Corporate Job Creator salary increases by 36.5%

[Th'Pusher]

Why do you presume the corporations are doing something that is counter to their interests

It is in the best interest of everyone, including the corporations, to have more people with more money to buy their products.

and, why are the people to whom the government would redistribute the money more deserving than those to whom the corporations -- the actual owners of the money -- decide to give it?

Because they will spend it - increasing demand and expanding the economy. That's the goal.

[Yonivore]

It is in the best interest of everyone, including the corporations, to have more people with more money to buy their products.

If corporations agreed with you, they'd be doing it.

Because they will spend it - increasing demand and expanding the economy. That's the goal.

If corporations thought your formula would increase demand for their products, they'd do it.

[Th'Pusher]

If corporations agreed with you, they'd be doing it.


If corporations thought your formula would increase demand for their products, they'd do it.

That's why the government is going to need to step in and give the invisible hand a little nudge. It appears to be broken.

[Yonivore]

That's why the government is going to need to step in and give the invisible hand a little nudge. It appears to be broken.

It's not the government's money.

[Th'Pusher]

It's not the government's money.

Not yet. We're going to need to change the tax code to confiscate it. But don't worry - It'll be in the best interest of all involved.

[Yonivore]

Not yet. We're going to need to change the tax code to confiscate it. But don't worry - It'll be in the best interest of all involved.

And, there you are.

[Th'Pusher]

And, there you are.

Like I said, I'd prefer the corps do it themselves. It's not the government's fault the corps aren't doing their part to make certain trickle down economics works. You'd think they would as they were largely responsible for selling us on the theory in the first place.

[boutons_deux]

"You'd think they would as they were largely responsible for selling us on the theory in the first place."

they voted in St Ronnie and his laffer curve/trickle-down , so yes, were as responsible as anybody.

[Yonivore]

Like I said, I'd prefer the corps do it themselves.

That they're not should tell you they believe it does not make economic sense for them.

It's not the government's fault the corps aren't doing their part to make certain trickle down economics works. You'd think they would as they were largely responsible for selling us on the theory in the first place.

Nor is it the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That they're not should tell you they believe it does not make economic sense for them.


Nor is it the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth.

so we've been duped about the trickle down theory from the begining..

[Yonivore]

so we've been duped about the trickle down theory from the begining..

Nope. You're forgetting the second part of the equation that business are reluctant to invest capital in expansion or employment because of the uncertainty Obama's anti-business policies have introduced into the market.

It hasn't been given a chance.

[Th'Pusher]

That they're not should tell you they believe it does not make economic sense for them.

But is does make economic sense for them. Weird, right? It was their theory in the first place.

Nor is it the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth.

Why not?

[Th'Pusher]

Nope. You're forgetting the second part of the equation that business are reluctant to invest capital in expansion or employment because of the uncertainty Obama's anti-business policies have introduced into the market.

It hasn't been given a chance.

But it didn't work under Bush either.

[Winehole23]

businessmen are too scared of regulation to risk their money right now.

[Winehole23]

quelle horreur!

[Winehole23]

are they wimps?

[Yonivore]

But is does make economic sense for them. Weird, right? It was their theory in the first place.

No. It's not weird when government is throttling productivity.

Why not?

Because it's not their money. It also doesn't belong to the people to which they wish to redistribute it.

[Th'Pusher]

No. It's not weird when government is throttling productivity.

Was GWB throttling productivity too? Not many jobs created under him either.

Because it's not their money. It also doesn't belong to the people to which they wish to redistribute it.

So you're for completely eliminating all government transfers?

[scott]

It is a critical mistake for anyone who believes in Free Markets to overlook the fact that free markets still fail. Where markets failure exists, there is a role for a governing force. This is basic Econ 101 that so many folks like to conveniently forget.

Edit: that may, or may not, be the case here - but to say "if that was the right thing, the market would do it" is a fail of an answer in almost all cases.

[Stringer_Bell]

It is a critical mistake for anyone who believes in Free Markets to overlook the fact that free markets still fail.

But, but, but American corporations always know what's best -if you just let them run their businesses like they want, there will be more jobs and milk and honey for everyone...and maybe one day you too can get a 36.5% raise! UGHHH-YUP!!!

[Wild Cobra]

The other part of the equation is getting government to lift the boot off the neck of industry and employers.

If you ask most small to medium-sized businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of costs associated with employment. They can't afford it.

If you ask large businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of the uncertainty Obama's clearly anti-business posture and policy-making has introduced into the free market.

And, with all classes of businesses, there are those in states desperately trying to remain solvent by enacting more and more taxing of business. Those that can afford it -- move. Those that can't either shut down or maintain the status quo in the hopes they can weather the storm.

Cutting taxes has to be combined with a business-friendly climate before their will be any meaningful recovery.

This is why the economy will stay the same if democrats gain ground after the election and better if the republicans do, especially if we get a republican president.

[Wild Cobra]

Then why are CEO salaries increases by 36.5%?

Is it possible they decreased by about that much over the previous two years before the large raises?

[boutons_deux]

Historical CEO compensation

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/26/exe...ses_chart.html

[Stringer_Bell]

Is it possible they decreased by about that much over the previous two years before the large raises?

Absolutely not. If CEO pay was being decreased, how would they ever attract the best and brightest minds to run the biggest companies? If you were applying to be a CEO, wouldn't you be skeptical if the company was decreasing its paychecks?

I mean, c'mon, without the bonus packages, there's no telling what kind of boneheads would be running Wall Street right now...I'm sure the same applies to job creator salaries.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ch?ft=1&f=1001

Funny how...

It doesn't say how they are paid or how much. Small business, maybe they pay themselves under $200k in income, and take the rest in dividend payments. Even business people who deal with customers put on a good face.

Do you think sports stars and actors should pay more? Entertainment is where increasing normal income taxes will take money from the most.