yourself".

you realize this sounds basically like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" right

I'm glad you said it because I was a bit confused by his statement.

[Alyakia]

This idea, this myth that CEOs or rich people didn't work for their money has been populated by Communists, Liberals, and secular progressives. Just because CEOs monopolize companies and get money out of investments or real estate, or atleast some do, doesn't mean they didn't earn it. They obviously earned their position as a CEO, they don't just hand those out on a silver platter. They are using the financial ability that they earned, their financial knowledge and position to get money. What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

Liberals and Communists populate the myth that unless you're rich you won't be rich when you grow up. That will come true if their orgy visions of bringing down rich people and rich institutions with taxes and regulation come into reality. See, it's not the CEOs or businesses poor people should worry about, it's the liberals, democrats and communists.

you don't know what liberal or secular really mean. secular is basally entirely irrelevant as to economic ideology and liberalism is a right-wing ideology. do you think its a coincidence that classical liberalism is one of the most free market ideologies there is? you're just throwing about a bunch of scary words that you've been told are bad and most of the world thinks your definitions are wrong mostly because they are.

[Nervium]

This idea, this myth that CEOs or rich people didn't work for their money has been populated by Communists, Liberals, and secular progressives. Just because CEOs monopolize companies and get money out of investments or real estate, or atleast some do, doesn't mean they didn't earn it. They obviously earned their position as a CEO, they don't just hand those out on a silver platter. They are using the financial ability that they earned, their financial knowledge and position to get money. What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

Liberals and Communists populate the myth that unless you're rich you won't be rich when you grow up. That will come true if their orgy visions of bringing down rich people and rich institutions with taxes and regulation come into reality. See, it's not the CEOs or businesses poor people should worry about, it's the liberals, democrats and communists.

No, it's definetly the business oligarchs though.
And there's a horrible ghastly truth in it, if you're born in poverty, the chances of becoming rich are next to zero.
The last crisis is a wonderful example of that.

Also, in b4 but that's not true capitalism.

[Nazi Flower Power]

What about the CEOs who didn't start the company?

They maintain it, don't they?

How much money they get out of it often has more to do with how big the company was when they took over rather than how good of a job they do of running it. It's really not fair to say they are responsible for everything the company accomplishes when they start with a multibillion dollar corporation that someone else built up.

[Magna Libero]

Nothing. If an employee has signed under a contract where the profit is shared between the owners, then there's nothing wrong in it. However, as I've probably said before, a worker could try to enter a business, in which profit and expense is mutually shared between employees by a job contract.

They want to make society more equal by lowering the wealthy, instead of raising the poor. That's my take.

Hmm. I don't like that Robin Hood-approach. That sounds like theft.

[Jordsindia]

People who work hard to get their income are supposed to share it with lazy bums who want free government hand outs. [sarcasm]

*is born into rich family* (my great grandfather worked stealing land from the irish, ok?)
*calls sick and unemployed lazy bums because they cannot a job in a climate where are at least 4 people for every vacancy*

Not all rich are born rich.

Unemployed aren't bums. They can't get a job, and when jobs become available, they will go ahead and work those jobs. But if you start giving them all money in hard times, they will then think they don't have to work later on because the government is basically paying for their life already, why work?

[Kiruri]

The government shouldn't give out stuff for free to everyone (maybe only to those who truly cannot do much or are dependent upon others). What the government should do is promote job creation and provide all the necessary tools for those who can do something to do something. Something like: "I'll help you help yourself".

you realize this sounds basically like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" right

I'm not marxist. By that I meant that the government shouldn't just keep on handing out unemployment benefits indefinitely to individuals, stuff along those lines. "I, the government, will help you with what you need so you can help yourself and stop mooching off of my money"

[Alyakia]

*is born into rich family* (my great grandfather worked stealing land from the irish, ok?)
*calls sick and unemployed lazy bums because they cannot a job in a climate where are at least 4 people for every vacancy*

Not all rich are born rich.

Unemployed aren't bums. They can't get a job, and when jobs become available, they will go ahead and work those jobs. But if you start giving them all money in hard times, they will then think they don't have to work later on because the government is basically paying for their life already, why work?

i know. but not all rich work hard to get their income. which was the point.

because living on benefits is actually really really shit and the government can and will arbitrarily cut off your money whenever it feels like you're not looking for a job hard enough or just whenever it feels like it really? there are no free money stations.

[Distruzio]

They maintain it, don't they?

How much money they get out of it often has more to do with how big the company was when they took over rather than how good of a job they do of running it. It's really not fair to say they are responsible for everything the company accomplishes when they start with a multibillion dollar corporation that someone else built up.

It's not fair to deny their involvement either. I'd suggest that they merit such substantial wages because they have the planning and organizational expertise to take responsibility for the future of the company...

