Published: Friday, Feb. 14 2014 4:25 p.m. MST
At that level of wealth, what's the point? What are they going to do with
@BebyebeWhat does it matter what they do with it? Should they give
the wealth to you? Are you better than they are?
You could do the same statistical trick with any group of anything and show that
the extreme end is different from the rest. You didn't expect a different
result, did you?So what if someone is very rich? They don't
take anything away from me. They earned it, and I wish I were like them.It's none of your business what they do with their money, either.
But in reality, look how many billions of dollars the super-rich donate every
year, and try to complain about that.
I highly recommend reading the original article at The Atlantic. Yes, the very
rich earned their money. But, because most of their money comes from stocks,
not income, it is taxed at a much lower rate than what the average person makes.
THAT is why they are so much richer than the rest of us! When you make $20
million a year and you only pay 15% in capital gains, yeah, you're going to
get much richer than someone who makes $100,000 and pays 28%.Wealth
allows the Top 0.01% to manipulate the tax system in their favor. That's
not "working hard and earning money." That's corruption.
Learning how to become super-rich isn't a problem with me. It's the
use of financial and political power to prevent people from getting out of
poverty that is a problem with me, even if that result is an accident of other
Exactly why we need to raise taxes, put caps on how much CEOs can make, and tie
the workers' compensation with profits. If the CEO has enough money to
triple his pay then he darn well has enough money to give his workers a raise.
vern and DVD don't you know you can't point this things out, if you do
you are envious and picking on the poor rich people? Shame on you, we should be
grateful for all that they do for us.
Then there are those of us that earned the old fashioned way....!!! INHERITANCE !!!
vern001 - Do you understand that the corporation has already paid taxes on the
same money? That without incentive to invest in companies, the money would flow
@Fred44Exactly how are you not coveting what another has?It seems criticism of the rich is all comparing and coveting not about what
one actually has and actually earned.The criticism all about
claiming they are entitled to some degree or another or by some measurement.Prove you are worth more than you are paid not that you are entitled to
more (which you are not).
vern,Rich people pay millions in taxes. You and I do not. That
means the rich are paying for the govt resources they use AND the govt resources
you and I use.Lets not be lazy and suggest the rich pay even
more.You're free to invest in stocks, just like they do.
That's such a non-issue its not even funny.If you aren't
investing in stocks, you really should. And if you're not, that's no
one's problem but yours. Its certainly not a rich person's
demisana,"vern001 - Do you understand that the corporation has
already paid taxes on the same money? That without incentive to invest in
companies, the money would flow elsewhere?"Don't try using
logic and reason to argue anything. Liberals want to cry when the average
taxpayer is paying a few thousand in federal income taxes and the .1% are paying
tens of millions.Only a lazy person would expect the rich to do ever
more, when they're not using more govt resources than you and I yet are
paying millions upon millions compared to our thousands.The govt
does NOT become more expensive just because the rich are rich. Barack would not
spend less money if the rich were less rich.So to try and suggest
because someone is rich they should foot the bill for barack's spending is
maverick - If someone is worth more than they are being paid, another
company(with a greedy CEO) will be willing to hire them and pay them more. Want
to know why?Because that greedy CEO wants to make more money.If no greedy CEO wants to pay someone more than they are making - know
why?They aren't worth any more.Deal with it.
@vern001, there's a reason that gains on investment are taxed at a rate
that is so much lower, the economy NEEDS people who have the capability to
invest. Our employers need it to keep us in jobs, to create new jobs, to
innovate new products and remain competitive, and to grow. Without the lower tax
rate on investment gains, your 401k accounts and portfolios don't grow at
the same rate and by comparison, YOU lose money for YOUR retirement. Just make
sure you know what you're really saying when you oppose lower taxes on
So, ever wonder why the stock market seems to be doing rather well, all the
while the basic American economy is still weak? If the article is true, it
explains a lot. The rich are not sticking their money in a mattress and holding
onto it. They INVEST it. With some degree of risk I might add. That invested
money is put back into the economy thru business that benefit from the stocks.
So the question might be, why are the businesses holding onto money and not
investing in new workers and capital? Well, that brings me to how much they
don't trust the current DC leadership and the uncertainty of big government
on their business. Obamacare for instance. And to conclude, that is why I think
the American economy will continue to grow at a snails pace until a Congress and
President are in DC that American business sees as business friendly, rather
than an opponent of big business, which is what many perceive about Democrats in
general and Obama in particular.
Saying that you are only paying 15% on capital gains is a little misleading. If
I own a company and it has $1 million in profit, the company pays a corporate
tax of $350, 000. I then get $650, 000 and get to pay tax at 15% on that - $97,
500. So out of a $1 million profit, uncle same gets $447, 000. That
does not count what the state takes. (It also dors not help me if I lose money
the fillowing year.)What is interesting is that everyone criticizes
CEO pay, but noone is outraged by a guy gets twice as much for dribbling a ball.
If you are unhappy with what you make, mortgage your house, sign a promissory
noye for $250, 000 and work 60 plus per week to build your own company while
your employees want a share of the profits but not the loses. Otherwise, stop
complaining about what other people make.
RBB,Few companies making a million bucks pay a third to Uncle Sam.
I have worked for corporations that make billions and pay less than 5%. Great
attorneys and use of the tax laws.And many are outraged by what
athletes make. But they have the same argument as the CEOs - we generate profit
(though I think the athletes have a more direct argument there).Your
example of a small business person mortgaging their house to start a business is
fine - but they are not the CEOs folks are talking about. The CEOs are simply
high rent employees.Note that back in the 60s and 70s we paid both
CEOs and athletes comparatively less than we do today. We had fine CEOs and
athletes and American companies were doing well. Why so much more today?
Twin LightsWhy so much more today? I think simply because they can
get it. It is easy to see why an athlete can command a lot. His performance is
easily determined watching them. The better performance the better the pay.
However, I suspect that a CEO, who might be the Lebron James or Michael Jordan
of his profession is not so easily recognized by the public. Just like an
athlete who helps make millions/billions for the professional team, a CEO who
does the same for a company or corporation is just as valuable to the company,
as well as to the many people employed by said company. The pay numbers have
skyrocketed yes, but remember, our country now talks of trillions of dollars
when discussing budgets, GDP, debt, ect. There is not a person in America, or
the world for that matter that comes anywhere close to being a
"trillionaire". About the closest we have is Bill Gates at something
like 50 billion. He'll need another 950 Billion to become a trillionaire.
And I remember when our national debt was less than 1 trillion. Just my
happy2bhere,But I am talking about constant dollars and in
comparison to the average person. So the passage of time alone does not explain
the difference. CEOs in the 60s and 70s earned multiples of their average
worker pay similar to what Japanese and European companies do today. US
companies are far ahead in the multiple (last time I checked) and are way ahead
of their international counterparts.Corporate performance is not the
issue (or Toyota and Volkswagen would not be doing so well vs. their American
peers). And studies of CEO pay vs. corporate performance do not show a high
correlation. If there was a high correlation, then there would be few
dissenting voices on the issue of CEO pay. The lack thereof is one of the
reasons there is so much dissent here.As to athletes - the athletes
of yesteryear will always be a step or two behind those of the present. And
whenever we make that remark it will be true. But the professionals of several
decades ago did not make a little less than today - they made a LOT less (in
constant dollars). Why if their talents were (in relative terms) still so high?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments