Taxes

[icenine]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Done. On 4/16/2018, we check and see if Gravity Products is still paying all workers equally, @ $70,000/year or more, and is operating at a profit as of that date. Except we still must agree as to the stakes. I propose the following:

If you lose, you must post a message on Political Chat, that says "I lose the bet. I was dead wrong, and DonQuixote99 was right--'equal pay for all' at Gravity Payments worked!

I I lose, I must post a message that says: "I lose the bet. I was dead wrong, and Whell was right--'equal pay for all' at Gravity Payments didn't work!

Further, loser must PM winner with a link to the message.

Agreed?

Sounds like an old fashioned duel...I doubt Whell has any "seconds" that will accompany him to the fateful meeting at dawn...

[donquixote99]

The 'satisfaction' either of us may seek is purely symbolic, so I don't think the quarrel here is so serious that we need 'seconds' to discuss the terms of it's resolution. We can tolerate each other enough to do our own negotiating...I think....

[icenine]

Oh I was just kidding....lol

[Wasillaguy]

If you're going to have this bet with proclamations at the end, at least make the proclamation accurate and intellectually honest. There is not "equal pay for all" at Gravity Payments.
The article says approx. 70 of the 120 employees will get raises to $70K. That means approx. 50 employees (about 41%) were already making over $70K and will continue to do so.
You aren't going to get your CFO or other execs to take a cut to the same salary an admin person is making. They've invested time and money into getting an education and experience and it's worth something.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

If you're going to have this bet with proclamations at the end, at least make the proclamation accurate and intellectually honest. There is not "equal pay for all" at Gravity Payments.
The article says approx. 70 of the 120 employees will get raises to $70K. That means approx. 50 employees (about 41%) were already making over $70K and will continue to do so.
You aren't going to get your CFO or other execs to take a cut to the same salary an admin person is making. They've invested time and money into getting an education and experience and it's worth something.

I must've missed the part where Gravity said this was an "equal pay for all" scheme. The owner raised the base pay to $70k. Your pinko argument needs more straw, Was.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I must've missed the part where Gravity said this was an "equal pay for all" scheme. The owner raised the base pay to $70k. Your pinko argument needs more straw, Was.

Gravity didn't say it, but I said it. Was caught me in a goof.

So the bet should refer to 'minimum pay of $70,000 per year,' not equal pay for all. I'll correct my previous post accordingly, so there will be no confusion about the proposed stakes of the 'bet.'

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Done. On 4/16/2018, we check and see if Gravity Products is still paying all workers a minimum of $70,000/year or more, and is operating at a profit as of that date. Except we still must agree as to the stakes. I propose the following:

If you lose, you must post a message on Political Chat, that says "I lose the bet. I was dead wrong, and DonQuixote99 was right--'minimum annual pay of $70,000' at Gravity Payments worked!

I I lose, I must post a message that says: "I lose the bet. I was dead wrong, and Whell was right---'minimum annual pay of $70,000' at Gravity Payments didn't work!

Further, loser must PM winner with a link to the message.

Agreed?

Agreed.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Gravity didn't say it, but I said it. Was caught me in a goof.

So the bet should refer to 'minimum pay of $70,000 per year,' not equal pay for all. I'll correct my previous post accordingly, so there will be no confusion about the proposed stakes of the 'bet.'

Are you sure you still want to bet? It's not the utopia you thought it was. He's an evil capitalist who pays some more than others.

[Rajoo]

In my opinion, Gravity payments seems to be following the business model that the City of Detroit used a few years back. This is a service business (read middleman) and as such may not have a solid edge over their competition. Certain niche manufacturing companies do, Apple is the foremost example. They can charge what the market will bear as opposed to maintaining certain profitability targets.

This will be good PR for a short period and then their competition will be slamming them in the market place. In any business, payroll cannot exceed a certain percentage of revenues, which is probably why the CEO is cutting his own salary drastically. They may be able to hold on by reducing head count and over working their employees but the model cannot sustain. People will get burnt out, few key people leave and the downward spiral will start. I will bet on it.

[Pio1980]

Profit sharing is an old and honorable practice. Carl Zeiss famously operated under the Zeiss plan, there was Cadbury and Hershey, and Pella.
Also George Westinghouse when he ran things.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk