Rich athletes, celebs & businessmen do deserve their money.

[Duvniask]

I've read somewhere that in 1950s America (sic!) there used to be absurdly high income taxes at the upper ends. The details escape me however.

Top rate was 91% at one point, but basically no one paid it.

Because income disparity was much lesser to begin with, and real income was also less for everyone. People always fail to realise this part.

If applied to present conditions, any income above $2,125,668 be payed at the 91% marginal tax rate.

[Petrolheadia]

Top rate was 91% at one point, but basically no one paid it.

Because income disparity was much lesser to begin with, and real income was also less for everyone. People always fail to realise this part.

If applied to present conditions, any income above $2,125,668 be payed at the 91% marginal tax rate.

As long as people actually would be willing to pay that much tax.

[Ifreann]

I want everyone on Earth to be safe, healthy, comfortable, happy, and all that good stuff. Whether we all deserve that is not a consideration for me. I just think it would be good.

And we're getting there. We've got a good thing going, why stop?

Because it's not good at all.

[Duvniask]

Because income disparity was much lesser to begin with, and real income was also less for everyone. People always fail to realise this part.

If applied to present conditions, any income above $2,125,668 be payed at the 91% marginal tax rate.

As long as people actually would be willing to pay that much tax.

People were paying as much tax whilst having much lower living standards (in terms of real income, anyhow) compared to today. It's an actual case of how people have "gone soft" compared to "the good old days".

[Petrolheadia]

And we're getting there. We've got a good thing going, why stop?

Because it's not good at all.

Why not? Lives all around the world are improving.

[Saiwania]

I want everyone on Earth to be safe, healthy, comfortable, happy, and all that good stuff. Whether we all deserve that is not a consideration for me. I just think it would be good.

If the world GDP is only around $80 Trillion and there are 7.7 billion people that exist, this leaves only around $10,000 for everyone to live off of. And certain places are more expensive to live in than others. Its also a fact that different people have unequal income potential and abilities, aspirations and etc.

The world GDP needs to be more like $800 trillion+ for money to be so plentiful as to effectively enable post scarcity to a large extent, assuming it was distributed more equally. Inequality will undoubtedly still exist, but perhaps in the far future even the lowest earnings enable good living. Or inflation would make it so it doesn't make any difference.

Point is, that any wealth has to be built gradually via better technology or more efficient work/processes. We can't just magically erase all scarcity that there is. As cruel as being deprived materially can be.

[Thanatttynia]

What people deserve is a question of morality, and neither a) the existence of a market nor b) vague mathematical reasoning can actually justify the obscene wealth of billionaires.

Suppose the CEO of General Motors only got ten dollars from each car sold. In that case, she would get a significant raise.
Then suppose General Motors assembly employees would get a dollar per car sold. In that case, they would have to learn how to live at about 30 cents per manhour.

Then suppose... get this... that General Motors assembly employees got 10 dollars per car sold... and the CEO a dollar per car sold. These are both meaningless mind exercises

[Petrolheadia]

What people deserve is a question of morality, and neither a) the existence of a market nor b) vague mathematical reasoning can actually justify the obscene wealth of billionaires.

Suppose the CEO of General Motors only got ten dollars from each car sold. In that case, she would get a significant raise.
Then suppose General Motors assembly employees would get a dollar per car sold. In that case, they would have to learn how to live at about 30 cents per manhour.

Then suppose... get this... that General Motors assembly employees got 10 dollars per car sold... and the CEO a dollar per car sold. These are both meaningless mind exercises

There was a typo. It was supposed to be "ten dollars", not "a dollar".

It is not meaningless. It shows how that wealth is proportional to one's impact.

[Petrolheadia]

I want everyone on Earth to be safe, healthy, comfortable, happy, and all that good stuff. Whether we all deserve that is not a consideration for me. I just think it would be good.

If the world GDP is only around $80 Trillion and there are 7.7 billion people that exist, this leaves only around $10,000 for everyone to live off of. And certain places are more expensive to live in than others. Its also a fact that different people have unequal income potential and abilities, aspirations and etc.

The world GDP needs to be more like $800 trillion+ for money to be so plentiful as to effectively enable post scarcity to a large extent, assuming it was distributed more equally. Inequality will undoubtedly still exist, but perhaps in the far future even the lowest earnings enable good living. Or inflation would make it so it doesn't make any difference.

Point is, that any wealth has to be built gradually via better technology or more efficient work/processes. We can't just magically erase all scarcity that there is. As cruel as being deprived materially can be.

It doesn't eveh take 50 years to double the global GDP per capita.

At the current rate of growth, it will be higher than the current US one in just a bit over a century.

[Duvniask]

I often find people saying things to the effect of "why should x be getting so much money, when y get so little?" or "do x really work z times more?"? Well, I believe that there are legitimate reasons for such sums to be earned.

First of all, despite what internet commenters can tell you, those guys actually respond to actual needs. In case of celebrities and athletes is the need is their fans' leisure, which is an important part of life. And while the employees of companies may have the practical knowledge of their industry, the theoretical one is necessary, and some people are gonna possess it to a far better degree, one that can put them in a management position.

Second - and maybe more importantly - when you see the scale of what they do, the figures will make much more sense.

Suppose the CEO of General Motors only got ten dollars from each car sold. In that case, she would get a significant raise.
Then suppose General Motors assembly employees would get ten dollars per car sold. In that case, they would have to learn how to live at about 30 cents per manhour.

Or that Premier League players got 50% of what the clubs earn on their games, and 5 pounds off each match attendance. In that case, they would still get around five million pounds a year, and that's assuming no merchandise, licensing, etc. deals.

And when it comes to billionaires like Jeff Bezos, their wealth comes from what they managed to get when their decisions concerning the running of their companies increased stock prices. And even that wealth is usually a fraction of total company value - for exampleMr. Bezos owns less than an eight of Amazon, and got the 100% off an investment of just $300k.
And before anyone says anything about the workers of Amazon - what makes the company they work for be a booming player, not just another market failure? Do they somehow become better when they join Amazon ranks?

So I believe that such rich people do deserve their wealth. They put in valuable labor, and did it on a scale that justifies such payout.

And what do you think about it, NSG?

1) It would be useful if you actually made your calculations explicit, because I'm not sure how we're supposed to arrive at the conclusions you do about earnings per car sold.

2) Everyone puts in valuable labor (unless the operation is somehow inefficient). What you're effectively saying is that because one belongs to the top of the hierarchy then one deserves much more than everyone else. There isn't any argument here for why those "higher up" should get the amount that they do, only appeals to "impact" and special "theoretical" understanding of industry know-how, which are by themselves rather arbitrary.

[USS Monitor]

Do CEOs do actual work? Yes.

Do they deserve to be paid for their work? Yes.

Do they deserve to make more than a guy that has an unskilled job with fewer responsibilities? Yes.

Do they deserve to make hundreds or thousands of times as much as their employees? No. They don't do hundreds or thousands of times as much work. They don't need the money. Most of it just sits around in bank accounts or investments and isn't used to improve their day to day quality of life.

A company's success is not only built on the quality of their management. It is also built on the quality of their workforce. Getting hired by a successful company might not magically make someone better, but presumably there was a reason why the company hired that person in the first place instead of fishing a random drunk out of the gutter. And presumably there's a reason why the company is keeping that person.

Athletes and entertainers are a bit different because they don't rely on employees the way a CEO does. If someone is earning their wealth through royalties, I think there is a stronger argument that they really earned it.

[Galloism]

Top rate was 91% at one point, but basically no one paid it.

So more a theoretical thing?

Not exactly. But as tax rates get higher, tax strategies get more exotic and interesting.

[Petrolheadia]

I often find people saying things to the effect of "why should x be getting so much money, when y get so little?" or "do x really work z times more?"? Well, I believe that there are legitimate reasons for such sums to be earned.

First of all, despite what internet commenters can tell you, those guys actually respond to actual needs. In case of celebrities and athletes is the need is their fans' leisure, which is an important part of life. And while the employees of companies may have the practical knowledge of their industry, the theoretical one is necessary, and some people are gonna possess it to a far better degree, one that can put them in a management position.

Second - and maybe more importantly - when you see the scale of what they do, the figures will make much more sense.

Suppose the CEO of General Motors only got ten dollars from each car sold. In that case, she would get a significant raise.
Then suppose General Motors assembly employees would get ten dollars per car sold. In that case, they would have to learn how to live at about 30 cents per manhour.

Or that Premier League players got 50% of what the clubs earn on their games, and 5 pounds off each match attendance. In that case, they would still get around five million pounds a year, and that's assuming no merchandise, licensing, etc. deals.

And when it comes to billionaires like Jeff Bezos, their wealth comes from what they managed to get when their decisions concerning the running of their companies increased stock prices. And even that wealth is usually a fraction of total company value - for exampleMr. Bezos owns less than an eight of Amazon, and got the 100% off an investment of just $300k.
And before anyone says anything about the workers of Amazon - what makes the company they work for be a booming player, not just another market failure? Do they somehow become better when they join Amazon ranks?

So I believe that such rich people do deserve their wealth. They put in valuable labor, and did it on a scale that justifies such payout.

And what do you think about it, NSG?

1) It would be useful if you actually made your calculations explicit, because I'm not sure how we're supposed to arrive at the conclusions you do about earnings per car sold.

Divide that ten dollars per manhours.

2) Everyone puts in valuable labor (unless the operation is somehow inefficient). What you're effectively saying is that because one belongs to the top of the hierarchy then one deserves much more than everyone else. There isn't any argument here for why those "higher up" should get the amount that they do, only appeals to "impact" and special "theoretical" understanding of industry know-how, which are by themselves rather arbitrary.

There is an argument that their impact is much bigger.

Plus the guys down the chain usually actually get paid more on a per-unit basis.

Do CEOs do actual work? Yes.

Do they deserve to be paid for their work? Yes.

Do they deserve to make more than a guy that has an unskilled job with fewer responsibilities? Yes.

Do they deserve to make hundreds or thousands of times as much as their employees? No. They don't do hundreds or thousands of times as much work. They don't need the money. Most of it just sits around in bank accounts or investments and isn't used to improve their day to day quality of life.

A company's success is not only built on the quality of their management. It is also built on the quality of their workforce. Getting hired by a successful company might not magically make someone better, but presumably there was a reason why the company hired that person in the first place instead of fishing a random drunk out of the gutter. And presumably there's a reason why the company is keeping that person.

Athletes and entertainers are a bit different because they don't rely on employees the way a CEO does. If someone is earning their wealth through royalties, I think there is a stronger argument that they really earned it.

Paying more money doesn't always help, as the US healthcare and education sectors show.

"We just need more money!" often is the "one woman can have a baby in 9 months, so 9 women can have a baby in a month" kind of thinking.

[Duvniask]

1) It would be useful if you actually made your calculations explicit, because I'm not sure how we're supposed to arrive at the conclusions you do about earnings per car sold.

Divide that ten dollars per manhours.

Not very helpful.

2) Everyone puts in valuable labor (unless the operation is somehow inefficient). What you're effectively saying is that because one belongs to the top of the hierarchy then one deserves much more than everyone else. There isn't any argument here for why those "higher up" should get the amount that they do, only appeals to "impact" and special "theoretical" understanding of industry know-how, which are by themselves rather arbitrary.

There is an argument that their impact is much bigger.

You've said as much, and I question why this "impact" of yours matters.

Plus the guys down the chain usually actually get paid more on a per-unit basis.

You don't seem to have calculated them in the same way, and the way you frame it makes no sense to my eyes.


For the CEO, I assume you have taken the number of cars sold by GM in 2018, which judging from those tables for the US (2,954,037) and Canada (274,478) is 3,228,515, and then multiplied it by 10, from which you get $32,285,150. You've then compared this with her pay for 2018, which was ~$22,000,000. So, yes, that would indeed amount to a significant raise.

As for assembly workers, you've divided the number of man-hours it takes to make one car/truck, as per the article:
"When Harbour adds up all the man-hours it takes to build a car or truck, including stamping, assembly, engine and transmission manufacture... GM was fourth, at 32.29 hours, a 0.2-percent improvement".
So that's 10 divided by 32.29, which is ~0,31.


I for one don't understand why you've chosen two methods of calculating that seem completely different. Why not take the average man-hours of CEO-work necessary to result in the sale of one car? That would appear to be the "fair" way of doing it, per your own view. Otherwise you're really comparing two different things, which makes your argument inconsistent.

[Deacarsia]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Kowani]

Whether or not they deserve it is irrelevant .

[Plzen]

A capitalist economic system is essentially about distributing resources efficiently. Of course it can be questioned whether capitalism fulfills that purpose well, but whether it does or not is still an essentially pragmatic question with practical answers.

Matters of whether any given person “deserves” any given thing, on the other hand, is a matter of ethics and morality. Unless you are an absolute hard-core utilitarian this question can not possibly have an exclusively practical answer.

The fact that a person earns a given sum of money in the free market, therefore, cannot fully justify that they deserve to.

[Raider Clans]

Depends on what you consider rich? Millionaires? Yes. Billionaires? In most cases, yes. Multi-billionaires? Hell no.

[Major-Tom]

Sure, they deserve a decent sum of money. But the billions many of them make? If they're putting out less of a labor output than someone who makes $25,000 a year, well, then tell me who deserves what? Hint hint, it ain't the fucking billionaire.

[Cappuccina]

Whether or not they deserve it is irrelevant .

Oh, but it is. If an individual is creative and can use that effectively, they should be allowed to reap benefits of that. People who come up with an idea, should get the lion's share of the profit from the generated revenue. Though, like socialists, I believe labor should have a say in how their place of employment is run (to an extent), employees are, for lack of a better term, the help. They didn't come up with the business model, they're just along for the ride.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Whether or not they deserve it is irrelevant .

Oh, but it is. If an individual is creative and can use that effectively, they should be allowed to reap benefits of that. People who come up with an idea, should get the lion's share of the profit from the generated revenue. Though, like socialists, I believe labor should have a say in how their place of employment is run (to an extent), employees are, for lack of a better term, the help. They didn't come up with the business model, they're just along for the ride.

You can allow people to reap the benefits while also still putting in wealth caps and such things.

[Samadhi]

You never under any circumstances are entitled to anyone else's money.

[Senkaku]

Nobody "deserves" more than maybe a few tens of millions of dollars, even really industrious or smart or good people- there is a certain line where you go from special to just lucky. Doesn't necessarily mean you're a bad person (though as your wealth multiplies, its negative impacts on people you'll never meet also tends to multiply), but no, you don't deserve it. There is a distinction between the wealth that can satisfy pretty much all your material needs and wants and the wealth that the modern super-rich have that distorts the world.

I want everyone on Earth to be safe, healthy, comfortable, happy, and all that good stuff. Whether we all deserve that is not a consideration for me. I just think it would be good.

And we're getting there.

A little circuitously at this point, no?

We've got a good thing going, why stop?

What good thing is that, precisely?

Top rate was 91% at one point, but basically no one paid it.

Because income disparity was much lesser to begin with, and real income was also less for everyone. People always fail to realise this part.

If applied to present conditions, any income above $2,125,668 be payed at the 91% marginal tax rate.

Do you understand how out of touch this sounds lmao

"imagine having to make do on 191K a year!"

literally someone making 2M a year is going to be FINE

[Duvniask]

Because income disparity was much lesser to begin with, and real income was also less for everyone. People always fail to realise this part.

If applied to present conditions, any income above $2,125,668 be payed at the 91% marginal tax rate.

Do you understand how out of touch this sounds lmao

"imagine having to make do on 191K a year!"

literally someone making 2M a year is going to be FINE

Is there something you don't understand? This was the entire point. Nowadays, rich people complaining about having to pay their taxes seem like crybabies.

[Senkaku]

Do you understand how out of touch this sounds lmao

"imagine having to make do on 191K a year!"

literally someone making 2M a year is going to be FINE

Is there something you don't understand? This was the entire point. Nowadays, rich people complaining about having to pay their taxes seem like crybabies.

LMFAO I thought this was an argument for why high income taxes were just a crazy proposal or smthn okie