biz.yahoo.com— But if people are forced to relinquish or 'share their prosperity' once they have attained it, what incentive is there for people to prosper in the first place? (this is the paradox of communism)
May 29, 2007View in Crawl 4
Comrade Stalin would be proud.Of course she is going to take back that statement (or claim it was misinterpreted) faster than her husband can pickup a young woman in a bar.
>> "In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased"We have a free market down here. The salaries of the folks who work for private orgranizations are not set by our government. So let's clear that up first.On the other hand, yes our current law does grant the U.S. government the right tax these high-income-earners at a higher rate because of their extraordinary income. Our government of course already does this. The question is, how much of a greater burden should these folks be expected to bear? You have to stop rasing their tax rate at some point --- obviously you can't tax them at 100%, or they will stop working. So you decide: how much is enough? >> "increase taxes on large corporations, like Exxon and Haliburton, who made billions"Increasing taxes on corporations is a dangerous game. Those corporations that make lofty profits are generally those which are operating effciently. In fact, the sole incentive for a company to operate efficiently is profit. Punishing companies for being efficient would be monumentally damaging to the economy. This would have a devastating impact on everybody.To socialists, 'profit' is a dirty word. But profit is the driving force of a free market. And freedom what our country's about. Profit is good. It makes sound-minded, happy people smile -- even if they themselves don't own a share of it. It is a signal of economic strength.
>> "Does Paris Hilton deserve to inherit Billions"? Uh, that's not my call. It makes absolutely no difference to me how much that sexy bitch is worth on paper. Her worth does not make her a 'monarch' -- she is beholden to the same laws here as everybody else. >> 'raise her taxes and get yourself some government healthcare'LOL, no thanks. I'll stick with my PPO+. >> "war profiteering""War" and "profit" together... Gasp! Well, I think I've already established that "profit" is not evil; in my country it's the impetus of efficiency. Prima facie, the profit a company earns by executing a government war assistance or nation building contract more efficiently and less expensively than its competitor may appear disingenuous, but without it there would have been absolutely no incentive for the company to have bid on the contract in the first place (and thus, again, no chance the contract would have been executed as efficiently and cheaply as was possible). So your question should not be, "why do you have war profiteering," but rather, "why do you have war contracts?" In times of yore, war was a series of destructive battles and then an exit. Alas, sometimes even 'scorched Earth'. But civilized nations now attempt to exit war humanely -- modern warfare is as much about 'nation building' and 'keeping the peace' (security) as about killing the enemy. In this, my government has learned that there are certain tasks that private contractors perform better at than soldiers, and/or sometimes there just aren't enough specialized soldiers to meet ALL the objectives set forth by a commander's aggressive timeline.But this is really not anything new -- militaries have all through the ages turned to the private sector for an edge. It's how you win!The end result: peace back home.
corporate70May 29, 2007
Comrade Stalin would be proud.Of course she is going to take back that statement (or claim it was misinterpreted) faster than her husband can pickup a young woman in a bar.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2007
Gosh..why should I even workHillary does not seem to understand the word "incentive"
terr01May 30, 2007
@rebrad: WTF are you talking about? I already did.
witteMay 30, 2007Submitter
>> "In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased"We have a free market down here. The salaries of the folks who work for private orgranizations are not set by our government. So let's clear that up first.On the other hand, yes our current law does grant the U.S. government the right tax these high-income-earners at a higher rate because of their extraordinary income. Our government of course already does this. The question is, how much of a greater burden should these folks be expected to bear? You have to stop rasing their tax rate at some point --- obviously you can't tax them at 100%, or they will stop working. So you decide: how much is enough? >> "increase taxes on large corporations, like Exxon and Haliburton, who made billions"Increasing taxes on corporations is a dangerous game. Those corporations that make lofty profits are generally those which are operating effciently. In fact, the sole incentive for a company to operate efficiently is profit. Punishing companies for being efficient would be monumentally damaging to the economy. This would have a devastating impact on everybody.To socialists, 'profit' is a dirty word. But profit is the driving force of a free market. And freedom what our country's about. Profit is good. It makes sound-minded, happy people smile -- even if they themselves don't own a share of it. It is a signal of economic strength.
witteMay 31, 2007Submitter
>> "Does Paris Hilton deserve to inherit Billions"? Uh, that's not my call. It makes absolutely no difference to me how much that sexy bitch is worth on paper. Her worth does not make her a 'monarch' -- she is beholden to the same laws here as everybody else. >> 'raise her taxes and get yourself some government healthcare'LOL, no thanks. I'll stick with my PPO+. >> "war profiteering""War" and "profit" together... Gasp! Well, I think I've already established that "profit" is not evil; in my country it's the impetus of efficiency. Prima facie, the profit a company earns by executing a government war assistance or nation building contract more efficiently and less expensively than its competitor may appear disingenuous, but without it there would have been absolutely no incentive for the company to have bid on the contract in the first place (and thus, again, no chance the contract would have been executed as efficiently and cheaply as was possible). So your question should not be, "why do you have war profiteering," but rather, "why do you have war contracts?" In times of yore, war was a series of destructive battles and then an exit. Alas, sometimes even 'scorched Earth'. But civilized nations now attempt to exit war humanely -- modern warfare is as much about 'nation building' and 'keeping the peace' (security) as about killing the enemy. In this, my government has learned that there are certain tasks that private contractors perform better at than soldiers, and/or sometimes there just aren't enough specialized soldiers to meet ALL the objectives set forth by a commander's aggressive timeline.But this is really not anything new -- militaries have all through the ages turned to the private sector for an edge. It's how you win!The end result: peace back home.
nsresponderJun 1, 2007
This is quite common amongst people who are rich through no effort of their own.-jcr