Yeah, you're right.  That was a good idea.










Oh, wait.  No it wasn't.  It was universally declared to be a stupid idea.   The basic thought that a CEO cannot be 10x more valuable to a company than a file clerk is ridiculous on the surface and utterly stupid if pondered for a moment. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 7:54:00 AM (view original):
Daily tally!!!!    Starts at 6:24 AM, makes 31 posts and stops at 4:59 PM.    This is after declaring "There's nothing left to argue."     I don't know guys but, in my book, that's a busy day of arguing nothing.

Looks like blocking me is really working out well for your mental health.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/25/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):
What about the CFOs and CMOs who make a million every year?  You bet your *** they're 20x more valuable then many employees, especially the bigger businesses. Many employees make $40K a year who are basically replacement-level employees.  If I tell my CFO that he has to take a 50% paycut to comply with a new law, because there's no way in hell I'm raising salaries for my 22-year old morons, he's not going to be happy.

Are you honestly this comfortable telling businesses how to distribute salaries? 

Are you comfortable with the government breaking up monopolies? Or setting a minimum wage?

I'm just as comfortable instituting a ratio that must be adhered to. Sure C-level executives can be very valuable, but there's no reason that their pay needs to be 500-1000 times more. 10-1 is just an idea, I'd be ok with a different number if it makes sense.

Yes, monopolies are very bad for the economy.  Yes, I think all workers should be guaranteed a minimum wage.  No, I don't think there should be a 10:1 ratio as you suggest.

Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?

I have to apologize to BL.  It looks like his "cheeseburgers as currency" proposal was not as far-fetched as originally thought.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/25868312/burger-burglars-sought-by-plainville-police

Although they're off by one, only offering five cheeseburgers instead of six.

Unless they felt that the sixth cheeseburger had less marginal utility, and was withheld as tax.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 9:28:00 AM (view original):
I have to apologize to BL.  It looks like his "cheeseburgers as currency" proposal was not as far-fetched as originally thought.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/25868312/burger-burglars-sought-by-plainville-police

Although they're off by one, only offering five cheeseburgers instead of six.

Unless they felt that the sixth cheeseburger had less marginal utility, and was withheld as tax.

Funniest post by tec.   Ever.  

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?

He went full retard in this thread a couple of days ago.   I've heard you can't come back from that.  So his answer will be from an addled mind and, therefore, invalid.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?

Yes. James isn't the first to argue for this idea.

I think executive salaries 1000x higher than average workers are also bad for the economy.

I would guess that the majority of people who understand economics would agree that this sales tax idea would have ramifications that would make our economy worse off than it is now.  There's a reason we have a progressive tax system.  Obviously we disagree on that, but that's basically what he was arguing up until Bill James.  So I agreed with most of what he was saying until that point.  But I think 10:1 could be disastrous.  

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?

Yes. James isn't the first to argue for this idea.

I think executive salaries 1000x higher than average workers are also bad for the economy.

I agree, but that wasn't your argument.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:43:00 AM (view original):
I would guess that the majority of people who understand economics would agree that this sales tax idea would have ramifications that would make our economy worse off than it is now.  There's a reason we have a progressive tax system.  Obviously we disagree on that, but that's basically what he was arguing up until Bill James.  So I agreed with most of what he was saying until that point.  But I think 10:1 could be disastrous.  

It would have ramifications and adjustments would have to be made.   As for making the economy "worse off than it is now", that's debatable.   I honestly don't know the take home pay for someone making $400 a week but I do know it's taxed so I know they're not cashing a $400 check.   They get their money back when tax returns are done.  So, IMO, they're increasing their weekly take home by $60-$80 a week or more than the 23%(or whatever number we're going to use) sales tax.   Where they "lose" is they won't get that $3000-$4000 "bonus" in Feb/Mar.   Now I don't know how they spend that money but, when I was in that situation, I ****** it away on a new TV or rims for my truck.  Things I could do without.   Maybe some people do useful stuff with that money(my low wage buddy I mentioned earlier does) but some don't.   People will adjust. 

Beyond that, I believe illegal money, foreign tourist money and illegally made money paying the extra sales tax will more than cover the revenue created by the current tax system and that will allow the future % to be lowered.

It's certainly debatable (we debated it), and I find it intriguing.  But it seems most knowledgeable people (more knowledgeable than anyone here) on the subject seem to think it's not in the country's best interests.  It doesn't mean the majority is right, but I happen to agree with them.

The problem we've had here, IMO, is that we say "Bill Gates" instead of a guy making 150k(which there are many, many more than Bill Gates-types).   You put another 40k in that guy's pocket per year and he can start a business.  Maybe it's a small business with 2-3 employees and maybe he only grosses 500k per year once he gets rolling.   But, with that extra 40k, he's no longer working just to pay his mortgage, he's got some extra money to use.   And he uses to employee a couple of people who didn't have jobs.   Or maybe he just buys a new car.   But he could do something good for the economy. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 10:07:00 AM (view original):
It's certainly debatable (we debated it), and I find it intriguing.  But it seems most knowledgeable people (more knowledgeable than anyone here) on the subject seem to think it's not in the country's best interests.  It doesn't mean the majority is right, but I happen to agree with them.

Many "knowledgeable people" have agendas behind the opinions they offer on certain hot-button subjects, as does the specific media outlets through which those opinions are published and/or broadcasted.

It's difficult to find credible and unbiased "opinions" today.  Which why I tend to rely more on common sense and what passes the smell test, rather than "Well, Jimmy Tax-expert says . . . ".

And that's why I asked you if you were comfortable with the idea of the same tax rate from $30K-$400K, and then higher rates after that, and you said no.  I can understand the idea of the guy who makes $150K valuing his next dollar (or use a different term than value, you understand what I'm saying) as much as the guy who makes $30K. But there are plenty of people who make $500K+ who don't need his next dollar as much as the guy making $50K. You disagree.