what is wrong with having a high income?

[Lemanrussland]

There's nothing wrong with being wealthy. That's not really the problem. The precipitous rise of CEO pay is just a symptom of dysfunctional corporate governance in the United States. It's part of the struggle between shareholders and management.

CEO pay has far outstripped economic growth and the growth of average wages, and often goes up even in the face of failure or against the will of the shareholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comp ... EO_Pay.png

People often say CEO pay should be tied to performance, but managerial performance is hard to quantify. Managers complain that simply tying it to the stock price or profits is not fair. I really don't know what the solution is, and where the solution should be implemented (either as a private, corporate governance problem or as a public policy problem).

[The UK in Exile]

Still, it's bits and pieces of that idea. One tax increase is bound to lead to another, then another, then another until the working class is satisfied(and not everyone will be satisified.) It's a slippery slope.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

No, he's right. It is a slippery slope, he's just looking at it upside down. thinking we're at the top when we're at the bottom.

[Elwher]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it. Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money? If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes? Are they not responsible for all of it's employment, and all of it's profits? After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

They did not earn their money because they did not work for it. Property income (profit, interest and rent) is obtained without labour - without working for it. Sometimes the issue can get muddled because a person gets part of their income by working and another part without working, so, to make things clearer, let's talk about people who get all of their income as property income.

Consider, for example, a landlord who owns a bunch of apartment buildings. People rent apartments in those buildings and pay the landlord money. So he gets property income (in this case, rent). For doing what? Nothing at all.
Or think about a man who makes a living by lending out vast sums of money and getting them back with interest. His income consists of interest payments (a type of property income). Does he work for it? No. He starts out with a certain amount of money, makes some loans, and receives more money back, without doing anything at all.
Next, consider the owner of a large company (or a major shareholder in a large company). He has employees who actually do the work of running the company. As a shareholder, he doesn't have to do anything at all. In fact it's possible to be the owner of a company without having even seen the workplaces that you own or the people who work for you. You can be a shareholder without having any interaction with the company that you partly own. And yet you get money from that company - you get profit, a type of property income - despite not doing any work for the company.

Property income is unearned income. Company owners do not deserve their money because they did not work for it. And since wealth does not grow on trees, for every dollar that a company owner gets without working, someone else worked and did not get a dollar that (s)he rightfully deserved. Redistribution is about taking some money away from the people who got it without working, and giving that money back to the people who worked and got less than they deserved.

You have obviously never been the landlord of a building - he is responsible for maintaining the building, dealing with tenant complaints (justified or not), ensuring that all building codes are followed, as well as collecting the rents from people who often would rather not pay.

The person who lends out money at interest is being paid for both the risk that he will not get his money back, as well as the opportunity costs associated with not having that money now. The shareholder in a company is being paid for the same things.

The owner of a large company is being paid to run the overall business of the company. His profits are directly related to the quality of the workforce he hires, or who the people he hires hire, the quality of the materials used in producing the product, and the wisdom in selecting what products to produce.

One can certainly argue that they are overpaid in many cases, but that is the fault of the stockholders who approve the salary paid them. They are no more responsible for taking whatever the market will bear for their services than are popular musicians or athletes, and in my opinion CEOs do more to deserve their pay than rap artists or basketball players.

[Runesland]

There's nothing wrong with being wealthy. That's not really the problem. The precipitous rise of CEO pay is just a symptom of dysfunctional corporate governance in the United States.

CEO pay has far outstripped economic growth and average wages, and often goes up even in the face of failure or against the will of the shareholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comp ... EO_Pay.png

People often say CEO pay should be tied to performance, but managerial performance is hard to quantify. Managers complain that simply tying it to the stock price is not fair. I really don't know what the solution is, and where the solution should be implemented (either as a private, corporate governance problem or as a public policy problem).

Exactly? The way I've always seen it is: there is no problem with being wealthy. The problem lies in America today. We have several crisis as of this moment here in the States, one of which includes a high poverty threshold and a wealth distribution problem. These two things bring endless problems and cycles that cannot be fixed. These two problems ensure that, no matter what President/Party has the majority, the outcome will always be the same, because in the end we have companies with lobbyists and no limits on campaign funding so that no politician can make it to office and THEN adequately do their duty. It's not just a question of fairness, wealth distribution in America has become the problem that creates an endless cycle of problems.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Nothing, inherently. The problem is that the gap between the rich and poor is such that we have people with not nearly enough and people with way more than enough, and everyone would be better off if many of the very wealthy gave up a slightly larger slice so that many of the poor could have the ability to get where they are.

[Farnhamia]

There's nothing wrong with being wealthy. That's not really the problem. The precipitous rise of CEO pay is just a symptom of dysfunctional corporate governance in the United States.

