| Forum Stats | Members: 24,371 Threads: 59,460 Posts: 705,713 Total Online: 63 Newest Member: rolexwatch |
| |
|
View Poll Results: Who Do You Want To See In The White House | |
Obama/Biden
|     | 202 | 29.97% | |
McCain/Palin
|    | 410 | 60.83% | |
Other
|    | 48 | 7.12% | |
Not Voting
|    | 14 | 2.08% |
 | | 
11-06-2008, 04:34 PM
| | Seasoned Veteran | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kentucky
Posts: 11,206
| | 
code for what the SS did to the Jews.
[quote][As for U2 or TC, they're not selling anything other than their talent. The inherent value placed on their talent is a measure of personal taste. If people are willing to pay for that talent, so be it... /QUOTE]
so, dont you think that is outragous? and if not why?
Why do entertainers and athletes get a pass.
Why is the corp CEO exposed to such ridicule when they may run a company that employs hundreds if not thousand of people, is responsible for those people, producing something, etc.... meanwhile someone that can hit a baseball, catch a football, or pretend to be someone else, is responsible for no one else, gets a pass on the wealth that they make. Seems a little hypocritical to me. Quote: |
- you are equating entertainment with productivity. They are not the same and cannot be measured the same.
| you are right, there is no need for entertainment, if you do not produce you die. Society will go on without Hollywood. Therefore, they are overpaid and provide something that is not needed. Quote: |
- CEOs do not provide jobs, the organization they work for do. They ideally receive compensation for how well they lead the organization
| on one level yes. However if the company is just getting started that CEo does provide jobs. Once the organization reaches a certain size they are paid for leadership. There are very few people that can do the job effectively and that is why they get paid so much. To loop it back to entertainment, how many bands are playing in bars every weekend and how many are the Rolling Stones? very few.
 | | | 
|
11-06-2008, 04:38 PM
| | Lurker | | Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Texas
Posts: 98
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby  Fine , fine but isn't it all about going after the Rich? Well they are Rich also and if we are going to go with the theme of spreading the wealth around we need to target them also , it is so unfair that they live in those expensive houses and drive those expensive cars , when after all it is about giving to those who do not have those luxuries.
Don't you think the disparity of Ophra , or Bono , or say Brett Farves bank acount and what they pay in taxes should be looked at as a target so that the money can be spread around to more people than just those few?
In the spirit of reglatory legislation we need to also regulate the cost to go to a movie , or a game and what those entertainers are allowed to get off of promotional deals. Don't we need to limit what they are allowed to make/charge that is the spirit after all is it not now that would be fair. | The difference between you and me (IMHO) is that you constantly take exteme positions to try and make a point about isuues that are not at all extreme.
Entertainers that make mega-millions are subject to the same tax laws that corporate executives who make mega-millions are, so how are they not included? Income is income and gets taxed as such...
I don't know what spirits you're drinking, but what does regulatory legislation have to do with fairly taxing the wealthiest in America? Oh, and Bono is not a US citizen...
|
11-06-2008, 05:13 PM
| | Lurker | | Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Texas
Posts: 98
| |
Quote: |
code for what the SS did to the Jews.
| Way too extreme and not relevant... Quote:
[As for U2 or TC, they're not selling anything other than their talent. The inherent value placed on their talent is a measure of personal taste. If people are willing to pay for that talent, so be it...
so, dont you think that is outragous? and if not why?
Why do entertainers and athletes get a pass.
Why is the corp CEO exposed to such ridicule when they may run a company that employs hundreds if not thousand of people, is responsible for those people, producing something, etc.... meanwhile someone that can hit a baseball, catch a football, or pretend to be someone else, is responsible for no one else, gets a pass on the wealth that they make. Seems a little hypocritical to me.
| I do think it's outrageous, just as I do for CEOs. Y'all introduced entertainers into this conversation and assumed I thought they somehow weren't included in the conversation of compensation/taxation - wrong... Quote: |
you are right, there is no need for entertainment, if you do not produce you die. Society will go on without Hollywood. Therefore, they are overpaid and provide something that is not needed.
| Many would argue against your position that entertainment is not needed... I also disagree with your assurtion, that if you don't produce you die - not true in a civil soceity... Quote: |
on one level yes. However if the company is just getting started that CEo does provide jobs. Once the organization reaches a certain size they are paid for leadership. There are very few people that can do the job effectively and that is why they get paid so much. To loop it back to entertainment, how many bands are playing in bars every weekend and how many are the Rolling Stones? very few.
| I have to again disagree. I do not believe there is anything particularly special about most CEOs when comparing organizational managers. I think it's more about getting the opportunity than posessing some special intrinsic leadership skill. There are exceptions of course, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc., but most CEOs do not fit into their category. I still haven't seen anything to convince me that a CEO is worth 400+ times the average salary for workers employed by the same organization.
|
11-06-2008, 05:29 PM
| | Lurker | | Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 52
| |
I would like to know what a fair tax rate would be for the rich? I think giving the federal government 30% of your income is more than fair. I honestly wish they would go to a flat tax with no deductions, that would be fair.
|
11-06-2008, 05:39 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 805
| |
When Frank Sinatra was selling records in the 1950's he was able to keep 10 cents for every dollar he earned. Corporations paid in more dollars to the treasury then anyone else. They all pay so much less now and they continue to squak about it untill they pay nothing and you pay it all. But that would be OK with you because someday you might be rich.
|
11-06-2008, 06:19 PM
| | Gone Fishin | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lost On A Lake
Posts: 6,173
| |
Not at all some of us are jumping on the band wagon and joining into the spirit of the wealthy are bad and need to have them taken down , that way we can all be equal, is that not what the whole message is in the first place?
Is this message we listened to for the last two years about rising the poor up and lowering the wealthy down so that we are equal and on a level playing field , is that not after all patriotic?
That is not extream that is the message that has been bantered about.
On the entertainer issue we can live without them , we can not live without jobs,goods,services.
Now I like football as much as most and I had season tickets at one time but it got so out of control fiscaly to go I sold my tickets , same goes for movies they are over priced for the same reason , yes Bono is Irish he makes his money everywhere including the US but chooses to pay taxes at Iraland rates when he deposits that money. You see they will find ways around it regardless and the frieght WILL be payed by the Middle Class as it always is.
| | |
| | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On | | | |
