Study confirms corporate profits going to executives and shareholders, not workers

[tapeANaspirin2it]

In the middle of the Obama administration, my work’s parent corporation publicly told all employees that they were freezing wage raises for all employees for two years in order to stimulate dividends... but that while all non executives would see a reduced bonus, all executive level employees over a certain pay grade would receive their full bonus so the company wouldn’t “lose top end talent”

... people are greedy and selfish ... that true regardless of what economic system is in place or who is in office...

That's a key. When we are told the evils of capitalism, it is usually a story of breaking the rules. They we are told how there's never corruption under socialism.

What is the difference between a capitalist executive who breaks the rules and a socialist executive who breaks the rules? The difference is that you can sue the capitalist. Who do you complain to when it's the government that's corrupt? Nobody, you just wait in line for toilet paper and your food ration.

Some businesses will spend their new cash wisely and some won't. Some have truly talented execs and they have to pay to keep them. Some have incompetents leading them and paying them big bucks is a waste.

Stuff like that evens out in a free market. It is pure arrogance to think any person or group of people are smart enough to be a central decision maker for a large economy. What happens is a government ends up picking winners and losers.

 

[Steeltime]

What is the difference between a capitalist executive who breaks the rules and a socialist executive who breaks the rules? The difference is that you can sue the capitalist. Who do you complain to when it's the government that's corrupt?

 

[SteelChip]

What is Democratic Socialism?

Democratic Socialism is a growing movement in America promising every citizen the most basic human rights, including but not limited to free healthcare, a government-guaranteed job making at least $15 per hour, free college tuition, guaranteed housing, broadband internet access, and cage-free vegan lattes.

How would the government pay for all of that?

By rightfully appropriating money from terrible, evil, oppressive, hardworking, enterprising citizens who have earned wealth via the dreaded free market economy that has led to unprecedented human flourishing. Governments are known for being the most efficient spenders of money, and so surely would do an excellent job as stewards of your wealth—err, we mean, the public’s wealth.

Isn’t it immoral to take most of the money people earn?

No—actually, it’s the right thing to do. People with money only got that money because of inherent privilege, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, transphobia, patriarchy, and all kinds of other unfair power structures and phobias. You know what, we’re a little concerned with all the questions you’re asking here.

How does Democratic Socialism differ from just “Socialism”?

It has the word “Democratic” in front of it, you see, which means it is achieved by promoting identity politics, stoking class warfare, and cranking that entitlement mentality up to 11, instead of literal violent overthrow of the government. Besides, voting for the government to seize people’s wealth is totally different from the government deciding to do so on their own, right? Err… uh… DID WE MENTION YOU GET FREE STUFF?? Say it with us: Socialism good, Democratic Socialism better!

It seems like if you try to run the numbers, there’s just no way Democratic Socialism is a fiscally feasible form of government.

“Run the numbers”? “Fiscally feasible”? Have you been paying attention, like, at all? Do you want free money, or are you part of the problem? YOU GET FREE MONEY, AND YOU GET FREE MONEY—ERRYBODY GETS FREE MONEEEEEEEEEEEY!!!

Is there an example of this form of government working out well in the world?

YES! Venezuela is a socialist paradise, having achieved an almost totally equal distribution of hunger and lack of basic necessities. With features like 46,000% inflation, mass starvation, empty grocery stores, and total economic collapse, it’s a great real-world example of a socialist utopia! THAT’S HOW YOU STICK IT TO THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY, BABY! OWN THE CAPITALISTS WITH THIS ONE GREAT TRICK!

As you can see, the centralization of wealth and power to an elite few in government is perfectly in line with the ideas America was founded on. Now let’s get out there and democratically seize the means of production, comrades!

 

[Supersteeler]

It is pure arrogance to think any person or group of people are smart enough to be a central decision maker for a large economy. What happens is a government ends up picking winners and losers.

They are referred to as Liberal elites for a reason. They ARE in fact arrogant enough to think they know what is good for everyone in America. Just don't expect them to live by the rules they preach to others. Oh no, that is for the peons. People who are as Progressive and important as themselves are entitled to as many mansions and yachts as they can get their hands on.

 

[DBS1970]

Yes the investors will get a dividend. That's how investing works.

 

[fedderone]

So then we can't expect you with your 4th grade education to understand that the lie we were fed went something like: " If we give a tax cut to the ' job creators' then they will reinvest in equipment and employees."

They stashed it for themselves, just like those of us with an IQ above 70 knew they would. They don't pay their fair share, that's why they have to feed us the trickle down B.S. so they can get away with this crap. They have to convince the average Republitard of the trickle down B.S. first so they can keep their political puppets in power.

You'll figure it out when you grow up champ.

El, can you define this?
No snark intended. I'm asking sincerely.

The top one percent of income earners pay 50% of our federal taxes, while the top twenty percent of income earners pay 85% of our federal taxes.
The bottom eighty percent of income earners pay 15% of our federal taxes.
To me, that seems more than fair and actually pretty lopsided.

I've always favored a flat tax across the board for both businesses and individuals.
No breaks, discounts, loopholes, deductions, etc.
You made this, the government gets x% of it.
You are neither helped nor hindered for the wage you earn. You're paying your fair share.
This would all but eliminate special interest groups and lobbyists that bribe our elected crooks ( BOTH sides of the isle ) to pass nonsensical tax breaks and loopholes to benefit them.
So guy making a million dollars a year is clipped at the same rate as the guy making a hundred thousand dollars a year.
But guy making a million dollars a year is obviously contributing way more.
You get a bonus, raise, whatever - that flat tax will get its share of it for the government.
And the government would need to learn to "live" within its means and budget accordingly.

 

[madinsomniac]

Now lets not forget that Id 100% vote for a mandatory small percentage profit sharing plan or stock option plan aimed at non exept employees for corporations over a certain size... in exchange for a unbreakable freeze on inflation causing minimum wage hikes for some time and tax breaks for companies that deal 100% with american labor...

I like the idea that moves larger companies make benefit its workers here. Too often downsizings and short term money grabs by companies not even based here anymore cause workers to have to do more for no real tangable benefit to them... it wouldn’t be the worse thing if the employees had a vested interest in their own company... and by avoiding forcing mom and pops with a single location and limited employees from doing it.

A while ago people much smarter than I in economics had some plans that seemed mathematically sound... and its a way to boost income without forcing inflation....

 

[Roy92040]

Why buy shares of stock if you can't make a profit?

 

[Troglodyte]

The top one percent of income earners pay 50% of our federal taxes, while the top twenty percent of income earners pay 85% of our federal taxes.
The bottom eighty percent of income earners pay 15% of our federal taxes.
To me, that seems more than fair and actually pretty lopsided.

I've always favored a flat tax across the board for both businesses and individuals.
No breaks, discounts, loopholes, deductions, etc.
You made this, the government gets x% of it.
You are neither helped nor hindered for the wage you earn. You're paying your fair share.
This would all but eliminate special interest groups and lobbyists that bribe our elected crooks ( BOTH sides of the isle ) to pass nonsensical tax breaks and loopholes to benefit them.
So guy making a million dollars a year is clipped at the same rate as the guy making a hundred thousand dollars a year.
But guy making a million dollars a year is obviously contributing way more.
You get a bonus, raise, whatever - that flat tax will get its share of it for the government.
And the government would need to learn to "live" within its means and budget accordingly.

Do you realize you are arguing in favor of a tax increase for the guy making a hundred thousand dollars?

 

[Steeltime]

Do you realize you are arguing in favor of a tax increase for the guy making a hundred thousand dollars?

Depends significantly on the particulars for that individual. Is the taxpayer married? Have minor children? If so, how many? Finally, what is the standard deduction (if any), and what is the proposed flat rate?

Flat rate tax proponents underscore that a standard deduction for each member of the household is necessary to insure that families are allowed to keep the "survival" income. Back in 1966, when Buckley debated Harrington, the agreed-to "survival" income was $3,300 per year for a family of four. Today, I suggest it is $28,000 for the same family of four. The first $28,000 of earnings is necessary just to insure the family can eat and have a roof over their heads - nothing more.

That makes the math easy - the standard deduction is $7,000 per person. For a family of four earning $100,000 that year, the taxable income is $72,000. If the agreed-to flat tax rate is 22%, that family pays $15,840 in Federal income taxes.

The family of four earning $1,000,000 on the other hand has $972,000,000 in taxable income, and pays $213,840 in taxes.

Therefore, the family earning $100,000 is paying an effective rate of 15.8% and the family earning $1,000,000 an effective rate of 21.3%. The difference is explained by the greater percentage benefit of the standard deduction on lower-income levels. In my example, a family of four earning $60,000 would have $32,000 in taxable income, and pay $7040 in taxes, an effective rate of 11.7%. Therefore, the tax system remains progressive, but the massive number of mind-numbing and idiotic deductions are eliminated, and a reasonably intelligent 4th grader could figure out his or her taxes in 10 minutes.

elfie might still need help ...

 

[fedderone]

Do you realize you are arguing in favor of a tax increase for the guy making a hundred thousand dollars?

I am arguing for the elimination of tax brackets, deductions, loopholes, and slight of hand witch craft-ery filings.
Rip the band off for ALL across the board.
How many people you choose to have in your family is a personal choice.
I want the income tax applied to the wage earner, whether they are married or single because, again, that is a choice.
If you have a job, you are subject to the flat tax.
If you own a business, your business is subject to the flat tax.
Period.
So if whatever demographic of person you want to say will either benefit or suffer from this, doesn't change the fact that it's FAIR and JUST to EVERYONE. It favors no one person, entity, or demographic.
You want to be a bum or you want to be ambitious. Everyone's clipped the same.

 

[Superman]

so, The Great O solved all this and put all profits in the workers pockets, then Trump came along and ****** **** up.

or has it always been this way?

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Um, maybe the "workers" should buy the company stock as an investment, so they have a stake in what they do for a living.

I know, crazy thought.

Shares of company stock are a basic human right.

 

[DBS1970]

Depends significantly on the particulars for that individual. Is the taxpayer married? Have minor children? If so, how many? Finally, what is the standard deduction (if any), and what is the proposed flat rate?

Flat rate tax proponents underscore that a standard deduction for each member of the household is necessary to insure that families are allowed to keep the "survival" income. Back in 1966, when Buckley debated Harrington, the agreed-to "survival" income was $3,300 per year for a family of four. Today, I suggest it is $28,000 for the same family of four. The first $28,000 of earnings is necessary just to insure the family can eat and have a roof over their heads - nothing more.

That makes the math easy - the standard deduction is $7,000 per person. For a family of four earning $100,000 that year, the taxable income is $72,000. If the agreed-to flat tax rate is 22%, that family pays $15,840 in Federal income taxes.

The family of four earning $1,000,000 on the other hand has $972,000,000 in taxable income, and pays $213,840 in taxes.

Therefore, the family earning $100,000 is paying an effective rate of 15.8% and the family earning $1,000,000 an effective rate of 21.3%. The difference is explained by the greater percentage benefit of the standard deduction on lower-income levels. In my example, a family of four earning $60,000 would have $32,000 in taxable income, and pay $7040 in taxes, an effective rate of 11.7%. Therefore, the tax system remains progressive, but the massive number of mind-numbing and idiotic deductions are eliminated, and a reasonably intelligent 4th grader could figure out his or her taxes in 10 minutes.

elfie might still need help ...

That’s pretty complicated. And since it’s tied to the fruit of an individuals labor it is inherently regressive and essentially slavery with extra steps. I’d prefer scrapping income taxes al together and levying a 8% VAT and cutting the living **** out of government.

 

[Spike]

REVOLUTION!

Leaving the Dem plantation with money in their pockets!


President Donald Trump approval ratings among black voters: 29%; This time last year: 15%

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/...p://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=133164

 

[Supersteeler]

REVOLUTION!

Leaving the Dem plantation with money in their pockets!


President Donald Trump approval ratings among black voters: 29%; This time last year: 15%

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/...p://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=133164

Uh oh!

Look Elfie, Uncle Tom's everywhere! They're taking over!!! Run for your life!

 

[madinsomniac]

Uh oh!

Look Elfie, Uncle Tom's everywhere! They're taking over!!! Run for your life!

This is probably more a reflection of voter approval rising among middle and higher income families...Again i say, ethnicities aside, the President or politician that makes poor urban life tolerable, and more importantly escapable, is going to get a lions share of the poor votes for a long time for whatever partythey back... as it is, returning some blue collar work and tax breaks for the middle class was always going to bump his numbers across all ethnicities.... but if he shows the inner cities any improvement he could get his numbers up significantly amoung the poor democratic base... literally the Dems better pray they can figure out how to fix that issue first, cause i think they probably lost the middle class voters for a bit... even if they don’t go full republican, many will swing independent and have no loyalty for the near future after the way the dems have treated them...

 

[madinsomniac]

I am arguing for the elimination of tax brackets, deductions, loopholes, and slight of hand witch craft-ery filings.
Rip the band off for ALL across the board.
How many people you choose to have in your family is a personal choice.
I want the income tax applied to the wage earner, whether they are married or single because, again, that is a choice.
If you have a job, you are subject to the flat tax.
If you own a business, your business is subject to the flat tax.
Period.
So if whatever demographic of person you want to say will either benefit or suffer from this, doesn't change the fact that it's FAIR and JUST to EVERYONE. It favors no one person, entity, or demographic.
You want to be a bum or you want to be ambitious. Everyone's clipped the same.

Just eliminate the income tax altogether and charge a reasonable sales tax on everything ... the irs can focus on businesses rather than 300 million individuals. Everyone pays taxes based on what they spend... its fair and based on our gdp it wouldn’t have to be very high at all to equal what the current taxes bring in...

The exception of course would be anyone sending money out of the country or living out of the country collecting money here... that income tax would remain...

That pretty much fixes people paying a fair share because everyone pays based on what they buy

 

[Spike]

Look Elfie, Uncle Tom's everywhere! They're taking over!!! Run for your life!

but wait, it gets better



Hispanics, (yes, you read that right) push Trump's poll numbers to 50%

President Trump's public approval numbers have hit 50% among likely voters, according to a new Rasmussen poll, which is good news for midterms. And who should be pushing those ratings to el norte?

No kidding: Hispanic voters.

You know, the ones who are supposed to hate Trump with a passion. After all, doesn't the press dutifully report that Trump is an enemy of illegals, and aren't illegals in the same conventional wisdom simply synonymous with Hispanics, and with Hispanics and illegals all the same thing, isn't it all just proof that Trump is racist?


Are Hispanics shifting their allegiances to President Trump?

A recent Harvard/Harris poll recorded a 10-point spike in Hispanic support for Mr. Trump. It hasn't received much attention from the mainstream media, which is heavily invested in its portrait of the president as an unrepentant – and unpopular – "nativist."

Coming in the midst of the nationwide controversy over children and families at the U.S.-Mexico border, it suggests that Hispanics may not be the entrenched liberal voting constituency that Democrats so often imagine.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._right_push_trumps_poll_numbers_above_50.html

 

[RollRed]

I guess they figured if a guy making a million bucks a year has to give the government 35 or 39% of it... whatever the top bracket is.... he still has rough $650000 to live on..... which in essence means that he’ll never want for anything. On the other hand, if a guy making $20K has to give up even 10%, that will hurt him a helluva lot more in the end. It definitely seems unfair when you look at it on paper, but ultimately I think it’s the best way to do it.

 

[SteelChip]

 

[madinsomniac]

I guess they figured if a guy making a million bucks a year has to give the government 35 or 39% of it... whatever the top bracket is.... he still has rough $650000 to live on..... which in essence means that he’ll never want for anything. On the other hand, if a guy making $20K has to give up even 10%, that will hurt him a helluva lot more in the end. It definitely seems unfair when you look at it on paper, but ultimately I think it’s the best way to do it.

Overtax the top earners and they just leave to countries with lower tax rates, or worse yet just loophole their way out of it.... its why the middle class always ends up screwed...the poor are excluded and the rich have too much flexibility to put up with such nonsense, so its the small business owners and mid level professionals that get screwed

 

[fedderone]

I guess they figured if a guy making a million bucks a year has to give the government 35 or 39% of it... whatever the top bracket is.... he still has rough $650000 to live on..... which in essence means that he’ll never want for anything. On the other hand, if a guy making $20K has to give up even 10%, that will hurt him a helluva lot more in the end. It definitely seems unfair when you look at it on paper, but ultimately I think it’s the best way to do it.

Obviously, whatever percent in a flat tax scenario will hurt the person making less money. But you’re eliminating the boogeymen of evil corporate greedy old white guys. I would also think it would incentivize you to better yourself and find a new job to make more money. It’s why fast food jobs and retail workers and waiter/waitressing jobs are not meant to be careers. They’re meant to be jobs to pay minimal bills while in school, or a temporary source of income if you got laid off/fired/whatever. But if you’re content in poverty, or content with complacency, that shouldn’t be visited on someone who’s ambitious or monetarily successful because they studied harder, worked harder, made an effort to better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Any economic system depends on money flowing from those who have it. Capitalism and Socialism/Communism depend on spending money as the engine. The main difference is socialist believe in stealing the money from the people and spending it for them, while capitalism wants to encourage people to spend their own money as they see fit.

What it come down to is do you want a small group of people making all the decisions or do you want all the people making countless money decisions of their own?

Capitalism works because it rewards and encourages hard work. You can gain personally from your own education, work, and life decisions. Many will choose to do the minimum because they are happy living with just enough to pay rent and have some beer money. But they are balanced by those who want to work hard, learn new skills and earn more money, push themselves to excel.

Socialism will always fail because there is no incentive at all. If you will be given the same ration no mater how hard you work, it doesn't take long before everybody starts doing the bare minimum.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

That's why a strong job market is good for workers. If someone isn't paying enough then pretty soon you can go work somewhere else that pays better.
I start a new job next week. It took me over a year to find a full-time funeral director job locally. I belong to a few funeral director and embalmer pages on Facebook. Sometimes people complain about how little money they make or the going salary in their state and I always tell them, "Well, don't work there then and don't take a job that pays less than you need. If a place isn't paying enough then after a while when they can't hire anyone they'll get a clue." The first job offer I had almost a year ago, the salary was a joke, I made more money as an intern. I got a good laugh about five months later when I saw the same place still had a want ad on the PA Funeral Directors Association website. Of course you have a job opening because you're not paying any money.