CEO pay has far outstripped economic growth and average wages, and often goes up even in the face of failure or against the will of the shareholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comp ... EO_Pay.png

People often say CEO pay should be tied to performance, but managerial performance is hard to quantify. Managers complain that simply tying it to the stock price is not fair. I really don't know what the solution is, and where the solution should be implemented (either as a private, corporate governance problem or as a public policy problem).

Exactly? The way I've always seen it is: there is no problem with being wealthy. The problem lies in America today. We have several crisis as of this moment here in the States, one of which includes a high poverty threshold and a wealth distribution problem. These two things bring endless problems and cycles that cannot be fixed. These two problems ensure that, no matter what President/Party has the majority, the outcome will always be the same, because in the end we have companies with lobbyists and no limits on campaign funding so that no politician can make it to office and THEN adequately do their duty. It's not just a question of fairness, wealth distribution in America has become the problem that creates an endless cycle of problems.

Cycles of what problems? All you've said is that "a high poverty threshold and a wealth distribution problem" cause cycles of problems and lobbyists are bad.

[Elwher]

There's nothing wrong with being wealthy. That's not really the problem. The precipitous rise of CEO pay is just a symptom of dysfunctional corporate governance in the United States. It's part of the struggle between shareholders and management.

CEO pay has far outstripped economic growth and average wages, and often goes up even in the face of failure or against the will of the shareholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comp ... EO_Pay.png

People often say CEO pay should be tied to performance, but managerial performance is hard to quantify. Managers complain that simply tying it to the stock price or profits is not fair. I really don't know what the solution is, and where the solution should be implemented (either as a private, corporate governance problem or as a public policy problem).

Just a personal opinion, executive salaries should be much lower and a large portion of their compensation should be in the form of stock options, both long and short term. That way, if they do a good job, the stock price will rise, or at least stay stable, and they get rewarded. Otherwise, bupkis.

[Elwher]

Nothing, inherently. The problem is that the gap between the rich and poor is such that we have people with not nearly enough and people with way more than enough, and everyone would be better off if many of the very wealthy gave up a slightly larger slice so that many of the poor could have the ability to get where they are.

Those who gave up a larger slice would not be better off, so that seems to contradict your 'everyone'.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Nothing, inherently. The problem is that the gap between the rich and poor is such that we have people with not nearly enough and people with way more than enough, and everyone would be better off if many of the very wealthy gave up a slightly larger slice so that many of the poor could have the ability to get where they are.

Those who gave up a larger slice would not be better off, so that seems to contradict your 'everyone'.

Nope. More people who aren't destitute means better workers, fewer criminals, and a better society for these very wealthy people to live in.

[Draica]

Still, it's bits and pieces of that idea. One tax increase is bound to lead to another, then another, then another until the working class is satisfied(and not everyone will be satisified.) It's a slippery slope.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Alright, you're hiding behind the Laws of Logic(good tactic btw).
So can you tell me in history when people have not always demanded more after getting something?

[Draica]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

[Farnhamia]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

I don't want them to be broke, I want the gap between the rich and the poor in this country to be smaller. It seems somehow strange that some CEOs get paid thousands of times more than the average worker in their companies, some of whom work much harder than the CEO does. And reaching a certain level of wealth does not mean you're done contributing. It should mean that you do contribute a bit more, just because the country did help you get where you are.

[Alyakia]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

there's no point at which you can go "i'm done being part of society!" unless you actually go live in the brazilian jungle and try to live with the uncontacted tribes. and even then if they don't kill they'll expect you to contribute to their society for as long as you can. they might even have taxes/tributes!

[Draica]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

I don't want them to be broke, I want the gap between the rich and the poor in this country to be smaller. It seems somehow strange that some CEOs get paid thousands of times more than the average worker in their companies, some of whom work much harder than the CEO does. And reaching a certain level of wealth does not mean you're done contributing. It should mean that you do contribute a bit more, just because the country did help you get where you are.

Farnhamia, with all due respect there will never be equality in this country. Full, 100%, John Lennon equality is impossible. There will never be income equality in this country because not everyone will make the same thing. If a CEO makes more than someone else, so what? They obviously had to do some sort of work to get up to that level of success.

[Draica]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

there's no point at which you can go "i'm done being part of society!" unless you actually go live in the brazilian jungle and try to live with the uncontacted tribes. and even then if they don't kill they'll expect you to contribute to their society for as long as you can. they might even have taxes/tributes!

But unlike what is being touted on this thread they wouldn't try to take a chunk of your income away because you earn "too much."

[ShadowDragons]

When the rich do well they pull other people up with them. Taxing them higher in turn affects the poor who can no longer find a job. Capitalism works in the long term making everyone richer. It is not wrong to be rich.