[Cedoria]

Nothing, except when they don't pay sufficient taxes to enable the lower classes to make a decent living through government/public services Many businesses do pay quite high taxes in theory. But in Practice there are various ways to get around it. Many businesses make charity or political 'donations' to exempt them from millions of dollars. Some like to send their money into off-shore accounts during tax season, then return. It back once it's over.

[Distruzio]

you realize this sounds basically like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" right

I'm not marxist. By that I meant that the government shouldn't just keep on handing out unemployment benefits indefinitely to individuals, stuff along those lines.

In America... the government doesn't do that. In fact, it's quite difficult to maintain unemployment benefits. I've yet to come across a pro-safety net individual who advocated the extension of benefits in the way that you describe.

[Draica]

This idea, this myth that CEOs or rich people didn't work for their money has been populated by Communists, Liberals, and secular progressives. Just because CEOs monopolize companies and get money out of investments or real estate, or atleast some do, doesn't mean they didn't earn it. They obviously earned their position as a CEO, they don't just hand those out on a silver platter. They are using the financial ability that they earned, their financial knowledge and position to get money. What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

Liberals and Communists populate the myth that unless you're rich you won't be rich when you grow up. That will come true if their orgy visions of bringing down rich people and rich institutions with taxes and regulation come into reality. See, it's not the CEOs or businesses poor people should worry about, it's the liberals, democrats and communists.

you don't know what liberal or secular really mean. secular is basally entirely irrelevant as to economic ideology and liberalism is a right-wing ideology. do you think its a coincidence that classical liberalism is one of the most free market ideologies there is? you're just throwing about a bunch of scary words that you've been told are bad and most of the world thinks your definitions are wrong mostly because they are.

There's a difference between Classical Liberalism and regular liberalism. John F. Kennedy was a classical Liberal, FDR and LBJ were liberals. Grasp that.

[Kiruri]

I'm not marxist. By that I meant that the government shouldn't just keep on handing out unemployment benefits indefinitely to individuals, stuff along those lines.

In America... the government doesn't do that. In fact, it's quite difficult to maintain unemployment benefits. I've yet to come across a pro-safety net individual who advocated the extension of benefits in the way that you describe.

Maybe that's cus you live in america

[Draica]

This idea, this myth that CEOs or rich people didn't work for their money has been populated by Communists, Liberals, and secular progressives. Just because CEOs monopolize companies and get money out of investments or real estate, or atleast some do, doesn't mean they didn't earn it. They obviously earned their position as a CEO, they don't just hand those out on a silver platter. They are using the financial ability that they earned, their financial knowledge and position to get money. What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

Liberals and Communists populate the myth that unless you're rich you won't be rich when you grow up. That will come true if their orgy visions of bringing down rich people and rich institutions with taxes and regulation come into reality. See, it's not the CEOs or businesses poor people should worry about, it's the liberals, democrats and communists.

No, it's definetly the business oligarchs though.
And there's a horrible ghastly truth in it, if you're born in poverty, the chances of becoming rich are next to zero.
The last crisis is a wonderful example of that.

Also, in b4 but that's not true capitalism.

That's nonsense. If you're born into a middle class family(which isn't poverty) if your circumstances are right you have a chance to succeed.

[Draica]

*is born into rich family* (my great grandfather worked stealing land from the irish, ok?)
*calls sick and unemployed lazy bums because they cannot a job in a climate where are at least 4 people for every vacancy*

Not all rich are born rich.

Unemployed aren't bums. They can't get a job, and when jobs become available, they will go ahead and work those jobs. But if you start giving them all money in hard times, they will then think they don't have to work later on because the government is basically paying for their life already, why work?

So they were born middle class? Because according to these liberals if you're middle class you'll never become wealthy.

[Valkalan]

Its not hating the rich per se but some people think its a bit perverse that that 93% of wealth from the "recovery" since 2009 has gone to the top 1% earners with 7% going to the 99% to share out. Many people have seen thier wages frozen since the recession, and thier CEOs giving themselves million dollar wage increases. Wealth inequality is at the highest level in 40 years with CEOs on average earning 380 times what an average worker earns compared to 42 times more in 1980. Now I have trouble believeing that CEOs work 9 times harder than they did 30 years ago.

so its natural that some people think they should pay their workers, the people who create their wealth a bit more, or if not pay a bit more tax to provide services for all.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... _blog.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... dened.html

And? Even low income Americans have easy access to food, shelter and countless luxuries that were not afforded to their ancestors for countless generations prior.

[Distruzio]

you don't know what liberal or secular really mean. secular is basally entirely irrelevant as to economic ideology and liberalism is a right-wing ideology. do you think its a coincidence that classical liberalism is one of the most free market ideologies there is? you're just throwing about a bunch of scary words that you've been told are bad and most of the world thinks your definitions are wrong mostly because they are.

