History of the Estate Tax - Page 3

beej · #1 08-16-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Right, that's something I have been pondering for years. We are told that these guys are "innovators" and "creators"...............

What is so innovative or creative about embezzlement? Legalized embezzlement, I'll grant you, but embezzlement nonetheless. Engineers, scientists and researchers are innovators who create new technologies and processes. The managers and accountants are simply supposed to manage the money. If they are "managing" the money in such a way that does little more than direct more of the money into thier own wallets and away from the innovations that create opportunity......They haven't "innovated" or "created" anything but thier own artificially elevated financial status.

And, what good is that to the business, or the greater society?

If you really want to fix what is wrong with American industry, this is the key.
EVERYONE, not just the people at the bottom will HAVE to start doing more what is healthy for the group and LESS of what simply serves personal ambition and greed. A CEO is an EMPLOYEE and there is no sensible reason for one employee to make 350 times what his fellow employees make. That is utterly ridiculous. Should he/she have reasonable financial incentive? Absolutely. The question is; What is reasonable?

For my part, I don't trust the magic hand of "market forces" to address this. Principally, because I don't believe this notion that "the market" has a mind of it's own, not entirely, anyhow. Internal corporate politics, the buddy system, quid pro quo, corrupt oligarchs...there are too many ways for these guys to be disproportionally and unjustly compensated to the detriment of the business and society as a whole.

Problem is; How do we fix this?

Dave

The problem with the 'market forces' approach to anything is that it is much to vulnerable to manipulation. Moreover, I often wonder how those who are screaming for less government interference would react were they to lose the favorable treatment that they enjoy under our present tax structure.

ebacon · #2 08-16-2012, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Problem is; How do we fix this?

Dave

That is a question I pondered a few years ago and came up with some ideas. I tossed them out on a board and got exactly zero replies. Nothing but crickets. Here is a quick rehash. Unfortunately my old post is gone and I can't retrieve it.

Profit motivation theory, or self-interest theory, or whatever people want to call it, works best when the the person making the money also has a risk of losing it all. That's the way small businesses work.

The problem with a publicly traded corporation is that the executives inside of it don't risk any real loss. At best they risk reducing their income to zero fi thins go totally down the toilet. This is because the corporation is a legal structure similar to a trust. Once it runs out of money the debt collectors can't cross over and get money from the executives or employees. That is assuming of course that they operated above the board and a merely lost the game in the marketplace. If they behaved badly then the courts can "pierce the corporate veil" and go after the people. That is rare and almost always fruitless. After all the people don't have enough money make diddly squat of a difference.

The other problem with giant corporations is that they are capable of making messes so big that only the government, which in the end is us taxpayers, are capable of cleaning up.

With that background here are the ideas I came up with and the problems that I see they might create.

First, CEO pay is limited to the President's pay. That is because if corporations and government are capable of making the same size messes with other peoples' labor and no risk of repercussion then their bosses pay should be capped likewise.

The obvious unintended consequence would be that congress would ratchet the President's pay up to $50M/year and their own up to $1M a year or some shit like that.

Second, we need an opportunity for real innovators to have access to capital but not so much that they can make a giant mess. Those people would be given the opportunity to run closely held corporations and make as much money as they can. They would not be subject to the income limit. Examples of such corporations include Bose, Patagonia clothing, etc.

The problem is that another example is Koch Industries of the famous Koch brothers. Those guys wouldn't be so bad if they could keep their cotten pickin' fingers out of the political process. The old rules served them quite well. That they want to erase those rules so they make even more money is unconscionable IMO.

I think that was about the extent of my ideas.

They way I see it is we have been brainwashed with math. We've been taught to look at CEO salaries as dismissible percentage of the big picture and fair compensation. That's an easy argument to make. The problem is that it never accounts for executives that moved enormous amounts of money by digging a big hole for taxpayers to fill.

There is good book about the science brainwashing of America. It is called "The Closing of the American Mind". It's dry as hell but I found it interesting.

BlueStreak · #3 08-15-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebacon

The egos of some of these pricks is unimaginable. They truly are mentally ill. How the Tea Party wants to be under their thumbs befuddles the hell out of me. Or maybe the Tea Partiers think they have a chance at taking a seat at the blue bloods' table. What a joke.

Beautifully stated, and full of truth, my friend.

Dave

piece-itpete · #4 08-15-2012, 09:34 AM

There are plenty of Democrat leaning foundations. I'm seeing less and less of a centrist here

Pete

BlueStreak · #5 08-15-2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There are plenty of Democrat leaning foundations. I'm seeing less and less of a centrist here

Pete

Because once you start thinking about these things objectively, sans patriotic and pseudoreligious hullabaloo......You start to realize just what a total ripoff modern conservatism, as advanced by the rightwing machine, really is.

ebacon · #6 08-15-2012, 10:12 AM

I can see both sides and that is a centrist quality. But in the voting booth there is no middle button. I have to pick a side. No?

piece-itpete · #7 08-15-2012, 10:31 AM

Agreed

Pete

noonereal · #8 08-15-2012, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebacon

I'm just curious as to the board members' abilities to see both sides of an issue and at least agree that there are pros and cons. Which side they want is of course subject to differ and can only be resolved civilly by vote.
.

So you are testing the members here?

I'll be reviewing your posts to gauge your abilities to be a valued poster here.