[Alyakia]

I don't want them to be broke, I want the gap between the rich and the poor in this country to be smaller. It seems somehow strange that some CEOs get paid thousands of times more than the average worker in their companies, some of whom work much harder than the CEO does. And reaching a certain level of wealth does not mean you're done contributing. It should mean that you do contribute a bit more, just because the country did help you get where you are.

Farnhamia, with all due respect there will never be equality in this country. Full, 100%, John Lennon equality is impossible. There will never be income equality in this country because not everyone will make the same thing. If a CEO makes more than someone else, so what? They obviously had to do some sort of work to get up to that level of success.

you know for a fact they're not advocating for that. infact they never even mentioned equality at all, just a smaller gap. you basically completely dodged her point to argue against something literally no one in the thread has argued for so far and most likely never will.

[Draica]

Farnhamia, with all due respect there will never be equality in this country. Full, 100%, John Lennon equality is impossible. There will never be income equality in this country because not everyone will make the same thing. If a CEO makes more than someone else, so what? They obviously had to do some sort of work to get up to that level of success.

you know for a fact they're not advocating for that. infact they never even mentioned equality at all, just a smaller gap. you basically completely dodged her point to argue against something literally no one in the thread has argued for so far and most likely never will.

How do you guys perfer a smaller gap, then?

[Alyakia]

When the rich do well they pull other people up with them. Taxing them higher in turn affects the poor who can no longer find a job. Capitalism works in the long term making everyone richer. It is not wrong to be rich.

trickle down!

there's no point at which you can go "i'm done being part of society!" unless you actually go live in the brazilian jungle and try to live with the uncontacted tribes. and even then if they don't kill they'll expect you to contribute to their society for as long as you can. they might even have taxes/tributes!

But unlike what is being touted on this thread they wouldn't try to take a chunk of your income away because you earn "too much."

actually your tribute/tax would probably get bigger as your income got bigger, like, uh, pretty much everywhere ever, oooh

[Alyakia]

you know for a fact they're not advocating for that. infact they never even mentioned equality at all, just a smaller gap. you basically completely dodged her point to argue against something literally no one in the thread has argued for so far and most likely never will.

How do you guys perfer a smaller gap, then?

let's ask america.



here is a classic image to start you off

[Othelos]

It is well known that upward mobility (at least in American society) is challenging, especially for poorer people. If someone can't afford college, they are much more likely to end up in poverty, continuing the cycle. Middle class and rich people can pay for college, so they stay well off.

The problem, though, is that the American middle class is declining. Granted, some people have moved up and out of the middle class, but there are plenty of people who have had life circumstances hit them hard. For example, someone could have grown up in a upper middle class family, only to have one parent or both parents fired and not be able to afford their home, cars, or an education for their kids. This is happening to one of my friends right now, right before they were supposed to be going off to college.

If the cost of getting an education was less expensive or free, everyone would be better off because hard work WOULD be all that would be needed to grow up and live decently. If everyone could get an education, we would be wealthier as a nation, and the tax hike would have been worth it.

Northern/Western European society is wealthier, healthier, and better off even though they have high taxes and regulation. Why? Because instead of favoring a few individuals or relying on luck, they have ensured the well being of society as a whole.

No one should have to lose out because they can't afford college, medical care, or something else essential like a place to sleep. This is one of the problems with American society - people aren't willing to help out their neighbors or country as a whole, unlike many Europeans. I would rather live in a place where my life doesn't depend on being lucky enough to have a good job at all times.

So we should take money from those who have earned it(who have came from problems you have outlined) to give to those who might not even work hard?

I'm not sure what you're saying. The US already has a progressive tax system in place.

support free colleges, don't get me wrong. But who's going to pay for those "free" colleges? Who's going to pay for the textbooks? The Government? We have a 17 trillion dollar debt and the last thing we need is to drive that up.

Raise taxes, cut some of the military, end the wars in the middle east, and reduce spending elsewhere. The states (who are in charge of education) would handle a lot of it.

Even if K-14 was free (or the cost reduced), things would be much better for a lot of people. An associates in certain fields can help someone easily get a job that pays moderately well.

The government could also help pay for vocational training programs.

And there's a difference between America and Europe, my friend. A big difference. Europe has had monarchs, chancellors, dictators and the such. The culture is different historically. America is much younger than Europe. It's an unfair comparison.

The culture is different, obviously, but that doesn't mean our government can't implement better policies.

Believe or not, but there are European conservatives and 'rednecks'.

[Othelos]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

No one wants the rich to be broke. What are you talking about?

[Unknown Unknownia]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

No one wants the rich to be broke. What are you talking about?

Yeah. We want em to be dead.

not really

[Estados Mineiros]

There is nothing wrong with being rich, but there is something extremely wrong with a economical/political system that makes possible a huge distance between the rich and the poor.

[Elwher]

No one wants the rich to be broke. What are you talking about?

Yeah. We want em to be dead.

not really

Only if I'm in their will.