You mean progressives.
There's a difference between Classical Liberalism and regular liberalism. John F. Kennedy was a classical Liberal, FDR and LBJ were liberals. Grasp that.

[Terrordome]

What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

to be honest a raise in the minumum wage to a living wage and 3-2% tax increase wont make CEOs middle class. Most could stop working now and still live confortably for the rest of thier life. But most would prefer to grow thier companies and make more money. Nothing wrong with that. In fact if they grow their companies they can employ more people. I am just saying i understand the right wing reasoning.

However some worry has to be that wealth has got so lopsided so quickly that it could end up affecting the whole country including the rich. some people forget that the people who fuel the economy are consumers, which is everybody, even those on welfare are buying products from corporations with CEOs. As many familys have parents working 2 to 3 jobs just to get by with rent and basic foodstuffs, the consumer class is shrinking. And eventually it will affect everyone.

EDITS: lots of edits because i am having a bad dyslexia bad so sorry about that.

[Alyakia]

I'm not marxist. By that I meant that the government shouldn't just keep on handing out unemployment benefits indefinitely to individuals, stuff along those lines.

In America... the government doesn't do that. In fact, it's quite difficult to maintain unemployment benefits. I've yet to come across a pro-safety net individual who advocated the extension of benefits in the way that you describe.

there's things like guaranteed minimum income or negative tax but that's milton friedman (noted liberal leftist) territory

you don't know what liberal or secular really mean. secular is basally entirely irrelevant as to economic ideology and liberalism is a right-wing ideology. do you think its a coincidence that classical liberalism is one of the most free market ideologies there is? you're just throwing about a bunch of scary words that you've been told are bad and most of the world thinks your definitions are wrong mostly because they are.

There's a difference between Classical Liberalism and regular liberalism. John F. Kennedy was a classical Liberal, FDR and LBJ were liberals. Grasp that.

pretty sure they both strongly believed in capitalism and the free market, just for the record :-)

Not all rich are born rich.

Unemployed aren't bums. They can't get a job, and when jobs become available, they will go ahead and work those jobs. But if you start giving them all money in hard times, they will then think they don't have to work later on because the government is basically paying for their life already, why work?

So they were born middle class? Because according to these liberals if you're middle class you'll never become wealthy.

there is a difference between "never", "unlikely" and "becoming more unlikely than ever before". grasp that.

[Santa Lucania]

It's not that I believe you are doing something wrong but that since you have a higher income you are expected to contribute more to society through taxes and such.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Nothing is wrong with having a high income, no one says that but pretentious teenagers who have little idea of how economics works. The issue with high incomes comes into play when you begin to consider that money is, in essence, an exponential positive feedback loop. The more money you make, the more can be used to make a higher income. When you're upper middle class or upper class, this is a great thing. You can add to your wealth easily, and enjoy a very good life. When you're poor however, the ability for you to use your money to obtain greater abilities or goods is incredibly limited. Especially with college being both as necessary and as expensive as it is now, people with low incomes are essentially screwed.

None of this would be an issue however, if governments provided things like university grants, socialized medical practices (ones which actually work well), and general amenities for their citizens. The problem with this is that it's impossible to acheive these things easily without higher taxes, and you can't have higher taxes without people complaining that "Oh my god, the government is trying to tax me fairly!? They must hate the rich!" We don't think it's wrong for you to have a high income, or good things in life. What we think it's wrong to do is to hoard your money and act like the fact that we want to rightfully tax some of your hundreds of thousands per year in income is the equivalent of some kind of execution.

[Draica]

What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

to be honest a raise in the minumum wage to a living wage and 3-2% tax increase wont make CEOs middle class. Most could stop working now and still live confortably for the rest of thier life. But most would prefer to grow thier companies and make more money. Nothing wrong with that. In fact if they grow their companies they can employ more people. I am just saying i understand the right wing reasoning.

However some worry has to be that wealth has got so lopsided so quickly that it could end up affecting the whole country including the rich. some people forget that the people who fuel the economy are consumers, which is everybody, even those on wealth are buying products from corporations with CEOs. As many familys have parents working 2 to 3 jobs just to get by with rent and basic foodstuffs, the consumer class is shrinking. And eventually it will affect everyone.

So the solution to grow the consumer class is to:

Take money from those who went through the exact situations you're describing.

Put a burden on our economy which will discourage investors.

And "spreading the wealth" around? AKA redistribution of wealth?(Karl Marx's idea).

It won't happen that way.

[Pope Joan]

There is no way any CEO can earn $40 mil per year, even if he worked 24 hours a day.

These guys benefit from the system, which has interlocking directorates, which all vote high compensation for management (and for directors). The pelf is not honestly earned; the system is corrupt.

And yes, union pension funds participate in this charade.